Match Spotlights

[Centurio]

Bump

Nice idea MrRoboto!  This is very interesting to read.  8-)

[variance]

MrRoboto, I appreciate the work you put into doing this.  It is an interesting thing to read and its educational, but I think it would be a good idea if you or anyone else is going to continue doing these, that you make sure both players want you to do it.  I myself would not want all my many mistakes put under the spotlight.  There is a fine line beyond constructive criticism and outright bullying the weaker players.

[MrRoboto]

That is a fair point and I have not thought about that. Thanks for that input.

While the games we play are indeed public you are right -> it’s still different if someone specifically points out mistakes.

I will ask for permission in the future.

[gamerman01]

I forgot to repeat that point that I have made before, when suggesting that someone commentate on games now -

Yes, I think no commentary should occur until you have the consent of both players, and even after that, if they see the commentary and wish it wasn’t there, they need to communicate that to you and you will respond accordingly, I trust.

Good point, variance

[gamerman01]

Wow, that’s awfully negative, Roboto

I guess what I had in mind was more general, high level reporting of facts with a little subjective content, not a full-blown critical review of 2 players who are weaker than yourself….  But maybe this can evolve into a good thing too, and if you have player consent, then whatever should be fine.

But I’m not sure you will be appreciated by many if you’re just comparing play to what you would do, and criticizing when it’s not the same as you would do…

I frequently send USA sub and destroyer to the south and west from the Phillipines on USA1.  An extra destroyer blocker for India, and the sub can harass/distract in the future.  Attacking Malta is not necessarily a bad idea either, because it can be a stronghold with that extra inf/AA for UK planes, and of course it disrupts the UK NO and Med islands can be hard to take back.  It’s also a good territory for Italy to be able to control to land aircraft.
Just 2 examples of why I’m not sure it’s a good idea to criticize/question every detail of another player’s play.  They have ideas of what they’re trying to do.

I mean all this in a positive and constructive manner…  Just my thoughts after skimming your first report.
I asked a moderator to sticky the thread.  He hasn’t been online for a month, though.

[variance]

On the other hand, sometimes us weak players might like the commentary even if it is harsh.  I know I must make the same mistakes over and over.  :-)

[MrRoboto]

You are totally right. After rereading it, I have to admit it came off way harsher than I would have liked it to be. While writing the post, I somehow got drawn in more and more. So if I got too negative I want to apologize to both players.

The critic I wrote is by no means “set in stone”, it’s just my personal opinion. After all, this is no official match report made by a commentator. If you read a movie or album review, this review is obviously very biased as well and we all know there are reviews ranging from 1/10 to 9/10 for the exact same project.
And I would enjoy it very much, if discussion erupts about some of my assessments. Like if you make good points about thing that I did criticize, I might be persuaded and thus learn as well. I know very well, that I’m not a top notch player. There are at least a dozen people here playing way better than me, if not more. So a discussion will benefit everyone.

On a side note, I planned to make a review about one of the Tier 1 playoff games (which means two of the best players available right now) as well as one of my own losses. In the first instance, it should be very helpful to see some nice longterm plans, even if I might not even detect them. And in the second case, well - of course I can see my own mistakes very clearly so I’m even more able to point out every single mistake I made.

What I want to say is - I don’t want to be personally offensive to people. It’s just who I am - I usually don’t sugarcoat failures. Not others, but not mine either. I, personally, appreciate a negative critic way more, because I don’t learn anything from people who tell me I was doing fine.

That being said, I will definitely try to be more positive and less offensive.

[Whackamatt]

i think the only games a person should analyze should be their own.  I mean, if you’re going to do this, why not make it one of your own games so that you know what you were thinking rather than try and second-guess someone else’s strategy?  Not every strategy is apparent from a few rounds of play.  Also, someone might not want their strategies revealed, giving a future opponent an advantage.  yes, they are public, but they aren’t on open display, either.

Also, i second that you should get permission to critique the games from those who played them.  I mean, being critical of someone else’s mistakes is just mean.  Even if it is “just your opinion”, it doesn’t give you the right to insult someone else’s game play.  It comes across as you just talking @#&* and claiming to be a better player.  There is no single path to vicotry in this game, and just because you would not have moved the same doesn’t make that move wrong.

If you want to do something like this, then it may be best to ask someone you are about to play.  Find someone willing, then have both sides write these analysis AS YOU PLAY.  You don’t have to post right away, but at least it will be easier for someone to note what they were thinking.  I mean, some of my games have lasted past 20 rounds.  Asking me what I was originally thinking on Round 4 is long gone.

[gamerman01]

I pretty much agree with Whack, and just want to say that what I had in mind was more of an objective news reporter standpoint, calling attention perhaps to compelling or interesting games, or just an interesting strat being tried (like Japan is going for Australia first or something)

I’m not trying to say I think you should do exactly what I had in mind, but I just agree with Whack that criticism should really only be used with player’s permission - and many player’s would probably welcome that.

