Game too successful?

[El Pip]

So my AAR is ticking along but I see an upcoming problem; Nothings gone wrong. No ships sunk at sea, no defeats on land.

I'm sure it won't last, only a couple of months in and I'm not that good a player, but here's the question:

Do I deliberately do something I know will go wrong, suitably justified in the story of course, just to mix things up? Winning all the time in a gameplay AAR is fine, after all that's the point; Winning the game. It just feels not quite right in a history book AAR. And has the potential to get a bit dull if it carries on.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[Murmurandus]

So my AAR is ticking along but I see an upcoming problem; Nothings gone wrong. No ships sunk at sea, no defeats on land.

I'm sure it won't last, only a couple of months in and I'm not that good a player, but here's the question:

Do I deliberately do something I know will go wrong, suitably justified in the story of course, just to mix things up? Winning all the time in a gameplay AAR is fine, after all that's the point; Winning the game. It just feels not quite right in a history book AAR. And has the potential to get a bit dull if it carries on.

Thoughts anyone?

Difficulty settings?

If not make mistakes like people allways do...

 

[CatKnight]

First if you're enjoying unbroken success....keep an eye on your old friend the AI. Is it acting DUMB? If so, in this kind of AAR you're somewhat justified in reinforcing it - give it a nice event, or give it a kick in the right direction.

Other than that...role-play!

Think about what characters are involved. If you're using the same people that rose to prominence historically do a little research to get a feel for their personalities. Then...don't necessarily intentionally make mistakes (though you might if your leader's really bad), but use that to guide your actions.

I'll use an HOI/WW 2 example. Let's say you're the US. You have Japan on the ropes - one good thrust and its over. They sneak some regiment past you and land in Alaska.

Alaska...Alaska isn't worth that much. It barely qualifies as a defeat. Except...what's the reaction going to be back home? Aren't the people going to be shocked and outraged? Wouldn't the minority party absolutely demand the president kick them back out? He'd contact Nimitz, and all of a sudden your decisive thrust at Okinawa is called off because you need to get the Japs off of North America first.

In EU2 a Franconian AAR has decided through his rulers to try and keep foreign powers out of the Holy Roman Empire (Germany). In game...it doesn't matter so much so long as the large powers of the day don't turn on HIM. RPing wise it's a fine goal, and it gives new meaning to his actions.

So...those are my thoughts: Make sure the AI isn't being a dunce and help it if it is, and think about what your characters would do in this situation rather than what's necessarily the most efficient means to win within the game engine.

 

[phargle]

Absolutely.

If your point is to win the game, then play to win. But every Paradox game lets you define your own terms for what constitutes victory because the victory terms provided are either excessively achievable are utterly unachievable. If your point is to tell a great story, then muck things up just enough to make it interesting. And that means yes, do something intentionally dumb.

 

[EvilSanta]

Im following phargle in this one. I for one hate seeing stories about "then I conquered the freaking world without doing single mistake and then I took over space without losing single man". You should let reader think if you are going to make it or not, afterall.

 

[ComradeOm]

Well to my mind the whole point of an AAR is the story. Gameplay comes a distinct second. So if you are conquering the world without any problems, within reason of course, you can compensate by having interesting characters or a decent plot. Build a story around your unstoppable advance or put an interesting spin on it.

 

[Snake IV]

Talk for yourselfs. I for one have not done any AARs which where astonning successes gameplay wise.

 

[Director]

This is one reason I have made it a firm rule to play a long way ahead (or finish a game) before putting fingers to keyboard. At worst I can start a more interesting game and write about that; at best I can skip over the slow parts because I know something good (or bad) is coming.

Still, even the calmest period in a game generates events you can talk about. If you are not at war then talk about domestic events, or politics, or an interesting war elsewhere.

In my 'Bremen' AAR I avoided the slow times entirely and only wrote about the stuff I found interesting. It is a series of essays, organized by topic (slavery, colonization, unification of Germany, etc). It also gives you the 'real' story of Frankenstein as a bonus. If the events aren't interesting, or what you want to write about, then skip over them and write about something else, or something later.

 

[El Pip]

The whole reason I asked the question was I too hate the "After invading the US in 1936 I conquered the world by 1940 using only three divisions armed with sharp spoons." type AAR.

While I can very much see the wisdom in Director's advice, after spending a year (on and off admittedly) on this I'm reluctant to start again. But in the unlikely event finishing this (one year for two months of game time... That gives a finish point some time in 2066 at this rate) I'll follow that advice.

I think a few character driven muck ups are the way forward, I just need a manical schemer with dreams of grand strategy to interfere with the military planners.... I can probably sort that.

Thanks for the comments and advice.

 

[phargle]

I think a few character driven muck ups are the way forward, I just need a manical schemer with dreams of grand strategy to interfere with the military planners.... I can probably sort that. .

What game system is it? At least in Vicky and CK, I can offer good advice on how to ruin things without it being too forced. I am sure others can give good advice on EU and HoI.

 

[unmerged(19363)]

Well that is the whole question, are you writing the AAR to tell us how your game went, or are you playing the game in order to write an AAR? If its the latter, you don't necessarly play to win, you play to make it interesting. I know I've intentionally had my country do a lot of dumb things early on just to put them behind the tech curve the rest of the way.

