Re: 1096 Sengoku Spring 1584 results

Hester, Benjamin T CPT USA USAREUR 7A escribi=F3:
> You are the first I have heard describe Sengoku as having four central=20
> powers.
Well, I do see Uesugi as corner but Takeda and Hojo have no board edge=20
to rely upon unless they conquer Uesugi first (or keep a tight control=20
of the surrounding seas in the Hojo case). I think that Takeda at least=20
is 100% central power and Hojo doesn't seem to have a much better=20
defensive position either.
>   In most all of the strategy discussion I have heard in the game=20
> (mostly on the old DVWorkshop list), the focus was always on the=20
> so-called "Northern and Southern Triangles" of Takeda, Hojo, Uesugi=20
> and Mori, Chosokabe, Shimazu respectively.
I only see the "southern" (western?) triangle. To the other side I see a=20
pentagon or rather a square with Takeda (the hardest starting position=20
maybe) in the middle - and between both a vast stretch of "empty" land,=20
with many non-SC provinces.
>   As far as Oda and Asakura, the strategy often adopted for them was=20
> to court the "odd man out" of one of the two triangles and move=20
> aggressively in that direction.
Well, more or less that was how it worked. But we planned it as a=20
tripartite central alliance with Takeda. My main worry was what I=20
percieved as the excessively good (protected) position of Uesugi in this=20
"square of five corners". I was more concerned with keeping Takeda and=20
Hojo bussy in the east (north, NE) and keeping Uesugi small.
>   Typically, there is an early alliance between two of the three=20
> partners in the "triangles" aimed against the other partner (e.g.=20
> Shimazu and myself versus our first non-responsive Mori player).  I=20
> have seen every possible combination in other games I observed (S+M=20
> vs. C, T+H vs. U, U+H vs. T, etc. etc.)  Admittedly, some alliance=20
> possibilities are more frequent than others (Chosokabe and Mori vs.=20
> Shimazu is somewhat rare
It would seem quite natural to me. It allows both to secure an improved=20
corner position: a good platform from where to start their conquests.
> , and as you mentioned Hojo and Takeda vs. Uesugi is too, though I=20
> have seen that one played to victory for Takeda).  This is no=20
> different than Standard however - how frequently do you see Italy and=20
> Turkey play nicely together?  Or Russia and Germany?
Or Asakura and Oda? Or Chosokabe and Shimazu? Really those compare=20
better with your exampls from standard. Hojo and Takeda seem more like=20
Italy and Austria but (both) a lot more fragile.
>=20=20
> The most frequently seen alliance of all in Sengoku is Asakura + Oda,=20
> due to their position in between the two triangles which causes them a=20
> certain vulnerability.  If they attack each other immediately, the=20
> likelihood of either one winning is slim.  However, they also have the=20
> best opportunities on the map for early open SC and neutral=20
> expansion.  Victory in those positions has historically depended upon=20
> extreme aggression focused in one direction, usually towards the=20
> triangle that is developing (i.e. eliminating one member) most rapidly.
Sounds somehow logical to me.
>=20=20
> Sea zones were intentionally made large because the map is linear.
I don't mean simply "large" but oblong towards the edges. They don't=20
help with fluidity but rather are easily used for obstruction.
> There would be little incentive to build fleets at all unless they=20
> allowed rapid transit of the length of the map, distant convoys, and=20
> access to multiple SCs.  Admittedly, there are long periods of little=20
> naval movement sometimes because of this, but they can be broken by=20
> seizing key coastal positions that upset the balance.  In key=20
> locations (such as around the Kanto Sea) smaller bodies of water such=20
> as the Totomi Sea, Atsumi Bay, and Suruga Bay were added for just this=20
> reason.=20
>=20=20
> Historically, immediately after the Sengoku Jidai, Japan did launch a=20
> major naval invasion of Korea, but you are correct in saying that the=20
> vast majority of the internal conflict was land based.  Your remarks=20
> about the "no-draw" rule and other players' concerns about the high SC=20
> victory requirement are definitely valid, and I've heard them from=20
> enough different sources now that it seems right to change those after=20
> this game is complete.  (if real life permits me time to build a new=20
> website, fix the realpolitik code, and publish a new rulebook)
>=20=20
> I love to discuss Sengoku, and appreciate the input into its=20
> design, but I believe the rest of this discussion should hold until=20
> this game is complete and it's time for our EOG remarks.
