Andrew Barton:
> (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'.
Said argument is however in error, in a large number of circumstances, specifically where you have a better ability rating, and/or a superior edge, though granted, yes, this is complicated by a number of other factors, like advantages in APs and HPs, which to some degree have the opposite effect.
I think this is sufficiently generally accepted that a detailed exegesis would prove tedious in the extreme for most readers, but I'm willing to get analytically down and dirty if there's a lack of any agreement about the truth of HW:RiG, p130, bullet three.
> One way to describe the error is that you are yielding the initiative
Not game-mechnically a factor.
> 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.
This is a marginal consideration, but it's true, it can't be entirely neglected. In extreme cases, if my opponent is bidding 30AP then my bidding 1AP would not be optimal, since I'm better to make somewhat bigger bids that reduces his capacity to make 30APish bids that might smart a touch, if he gets lucky. There's no motivation for _me_ to try and trump his ace by bidding 40AP, though! But it remains true that the advantaged party is _clearly_ better to bid lower than the disadvantaged party. I haven't analysed this, but I'd guess that a decent 'adaptive bidding strategy' would be on the lines of bidding, say, a third of your opponents last bid, at most. Best for you is if _neither_ of you bids high...
> (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.
True, but not material to HW mechanics, where you can easily increase the chances of your entire side losing, by poor 'bidding strategy'.
> (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.
That's correct. But how does that imply a obligation to follow poor tactics, increasing your chances of being killed and thus putting your community at risk, and the numerous cows we spent on you to waste?
> (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.
As above. I don't think Humakt is necessarily the impatient type. ("Kid, we've _all_ got it coming to us.")
> 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.
I agree. And what I'm saying is that the HW rules do very little, if anything, to reflect this, and a fair bit to discourage it. Given that a) numerous groups have perceived this, b) they're correct, in so far as the mechanics are concerned, then I think it's sensible to attempt to address this, rather than hoping the problem will go away.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail