The High Council of Enhanced

[Vollick1979]

After consulting with several fellow forum members who play Enhanced (and feel that rule changes need to be made) and who recognize the greatness of the game I feel it is necessary to establish a council that can decide on matters pertaining to Enhanced.

Currently, Enhancers are left in limbo awaiting final rulings from cousin_joe. CJ has created a wonderful ruleset and I feel that allowing the game to settle into a chaos of 2.1 beta would be a shame. Now is the time with more and more people joining the forums to establish a firm and stable council that can help ensure that this game recieves the prominence it deserves.

In addition, Enhanced has probably become the most played variant of AAR. The game has evolved beyond the realm of a house rule into a community rule. I think we as a community have a right and obligation to establish the High Council of Enhanced.

The question proposed is: Should changes to AARe continued to be made only by cousin_joe, or by a council of players?

[Nuclear]

I would have to say that it should be up directly to Cousin Joe. After all he was the orginal creator and thus has many things in his mind which he most likely does not share. He has things figured out in his head. Plus with a Council nothing would get done.

[cousin_joe]

I knew you would pull something like this one day, Vollick!!! :)

True, Enhanced was created for the players, but even though this is the case, doesn't necessarily mean every single rule change suggested, should be added. There have always been certain principles or themes which I've tried to have Enhanced stick to, to ensure it's long-term survival as an AAR variant. Without these principles and themes, I don't think Enhanced would be as successful as it is.

1. Keep things simple - don't add unnecessary complexity. I recall some of your proposed rule changes Vollick, like being able to roll 5 dice for Tech (instead of just 4 or 6), or introducing 3 new Japanese VCs which Japan must hold 2/3 of to have the VC (or something like that). These are needlessly complex and make Enhanced less playable.

2. Strategic Gameplay trumps Historical Accuracy - Ultimately Enhanced is a strategy game, not a historical simulation. Strategy means making options available, even if this contradicts what was histroically done. Of course, this is a balance, and must be within reason (ie. not like the total absence of a Pacific Theater in the out-of-the-box rules)

3. Reasonable Consistency with LHTR rules - LHTR, like it or not, is what the online PBEM clubs play. To gain support for Enhanced for online competitive play, it mustn't stray too far from the LHTR rules. Some of your previous proposed rule changes for transports or subs do this, and again, would make Enhanced harder to grasp for new players. We are very close to an AAMC tournament in April using Enhanced rules, which I am looking forward to, as we can spread the word about Enhanced outside this forum, and get some club players to see how much better the Enhanced rules are than AH/LHTR. :)

I try my best to be receptive to the ideas for Enhanced on these boards, but obviously opinions will differ on what should be included. There are other principles I use when deciding what rules to include, but these are three of the main ones. I've been very busy with work and non-A&A stuff as of late, so haven't had much time to post, but I am following a lot of the games in the play-by-post section, and so far the Enhanced 2.1 Beta rules look to be working fairly well, with no major complaints of imbalance. Of course I'd like to play more Enhanced 2.1 games myself to test things out, but what's a guy to do when he keeps advancing in his LHTR tourney games? :D

[axis_roll]

Vollick eyes a creator MIA and siezes control :)

Seriously though, I think you pose a good question. I think CJ has been receptive to all feed-back, especially when a majority of "Enhancers" speak in one voice.

I think the only problem with the current system is the time required by CJ to read all rule changes and make his personal decision on what gets the CJ stamp of approval. Until 2.1 beta, this was not a problem. CJ has been busy actually playing the game as opposed to creating new rules (my understanding).

Perhaps the 'commitee' concept can be used to submit the best worded rule change(s) to CJ for his stamp of approval. This should solve the consortium issue (vs single owner) as well as help CJ with his time constraints.

[Vollick1979]

I knew you would pull something like this one day, Vollick!!! :eek:

Joe, i'm doing this for the benefit of the game. You would of course be the head of the council, but to be honest, too many people are playing this game to have the rules arbitrarily decided on by any one person, even if that one person is you!

[Moderator Sinister]

It's really CJ's game like Larry and LHTR. If CJ wants to get a group of people together every so often a suggest changes or ask for input count me in!!

He should have full veto power though.

[series]

How about something like the UN? Maybe like an 8 person counsil, with say 2 honorary members with veto power- they can cancel anything. If a decision is made which passes through Veto power, Joe gets a look. If he likes it, he adds it. If he doesn't, back to the drawing boards. Of course, the 2 veto members would have say about anything- adding more veto members, more regular members, etc. However for that purpose the two Veto members would need to be available for long amounts of time and have contrasting opinions on almost everything, so that Joe does not waste time reading crap.