Sure. We will get over it again once the game is over - what I hope is=20
soon.

Luis.
>=20=20
> V/R,
> Benjamin T. Hester
> CPT, QM
> XO, Alpha Company, 7-159th AVN REGT (AVIM)
> DSN 314-467-4225
> */"Have 'em call me sir, I'll make this go away..."/*
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Luis [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Mon 5/1/2006 9:16 AM
> *To:* Hester, Benjamin T CPT USA USAREUR 7A
> *Cc:* Stephen Worthy; Robert O'Neill; Mike Morris; Joseph Schmidt;=20
> Henri Bodart; cat23-1000; Adam Levy; [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: 1096 Sengoku Spring 1584 results
>
> Sure you can retain that SC with the support of Shimazu, even you two=20
> may be able to capture Echizen (not sure). But at that point there's a=20
> stalemate line (I believe) - the one I was refering to. I may be wrong=20
> about that (you should know better about these subtleties) but it's=20
> clear that the Western front of WWI was quite dynamic in comparison to=20
> this. I am 100% for draw or concession or anything.
>
> As you mention the desing of the game, in which I'm sure that you have=20
> spent a lot of time, I have a couple of questions:
>
>    1. Why are the four central powers so much in contact with each
>       other? It makes it naturally difficult to create any sort of
>       alliance among them. Takeda and Hojo particularly seem to be
>       very weakened by their direct contact that forces them to trust
>       each other too much.
>    2. Why haven't you drawn more sea provinces, so the land stalemate
>       lines can be surrounded by naval activity. Those elongated sea
>       provinces act as barriers to fluent maneouvrability. It's
>       probably historically inacurate to make the feudal wars of Japan
>       a naval affair, but, on the other hand, redrawing the naval
>       borders would possibly make the game more playable.
>
> So far my thoughts.
>
> Luis.
>
>
> Hester, Benjamin T CPT USA USAREUR 7A escribi=F3:
>> It's not a stalemate yet.  I just gained an SC - and believe I can=20
>> hold it.  Moreover, the so called line can be broken in several=20
>> places if you look closely.  I designed this variant, and I have=20
>> tested it extensively to ensure this doesn't have to happen.  You may=20
>> have to risk losing an SC at certain points to commit the necessary=20
>> forces, but the line can be broken through - in either direction.=20=20
>> Everyone loves to point out that Japan makes a linear map, but I took=20
>> great care in drawing the borders to where overwhelming force can be=20
>> placed on key locations from either direction - Omi for example.=20=20
>> South Shinano, Kanto Sea, and Wakasa Bay for three more examples.  To=20
>> get up into Ise (which made the difference in seizing Omi), I had to=20
>> pull forces away earlier from defending Iga and the critical Kanto=20
>> Sea, which I lost in turn.  Time will tell if that was smart or not. =
=20
>> The point being - those are the kind of risks you have to take in=20
>> Sengoku.=20
>>=20=20
>> However - two points of interest in this game has been noted - the=20
>> victory count of SCs is high, and the no-draw rule can make the=20
>> endgame tedious.  I will take these into account and possibly revise=20
>> the variant after this game.  Similar observations came up from other=20
>> players who played various renditions of Sengoku, but most liked the=20
>> variant overall.  Please note though - that the PLAYERS can vote on=20
>> and approve a draw - I just placed the burden of selecting a Shogun=20
>> on the GM for historical accuracy.  They players may consider it a=20
>> draw if they wish.
