Forum > Theater of Operations: World at War
Counterattack at Belle Fontaine
choppinlt:
--- Quote from: Christian Knudsen on September 24, 2017, 05:01:21 PM ---I'm not really in a hurry to replay this one, tbh. I'm willing to accept it as a slightly outlying data point and move on at this juncture.
--- End quote ---
No issues! :) Just thought I would ask. I understand your point.
--- Quote from: Christian Knudsen on September 24, 2017, 05:01:21 PM ---Agreed, but to a degree and with less enthusiasm. I think offering normalization options is a good way to go, but there are pitfalls here, as well. For instance, my opponent would likely not be as happy to normalize in this situation as I would! Keep in mind I am talking engagement-specific normalization here, not a system based one like I am using with a Lazarus roll or with trying to mesh artillery and air support from TO onto ASL, as these mechanics, once agreed upon, would be applied universally.
--- End quote ---
I understand your view on this. And yes, I understand that we are talking about the engagement results, NOT the system conversion process (e.g. Lazarus roll). Again this is all up to players and how they want to use engagement results. You are correct that in this case your opponent may be less enthusiastic to lessen results, HOWEVER that is why these types of situations should be agreed upon prior to playing an engagement out.
I will give an example. Say I am commanding Side A against Asid who is commanding Side B in TO. We have an engagement that we are willing to let tactical players resolve. Say you (CK) and A Canadian Cat (ACC) volunteer. CK prefers ASL, but can do CM (CK, IIRC you posted a few months ago that would be willing to play a CM battle, but you indicated you weren't real proficient at it). ACC has no clue how to play ASL, but is very good at CM. As a result you guys agree to play CM to resolve the battle. So you two are controlling the tactical engagement, but there is a player profiency issue that is probably not indicative of the engagement situation. In this case me and my TO opponent would have a conversation if we want to normalize results due to circumstances. We can say "no, we are gonna let ride!" or "we are going to normalize results to prevent skewed results". CK, I know you get all this, I am just going to :deadhorse to make sure people reading understand some of these nuances players will find.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page