[AxisRoll]

I thought we were staying away from politics??? :D

[DY]

I would suggest that CJ should see it as an honor that the community wishes to take control of the decision making process. This really means that the game has grown beyond its humble beginings into something much greater.

I don't like the idea of vetos, period. I mean (using the UN example) how is it fair that France, who was relatively strong 60 years ago on the world stage, but are now pretty much irrelevant, still get the right to veto any decision that every other country in the world agrees to?

Vetos are inherently bad, because they remain static in an increasing dynamic realm.

[Stephen]

I'm lending my support to establishing a council. Here is how I think it should take shape:

CJ still exercises papal control of AARe. A council is established (the smaller the better, maybe 3-4 people).

If CJ wants to change a rule, a unanimous vote would be required from the council to veto it.

If the Council votes to change a rule (majority vote), CJ can intervene to stop it. However, CJ's veto can be over-ridden with a unanimous vote of the council.

This structure would retain a lot of power in CJ's hands, which is good. At the same time, a small council of respected players would be able to implement rule changes based on the general will of players, given unanimity. CJ could still exercise power through convincing one councillor to side with him.

I think the point of something like this is not to wrest control of AARe away from CJ, but to introduce a method so players feel like they can have input and see changes happen. The age of Monarchy is dead... Representative rule, however flawed, would be an improvement IMHO.

I thought we were staying away from politics???
The whole is politic... besides, it's hard for a political scientist to stay quiet forever when revolution is knocking at the door :)

[series]

Stephen, your idea may be one of the best yet, but small council=bad for your example. Why? Unanimous votes are EASY when only 4 people have to agree. When you have 8 people and 1 vote=no go, less stupid things will be showing up.

I believe that if such a council is formed, new rules should NOT come out every other day, but very rarely. Maybe we could agree with 5 or 6 people, at least?

But I don't think unanimous votes are the way to go. If one person sucks up to CJ and refuses to veto any rule changes, the purpose of the council is defeated.

[DocD]

Taking away control from CJ is not what I would like to see.
The man has created something truly great and I trust his wisdom....not completely of course...but enough to know his heart is in the right place.

I have suggested rule changes and have had some passed, some vetoed, and some the cat didn't lick up.

Stephen's idea is close to what I would be thinking of.

[weezer271]

I agree with the above statement. This is cousin joe's variant and he has done a very good job with it so far. He should have final say as to what is included or excluded

[Vollick1979]

True, Enhanced was created for the players, but even though this is the case, doesn't necessarily mean every single rule change suggested, should be added. There have always been certain principles or themes which I've tried to have Enhanced stick to, to ensure it's long-term survival as an AAR variant. Without these principles and themes, I don't think Enhanced would be as successful as it is.


I agree not every rule change suggested needs to be adopted. The purpose of a council is not to simply add more rules.


1. Keep things simple - don't add unnecessary complexity. I recall some of your proposed rule changes Vollick, like being able to roll 5 dice for Tech (instead of just 4 or 6), or introducing 3 new Japanese VCs which Japan must hold 2/3 of to have the VC (or something like that). These are needlessly complex and make Enhanced less playable.


With out getting into specifics regarding my various opinions on proposed rule changes, because that's not what this thread is about, the fact is that complexity has been added to the game in terms of how sub combat is handled and people aren't complaining. Sub combat is much better in Enhanced than in LHTR or OOTB.


2. Strategic Gameplay trumps Historical Accuracy - Ultimately Enhanced is a strategy game, not a historical simulation. Strategy means making options available, even if this contradicts what was histroically done. Of course, this is a balance, and must be within reason (ie. not like the total absence of a Pacific Theater in the out-of-the-box rules)


Agreed. It is a balance.


3. Reasonable Consistency with LHTR rules - LHTR, like it or not, is what the online PBEM clubs play. To gain support for Enhanced for online competitive play, it mustn't stray too far from the LHTR rules. Some of your previous proposed rule changes for transports or subs do this, and again, would make Enhanced harder to grasp for new players. We are very close to an AAMC tournament in April using Enhanced rules, which I am looking forward to, as we can spread the word about Enhanced outside this forum, and get some club players to see how much better the Enhanced rules are than AH/LHTR. :)


Well i've just recently joined a club but it appears that the majority of players still play 2nd edition and haven't switched to AAR. To be honest I don't want to play LHTR and from the people i've talked to they don't either. Enhanced is far more interesting and takes less time to play than either LHTR or OOTB rules. Keeping Enhanced consistent with LHTR is a disservice to Enhanced, and I find it hard to believe that anyone reading the Enhanced rules would be drawn in because of all the similarities it has with Enhanced. If you want people to see what a great game Enhanced really is stop piggybacking it on the back of a flawed, boring LHTR.


