Federation Commander

In considering tactics for a specific gaming session, I am finding that its a mix of setting the tactics for the person you are playing (60%) vs the ships that will be involved in the session (40%). It could even be 70% vs 30% depending on the player.

Either you would have played against the person before or your opponent is an unknown player or you would be playing against a veteran or a newbe.

In my gaming group, I learned that malleman considered me to be the charger while hod k'el would most likely hold back and pick over the left overs after the first confrontation. So I had to change up my tactics.

Playing is learning but it would also be good to ask your opponent what you could have done better after the battle. We always discuss those types of things after the battle in our group.

In out last session, I had the Klingon B10 vs a malleman's/hod k'els Fed CA, Fed NCL, and Orion Salvage Cruiser (I think, my memory may be off).

The B10 was basically the 800 pound gorilla on the map and did what it wanted. After the battle, we talked about how the battle would have been different if it was a Fed Battleship vs three Klingons. Each of us would say what we were trying to accomplish during the battle and what we could have done differently.

Are after battle discussions a part of your gaming session?

I guess its sort of like how captains of real world war ships and subs would get to know their opponents and study how they would most likely react in battle.

During the recent con I attended, I got to play against scoutdad and crimin who I had never played against. It was interesting to see their style of play.

For me, that would be the best part of attending an event like origins. The chance to play against players that you dont normally play, both new players and the veterans.

wedge_hammersteel wrote: Are after battle discussions a part of your gaming session?

Absolutely.

I play in two different groups and the games and then especially the post-game discussions are always the best learning experiences. I take different lessons from the different play-styles in the two groups (in one group, I am the teacher and win as often as I lose, in the other group they are all long-time grognards and school me thoroughly every time).

I've found that I learn only a small amount from reading tactics articles, etc. I learn the most by doing on the map (including my monumental tactical blunders). The post-game discussing of it with my opponents afterwords helps me to digest and retain what I learned (like many, my memory is pretty spotty when "in the heat of the moment" and I end up prone ot repeating mistakes).

When you win and win big, it's hard to keep the "gloat" in-check, but it's important to have a "neutral" discussion with your opponent about what you did, and why you did it when you did it - they need to learn as much as you do. This is definitely a game where building your own cadre of good opponents who will show up is important.

Agreed. That's what our group do all the time. The way I see it, you then get to learn from others' mistakes, even if you win.

Although this thread hasn't been posted on for some time, I think there is plenty of mileage in it.

As the least experienced player, of the local players (Storelf and Targ to name two others). The after action discussion is important as to where the game went wrong or right (mistakes or cunning plan, if you lost or won!).

One thing I would say, is if you play against the same opponents often try not to write your tactics in stone! Because you are giving away the initiative to a more flexible opponent!

Hope I am not teaching my grandma to suck eggs! (i.e stating the obvious)

Capt Jack wrote:Hope I am not teaching my grandma to suck eggs! (i.e stating the obvious)

But you see what for some is sucking eggs is to others 'Ah! I hadn't thought of that!" And even the most experienced players still have things to learn.

So you go right ahead and keep sharing what you have learned

I play the game of Diplomacy a lot. And there is any amount of intermediate/advanced tactics/strategy material out there for that game, but not quite so much on how to play at a basic level.

This could be because many of the people who write the articles are themselves very advanced and mature players (in game terms), and who forget that everyone has to start somewhere, or at least assume that people reading their articles are themselves advanced players.

Happily there are a few exceptions, and those players give out their hard-won basic advice freely.

Therefore, as I said above, you go right on telling us what you have learned, novice or expert

Today I learnt, if confronted with fighters, then Destroy THEM

Do not worry about weapons Launched.

As if you destroy Fighers then you also destroy any Launched weapons.

Slightly off-topic - sorry! - but I'm beginning to understand now why people are seeing individual drone control channels as important. Perhaps my eariler idea of 'dispersed' drone control (as mooted in the 'Fighters in Borders of Madness' thread here: http://tinyurl.com/6hvhltj) is not such a good one after all.

Unless, that is, the fighter drones must be fighter-controlled, but ship drones' control can be dispersed. However that is another layer of unneccessary complexity and one that should be avoided.

Therefore my stance on drone control has changed. Each unit controls its own drones. Simples

Thanks, Jack - you have increased my understanding of the game!

On Tactics, in Free for all multi player game. The hiding in a corner and being very quiet is quite good. If you are damaged get out of there. Then if players are acting logicaly they should attack the least undamaged players/ships.

If you are playing Orion for obvious reasons is this is more effective. Because if you can get 2 or even 3 turns of dam con (with ED). then your ship could be better then any left on the board! Has nearly worked for me.....