 

[El Pip]

It's a HOI2 AAR, so my plan is a few dicey invasions and some 'wasted' tech research. Probably rocketry/nukes, maybe a few other odds and sods.

Spend a load of IC on things I don't need from, reactors and rocket research being the obvious ones.

Keep a large garrison in places that would be garrisoned, even though the AI will never invade.

I was also going to do the 'Play as though the game carries on past the end of the war'. So build new naval units even after you have naval dominance that sort of thing.

 

[CatKnight]

I'm sure Director's advice works for him, and he's not the only one to suggest playing a long way ahead...but I don't. It ruins the suspense for me.

Certainly if you go through Tannenberg (Resurrection's a different kind of AAR) you would find several awkward lurches as I thought I was headed one way, and the game thought I'd go in another direction - but if I'm thinking about the role playing aspects as I play...and it's easier to do that if you're writing the AAR concurrently...new possibilities spring up.

I never thought the Teutonic Order would change names. I never thought a Livonian would take over. I never thought they'd survive Albrecht von Hohzenhollern in 1524. I never thought the Order would so stubbornly resist secularization. To me the game's sort of like a writing partner....granted an untrustworthy one that needs coaching now and then as the AI does DUMB things, but the surprises keep it fresh for me.

If I can honestly say I'm not sure what's going to happen next, then 1) the readers are welcome to advise me, which lets them get involved. We've had many discussions on where Tannenberg should go... and 2) they certainly don't know what's about to happen either so can share in the surprise. I may lose a few points in the polish department (that's what rewrites are for!) but it seems to answer.

Dicey invasions certainly spice things up. Depending on what nation you're playing, a big part of the AAR could be determining whether to go to war in the first place... politics in the late 30s/early 40s were pretty intense.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

I did very destructive, divine intervention thing, in my own AAR. Readers seems to like it, and I`m happy as well - game isn`t so boring. But my AAR is megacampaign ,so I had to calm down things. I suggest you not to pre-plan future of your AAR, but to improvise. Once you get good idea while playing, to make things more interesting - do it.

 

[GeneralHannibal]

Well, you are fighting Italians after all . I would say, don't do very intensionally stupid things, but try not to be too good. Put too few troops on the battlefield, have a beachhead and don't reinforce it enough. Don't start over though.

 

[Rensslaer]

HOI is peculiar in that several years may go by without anything terribly exciting going on -- you're mainly preparing for war. But then when things let loose, they let loose!

Are you already into the war? If not, I'd say just keep going. If nothing is going on, there's nothing to say you must write about it. You could fast forward to the action, or you could just write a basic background of what's going on until the action starts.

I'm in between CatKnight and Director on how far ahead I'll play. I play far enough ahead that I know two things -- 1) that it's worth writing about this scenario (i.e. that I don't get smashed in the first couple years, or something), and 2) that I know enough about what's coming to write smooth transitions, hints and cliffhangers.

I don't need to tell El Pip this, but maybe it would be helpful for newer writers viewing this thread!

Rensslaer

 

[lionhead]

I see AAR's as a story, not a portay of a challenge a HOI2 player experimented with.

Whatever happens in your game, happens. Sure, if you want too you can spice things u pa bit if YOu think its dull. But don't think people expect to read a very diffuclt challenge you experienced in the game.

Well, at least... I don't. my AAR is just fate and luck, no preplanned challenge or scenario.

 

[unmerged(51967)]

I find that quite frankly the AI isn't able to estimate enough when someone's grown too large and react to it, or be able to even put up resistance in a steamroller effect.
I mean, it's one big battle and then everything just gets easier. Resistance is few and far between once you'd made one big move.

If you want a challenge then play a doomed country and lose. That's your AAR .

 

[unmerged(31881)]

Semi-salic gavelkind! Or switch sides. Release puppets. Early start for Speer.

The Continental Axis Of Aggression: France and Germany ally.

Manifest Destiny meets Dialectic Materialism... and the United States joins the Communist International. ¡Viva la revolución!

(owing to post #210: - Given the current state of the US millitary I doubt they could crush Liberia! Years of underfunding and an epic (far bigger than RL) depression have left their scars. Actually amputation wounds and serious trauma is a better description than scars. )

i'm sure if you re-read your AAR and ask yourself: “now how would these countries react if they were run by warmongering power-crazed humans instead of AI?” then your ideas will trounce mine.

 

[El Pip]

i'm sure if you re-read your AAR and ask yourself: “now how would these countries react if they were run by warmongering power-crazed humans instead of AI?” then your ideas will trounce mine.

Ohh I have long terms idea, loads of them, the problem is the long term part. Even if I rush them forward (which I'm seriously considering) my worry is the next couple of updates. I suppose it's more of a "tactical" worry than a "strategic" worry. I'm fine on big picture problems, it's the lack of sunk ships and lost divisions that has me worried (from a story point of view obviously ).

I'm just not convinced I can make constant victory particularly interesting, so what I'm wondering is: Do I change the detail level and style for the next few updates, rather than in depth detailed breakdowns of battles/campaigns go more broad strokes to get to the meaty (and more challenging) bits ahead?