|
My, my, my. How bitter.
First, a few words in self-defense. I don't know about my northern neighbor,
but I have never read Sun Tzu, although he must have been a clever and insightful
fellow if his ideas were so similar to mine (If I'm going to be portrayed
as an egotistical megalomaniac, I might as well enjoy the role). The only
"borrowed" point in my article (know your goals in fighting) came
indirectly from Dogbert's pal Clausewitz. Also, I don't know how he got
"focus your main effort in one effort for a fatal shot" out of
my article. Focus your shots however you want -- just make sure one is to
the head.
I would caution the reader who is trying to actually learn something from
paying attention to Dogbert. It's OK to be entertained by his stylistic
frothing (I was), but that's mostly all he has to contribute. For example,
"ALL of your armies should be able to inflict crippling losses on your
enemy..."? Yeah, right; evidently he's never had to fight Sweden. As
for all that "all interests are subservient to strengthening the military"
and "economics is for fops" stuff, well, it's crap too.
If you want a macho military, you have to pay for it, including large and
frequent investments in QR's. How ya gonna get the cash? Economic development,
my friend. Bob Kurtz is a one-man refutation of any purported insignificance
of economics. Twice now he's turned mid-sized countries into powerhouses
mainly through peaceful economic development - Bob got his degree in economics,
not military history, boyo. And remember, a good economy is the gift that
keeps on giving, while armies can and inevitably do disappear with alarming
speed. The best approach in Lords is balanced between military and economic
development, with specifics depending on how violent things are in your
neck of the woods.
On the other hand, Dogbert's only attempt at constructive advice was downright
laughable. Though it may be academically correct to grovel at the feet
of Napoleon, there is really no reason to believe that something he did
in 1806 has anything to do with Lords strategy. Evidently my raving critic
has spent too much time pushing pieces of cardboard around on hex paper.
What seems to have escaped him is that, whereas in most "real"
war games he gets to move each and every one of his little markers around
exactly where he wants to while being fully aware of his opponent's movements
(a pair of advantages any ancient commander would have gladly given a right
leg for), in Lords a lot of your troop movements will be determined by (horrors!)
Thomas himself. Every conditional order you write, every React you declare,
gives your GM license to do almost anything he damn well pleases with your
armies. To say nothing of dynastic failures, intel operations, etc.
OK, let's get specific. If Dogbert decides to attack me with some sort
of conditional order where his separately advancing units "support"
each other, all I have to do is trounce one of his armies and the entire
campaign comes grinding to a halt as the rest his military tries to cover
its ass. Chances are that even an army only a region or two away won't
be able to react in time to make a difference in that first battle, and
if Thomas is in a bloodthirsty mood he might even see if the reacting units
arrive one at a time, allowing me to maul a whole series of lesser armies.
If Dogbert instead went after, say, Carmi, all "mad dog" would
have to do is a CF or two misinforming Dogbert's commanders about an attack
on their compatriots on some far-off front, causing them to break off their
operations and go marching off in pursuit of who-knows-what. If Carmi is
feeling particularly creative that day, he'll probably figure out how to
make Dogbert's armies attack each other.
The common thread here is that if your attacks are linked through some
sort of unifying scheme which requires a sequence of things to go just right,
only one break in the chain screws everything up. A related example of
this comes from the long annals of Danish-Swedish history. Sweden was fighting
some war in Russia, and a crucial part of his attack was to sail a bunch
of troops into the Black Sea and land on the Crimea. Don't ask me why it
was crucial, it just was, I guess. After Thomas had my troops at the Bosporus
deny his fleet passage (on the general principle of not being cooperative
in Swedish efforts to run amok with huge fleets and armies), the timing
of the entire attack was screwed up and Sweden suffered a debacle. Chris
was quite angry, but, although I didn't really have much to do with it,
I was more than happy to take responsibility for the destruction of a large
portion of the Swedish army.
My experience suggests that the best way to carry out an attack in Lords
is exactly the opposite of Dogbert's method: make each of your units and
their missions as autonomous as possible. If each force can concentrate
on its own job without having to worry about what's going on a few regions
over, chances are you'll get a lot more done.
Of course, this all is only my opinion. But hey, when it comes to fighting
wars, whose advice are ya gonna believe: the Danes or some embittered soul
who needs a pseudonym? He probably wouldn't be so bitter if his attacks
worked more often.
OK, that being said, it seems appropriate to list a few hints for having
fun in Lords. Evidently Dogbert missed out on why we're paying Thomas four
bucks a throw to be in this thing. It's to HAVE FUN, not flagellate ourselves
and make everybody in sight miserable. You can do that for free.
- Remind yourself frequently -- it's a game, it's a game, it's a GAME.
- Lords is not a game of military conquest, although that does play a
big part. Your hint is that you can't "win" a Lords campaign,
so you'd better get your jollies some other way. It is thus, by default,
a ROLE-PLAYING game. Only this time, instead of being just a person, you
are the "historical continuity" of a nation, the one thing that
stays constant through the lives and deaths of its rulers and people.
Through your actions and decisions you define your country's personality,
the thing that's left over when you look past a nation as a piece of real
estate and collection of historical figures and events. Here's a hint:
don't think of your country as "France", think of it as "the
French" (hmmm, maybe a bad example... but hopefully you get the idea).
Anyway, this being the case, make your country into whatever amuses you.
Panache is just as memorable as conquest, if not more so. Yeah, pushing
huge armies around is fun, but hey, you're never going to take over the
world, so why bother trying (unless you're Menachem)? And you might end
up like Dogbert. Just choose a role and play!
- When in doubt, amuse the game master. From a GM's standpoint, trudging
through those piles of scribbled orders can get a bit boring (to put it
diplomatically), and providing the sole creative veneer over a bunch of
bland troop movements and investments can be an unpleasant challenge after
a while. It's always welcome to come across orders with a little extra
something to spice up the fax. Sufficiently original and entertaining
hare-brained schemes also sometimes work (rules be damned), giving your
country one last "out" from the brink of disaster.
- A corollary: don't bug the GM. Even if for some reason you choose
to eat, drink and breathe Lords, chances are he or she doesn't share your
intense concern for the fate of your nation. Remember hint 1! Occasional
inquiries are fine and even instructive; persistent pestering or calling
at odd hours are grounds for a quick dynastic failure.
- Communication is good. It improves your play and makes it more fun.
It's usually the only way to get a jump on what's "really going on."
It even has some defensive value - a player is less likely to attack someone
whom he or she has occasional courteous contact with than a "silent"
neighbor. My preferred method by far is e-mail: it's cheap compared to
long distance while still being basically instantaneous, it's non-invasive,
and you can reply at your discretion, and then at your leisure. Also,
the written word is more conducive to creative posturing in the manner
of the times, which is always a nice touch.
- Needless to say, don't be an asshole. Or Denmark will have to come
over and squash you personally.
Richard Ketcham |