It will also make everyone more comfortable if they know that permission has been asked for and granted each time, even though they don’t see it (I mean, if they know that’s how it’s working behind the scenes)

[Me1945]

Mr. Roboto,
You got my permission for the criticism. :-)

[Whackamatt]

Or perhaps there’s a way to further illustrate why you disagree with something.  Show the priorities of what you’re thinking.  If I go here, then I can do THIS on the following round, because X,Y,Z are more important to me at this point in the game.  But if you weren’t a part of that game, and someone is using a strategy different from what you’d do, it will just boil down to agree to disagree, while you call all of their moves “mistakes”.  For that reason, i really think any analysis should be from someone that actually played, and not a 3rd party.

If someone is going for a longview, economic victory, rather than a smash-and-grab take Russia in 6 turns, attacking malta is a very viable option.  Bonus denial is huge if the game lasts for 20 rounds, leading to lamentations like: “If only I had had that extra 5 ics every turn for the last 19 Rounds!”

And one last point, i think very few tactical choices are complete “mistakes”; they are simply using different logic and tactics than you, reaching towards a strategy you can’t see.  Mistakes would be things like leaving a capital undefended for the 1-2 US takes Denmark UK takes Berlin type.  Until you know what someone’s overall strategy is, what you think of as a mistake in an early round could all be a setup for a Round 5 attack on territory X.

[Amon-Sul]

It is good thing this started.

I think U do not have to do such a detailed review. It takes too much time.

Not too short either.

As for criticism I do not have anything against it, I would just separate it from the game review as a separate thing, in the end of the whole story. More or less U did it.

[JDOW]

Much is said, I might want to give my 2 cents.
First of call a big praise to Mr Roboto, finally someone invests some effort to keep strategy discussions alive. great job!!! :-) :-) :-)

I do not want to focus on the way criticism is transported but about the format of the analysis.

the point is: I think on One might imo save time and effort by waiving a turn by turn by country analysis of every move. The reason is that without studying the game file many of the comments can not be brought into context unless opening the game file and then the information is present anyway and does not need to get summarized.

So what would I have in mind? Could it save the reviewer some time and effort if he/she would describe the general game setup in the beginning in a meta story and from there only mention turns where the reviewer thinks he wants to comment on.

Just some examples:

The game characteristics are that Germany went for a Cairo first approach after taking SF G1 while Japan decided to DOW3 and kept pressure on China. Russia built an early bomber and kept an offensive 1/3 Inf, 1/3 Mech 1/3 art approach for a couple of rounds. US played a KJF approach in the first 4 rounds while the Chinese were wiped out in Sze by an airstrike in J2. UK played a standard 97 attack and focused on the middle east and the SA IC in the early rounds.

OR

Germany played super hard G1 ground only purchase DOW Barbarossa sending Air to France and attacked only sz111 around UK accompanied by a J1 DOW by Japan. Russia turtled and US played a balanced approach. Things became messy in the Pacific while the Germans were steaming to Moscow, however UK/US started early to harass in the West.

OR

This is a sea lion game. After a fleet build 110/111 G1 with good dice for the Germans, UK decided to build fleet and almost no ground in UK. Germans took UK G3 with 6 tanks remaining. Japan did DOW3 and invaded Amur J1 pushing the Russians back therefore giving up any threat on India in the early game.
US went hard to keep the threat to reclaim UK

The advantage could be that this is written withing minutes and it still gives the reader what kind of game this is. Assuming one day many of such reports exist one would have the chance to pick a certain game such as DOW1 Barbarossa or J1 DOW or sea lion or “standard” Barbarossa.

From here it could be an advantage to not have the need to comment on every single turn but to either:

• Comment meta strategy such as “given the strong China the Allies did a great job in turn 2 by buying fast units with UK Pac which later would act as tanks combined with Chinese can openers” OR "in turn 7 the US switched theaters entirely and moved the entire Pacific fleet to the Atlantic

• Make comments when you think they are necessary:
  UK3: I think UK Pac should have bought
  US4: I think the blocker in sz25 was an unnecessary as the Japanese couldn’t have afforded to attack the Hawaii seazone anyway as they would be annihilated in a counter attack
  Ru5: You retreated from Bryansk although the Germans would have had only 40% to attack
  Or any kind of comment you made in any of the turns

I just learned from other strategy game communities I was in that many ideas died in case they were linked to a lot of afford and that any kind of strategy discussions or analysis lasted the longer the less effort was necessary to do them.

Maybe this could give some input to not only create a great format but to reduce the burden to do such analysis:)

Last point: In case the analysis is done for games that ended already I think attaching the final game file in the OP is best.
Cheers,
Tobias

[JDOW]

“linked to a lot of afford and that a”

“effort” obv:)

[gamerman01]

Please include a link to the game or at least the 5 digit ID # when you do reports in the future, thanks!

[gamerman01]

Put in sticky request to Guerilla Guy, but he has not been online since Jan. 5.  Surely he won’t be gone much longer?

[MrRoboto]

The link to the game is in my third post in this thread - I’ve merely forgotten to add it

[gamerman01]

I thought I had seen it before, but overlooked it this time.  Thanks, because I actually want to go look at the game now

[gamerman01]

I have reviewed this game myself, through round 5, and I would say MrRoboto’s analysis was quite good.

[Amon-Sul]

@Gamerman01:

I have reviewed this game myself, through round 5, and I would say MrRoboto’s analysis was quite good.

He is our man, definitely :)