>>=20=20
>> Chosokabe-san
>>=20=20
>> Benjamin T. Hester
>> CPT, QM
>> XO, Alpha Company, 7-159th AVN REGT (AVIM)
>> DSN 314-467-4225
>> */"Have 'em call me sir, I'll make this go away..."/*
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Luis [mailto:[email protected]]
>> *Sent:* Mon 5/1/2006 1:41 AM
>> *To:* Stephen Worthy
>> *Cc:* Robert O'Neill; Mike Morris; Joseph Schmidt; Henri Bodart;=20
>> cat23-1000; Hester, Benjamin T CPT USA USAREUR 7A; Adam Levy;=20
>> [email protected]
>> *Subject:* Re: 1096 Sengoku Spring 1584 results
>>
>> I would like the leading daymios to agree who's the winner if any.=20
>> Else, an considering that the game has too many stalemate lines,=20
>> sepacially the one we are on right now, I suggest a 4-way or even a=20
>> 3-way draw, even if the rules of the variant don't provide for it. In=20
>> this sense we could name Shogun a player that has no centers anymore,=20
>> so we fulfill the formality.
>>
>> I'm really tired of positional waste of time without diplomacy but=20
>> the fact is that there's a stalemate line and the blocs are too solid=20
>> to change things. So the draw seems the only available exit. If we=20
>> can't agree to a Shogun, let's divivide Japan, make it an=20
>> Italian-stayle parlamentary republic or sell the island to a western=20
>> power in exchange of some sun-bathed atoll.
>>
>> The question is that the game won't surely move much from where we=20
>> are now.
>>
>> Luis.
>>
>> Stephen Worthy escribi=F3:
>>> GM NOTE:
>>> The proposal is defeated.
>>>=20=20
>>> DEADLINE:
>>> Fall 1584 Friday 5th May
>>>=20=20
>>> WEBSITE:
>>> http://www.geocities.com/stephen_worthy/GM17.html
>>>=20=20
>>> RESULTS:
>>> Shimazu:
>>> A Bitchu - Bizen
>>> A Harima Supports A Tamba
>>> F Inaba Supports F Wakasa Bay
>>> F Iwami Supports F South Sea of Japan
>>> F Izumo Supports F Wakasa Bay
>>> F Korea Strait Supports F South Sea of Japan
>>> F South Sea of Japan Supports F Wakasa Bay
>>> A Tamba Supports A Ise - Omi
>>> A Tango - Echizen (*Fails*)
>>> F Wakasa Bay Supports A Tango - Echizen (*Cut*)
>>>=20=20
>>> Chosokabe:
>>> A Ise - Omi
>>> F Kii - Iga
>>> F Kii Strait Supports F Osaka Bay - Kii
>>> F Osaka Bay - Kii
>>> A Settsu Supports A Tamba
>>> F Tosa Bay - Kanto Sea (*Fails*)
>>> A Yamashiro Supports A Ise - Omi
>>> A Yamato Supports F Kii - Iga
>>>=20=20
>>> Oda:
>>> F Atsumi Bay Supports A Owari - Ise (*Fails*)
>>> A Echizen - Omi (*Disbanded*)
>>> F Kanto Sea Supports F Mikawa - Iga (*Cut*)
>>> F Mikawa - Iga (*Fails*)
>>> A Mino Supports A Echizen - Omi
>>> A Owari - Ise
>>> F Totomi - Mikawa (*Fails*)
>>>=20=20
>>> Uesugi:
>>> A Etchu - Kaga
>>> A Hida Supports F Kaga - Echizen
>>> A Izu Hold
>>> F Kaga - Echizen
>>> A Kai Hold
>>> A Musashi Hold
>>> F North Sea of Japan Supports F Sea of Japan
>>> A North Shinano - Etchu
>>> F Noto - Wakasa Bay (*Fails*)
>>> F Pacific Ocean Supports F Kanto Sea
>>> F Sea of Japan Supports F Noto - Wakasa Bay
>>> F Totomi Sea Supports F Kanto Sea
>>>=20=20
>>>=20=20


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



=20
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cat23-1000/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
=20