I try my best to be receptive to the ideas for Enhanced on these boards, but obviously opinions will differ on what should be included. There are other principles I use when deciding what rules to include, but these are three of the main ones. I've been very busy with work and non-A&A stuff as of late, so haven't had much time to post, but I am following a lot of the games in the play-by-post section, and so far the Enhanced 2.1 Beta rules look to be working fairly well, with no major complaints of imbalance. Of course I'd like to play more Enhanced 2.1 games myself to test things out, but what's a guy to do when he keeps advancing in his LHTR tourney games? :D

Well Joe you keep telling us how much better Enhanced is to LHTR but you keep playing LHTR. What type of message is that sending? ;)

[axis_roll]

Well Joe you keep telling us how much better Enhanced is to LHTR but you keep playing LHTR. What type of message is that sending? ;)
You're saying this to be funny, I know....

but the only tourneys out there right now are LHTR ones.

This is why I am not in these tourneys

[series]

You're saying this to be funny, I know....

but the only tourneys out there right now are LHTR ones.

This is why I am not in these tourneys

Are you sure it's not cuz you suck? Just wondering...

[axis_roll]

Are you sure it's not cuz you suck? Just wondering...
What's YOUR problem little boy?

personal attacks are a violation of the code of conduct

We probably could use some peace and quiet around here...
we'd get that if you get busted.

[series]

What's YOUR problem little boy?

personal attacks are a violation of the code of conduct

We probably could use some peace and quiet around here...
we'd get that if you get busted.

Hey it's not an attack, its an innocent question.

And by quoting me you are liable for discipline as well :D

But I'm just messing with you :eek: no hard feelings? :o

[DocD]

Yes roll, even I could tell it was typical series.....why the harsh words??

Let's chill out guys.

[Da Black Gobo]

I wouldn't coddle him too much. He may think when he gets in the real world that he can act the arseclown as he does here.

Now back to the subject at hand.....

[Da Black Gobo]

Or to put it a different way, a view from one that is just starting into A&AE. I have read the update 2.0, I have looked over LHTR and here are my thoughts.

I'm a firm believer in keeping it simple. I also think that two many chefs spoil the broth. CJ as made a nice alternate set of rules. They work well. If you keep changing them it will further alienate new players from wanting to join in. I know I have keep out of it mainly for that reason.

Can things be better? Maybe, but I see no reason to have a mob rule decide it. Instead make suggestions and let CJ decide. OR if you can stand it make your own set of rules for yourself. The truth is you can't please everyone, so CJ must be true to himself.

I have visted LHD forum and I mention 4 things that I dislike about A&AR, he agreed about 3 of them. Here they are 1. Pacific Ocean needs to be much larger. 2. Combined Arms rule in combat. 3. Subs can't attack other subs.

I'll let CJ decide on those three for AAE. Until then I will enjoy the game as is.

Sean

[Stephen]

Stephen, your idea may be one of the best yet, but small council=bad for your example. Why? Unanimous votes are EASY when only 4 people have to agree. When you have 8 people and 1 vote=no go, less stupid things will be showing up.
I think a significant amount of influence and control should stay with CJ, hence, make it difficult, yet not impossible, for him to be overruled.

I believe that if such a council is formed, new rules should NOT come out every other day, but very rarely. Maybe we could agree with 5 or 6 people, at least?

But I don't think unanimous votes are the way to go. If one person sucks up to CJ and refuses to veto any rule changes, the purpose of the council is defeated.
Assuming some open form of member selection, this shouldn't be a problem. And it's not like we're running a country or business here... people here are intelligent and will look towards what's best for AARe, and not personal gain.
Now if we give one member the ability to block over-rides, obviously it wouldn't make much sense to let CJ hand pick anyone. These things can be worked out.

[Stephen]

Just a quick add-on, if simplicity is the way to go, 5 person council, CJ plus 4 others, and can operate on a majority system for changes.

If CJ disagrees with a change, the other 4 could veto if they are unanimous.

[axis_roll]

I didn't start the side tracking

Hey it's not an attack, its an innocent question.

