Match Spotlights

[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 :)