re: low combat bids

From: Andrew Barton <AndrewBarton_at_...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:58:25 -0400


> I appreciate HW isn't a 'simulationist' game, but it's extremely unfortunate if players are being 'incentivised' by their culture to do one thing, and by their own best interests
(and in plot terms, those of the characters' community, too) to
do the opposite.

(1) I'm arguing that players who think making only low bids is a safe
tactic are getting their maths wrong, so that low bids are not in 'their own best interests'. One way to describe the error is that you are yielding the initiative, another that by increasing the number of combat rounds you are increasing the number of chances your opponent has to make bids that suit his situation.

(2) Armies and some sports teams (I'm thinking particularly of American
Football) put a lot of effort into changing their members' attitudes to risk and aggression. They want them to act in the way that gives the best chance of the side winning overall. This is not necessarily the same as what gives an individual the best chance of survival, but it may well be - especially in ancient battles where most of the casualties occur after one side routs.

(3) If I'm a weaponthane, I'm a privileged member of my community. I earn
that privilege by being willing to put my life on the line to defend it.

(4) It's been said that there are two requirements to be a good Humakti.
You must be prepared to kill, and you must be prepared to die. I'm not sure a '3 AP all the time' merchant is properly following his god.

In summary, I believe that there are very good reasons for Orlanthi culture to encourage aggression among its warriors, and players may be wise to have their characters act accordingly.

Andrew

Powered by hypermail