And by quoting me you are liable for discipline as well :D

But I'm just messing with you :eek: no hard feelings? :o

How can you not take the question:

"Don't you suck?"

in a negative manner.

It's like saying:

"Do you still beat your wife?"

Either way you answer that, you are still being called a wife beater by me.
It doesn't get more personal than that.

I quoted you so the evidence would remain. Otherwise you cuold simply edit or delete your message. I know the game.

I WAS going to just let it go, but your tounge in cheek reply "I was just teasing you" motivates me only further.

[series]

I didn't start the side tracking



How can you not take the question:

"Don't you suck?"

in a negative manner.

It's like saying:

"Do you still beat your wife?"

Either way you answer that, you are still being called a wife beater by me.
It doesn't get more personal than that.

I quoted you so the evidence would remain. Otherwise you cuold simply edit or delete your message. I know the game.

I WAS going to just let it go, but your tounge in cheek reply "I was just teasing you" motivates me only further.

If you said "Do you still beat your wife?", I would say (assuming I had one), No, I never did, you confused me for someone else. See? Isn't that easy?

[series]

I wouldn't coddle him too much. He may think when he gets in the real world that he can act the arseclown as he does here.

Now back to the subject at hand.....

Eh, I personally think it's kind of sad when a grown man feels necessary to insult a young boy over the internet. At the risk of getting modded, I'm gonna leave it at that.

[Da Black Gobo]

Eh, I personally think it's kind of sad when a grown man feels necessary to insult a young boy over the internet. At the risk of getting modded, I'm gonna leave it at that.

That was a statement. Just because your young doesn't mean you shouldn't have good manners. Take what I said as a learning experiance. Don't think I know you bait others on this site, then try to feint innocence. I raise 3 boys and I know when someone is pushing the boundaries to see how much or far they can take it. Your insults and bad attitude will only lead you into trouble later in life. If it takes other on this board to stand up and correct you so be it.

[Lt M Cotten]

Taking away control from CJ is not what I would like to see.
The man has created something truly great and I trust his wisdom....not completely of course...but enough to know his heart is in the right place.

I have suggested rule changes and have had some passed, some vetoed, and some the cat didn't lick up.

Stephen's idea is close to what I would be thinking of.

AARE is CJ's baby, period. He has asked for and listened to our advice on occasion and ammended when he saw fit. I see no reason to change that method now.

CJ - DON'T get sucked up by the corporate mentality. Keep control. Remember that nothing subjected to the will of the people remains true to its original intent. Also, Democracy may prevent a rebellion but that does not make it right.

Again I will say. AARE is CJ's baby, period. He has asked for and listened to our advice on occasion and ammended when he saw fit. I see no reason to change that method now.

Now CJ if you want a neutral advisor for future topics of debate I will gladly assist. :D

[Moderator Kayn]

Stay within the topic please , some of you are too close to flaming for comfort. This is not an excuse for you to comment on the behavior either, just stay on the thread's topic please.

Thank you
Mod Ka'yn

[Stephen]

CJ - DON'T get sucked up by the corporate mentality. Keep control. Remember that nothing subjected to the will of the people remains true to its original intent. Also, Democracy may prevent a rebellion but that does not make it right.
If AARe were to be subjected to the will of the people, that would entail creating polls for every suggested change and letting everyone vote, makeing changes when 50%+1 is achieved.

Noone has suggested that.

CJ did not create AARe in isolation; he relied on feedback & playtesting by many, and amended the rules with input from many. He himself sought input on rule changes and in some cases went with what people asked for (AC and BMR price changes were done according to the will of the people). AARe has evolved based on our advice. Clearly, the input of others has been vital to the creation and evolution of AARe.

What is being suggested now is a change to allow for more heads than one to be involved in future changes, and I think it's a positive change if done properly. Quite frankly none of this is absollutely necessary: I can choose now to play by my own rules, and everyone can feel free to do what they want with the rules in whatever they want. In order to keep everyone onside, people need to feel like their concerns are being considered, and a larger body regulating rule changes would have that effect by ensuring that a variety of interests are taken into consideration. Otherwise, it is conceivable that something similar to what happened to the OOTB rules could happen to AARe, leading to a set of rules for tournament play and a set of rules for the casual gamer, which is not in AARe's best interest. To me this is the strongest argument for increasing the size of the AARe Executive.

[AxisRoll]

I think the best thing is what a_r has said. Keep it CJ's, but have the high counsil take recommendation, create proposals and present. This would ease the burden of doing it all, keep the majority of the forums beliefs in mind and further extent AARe and the best AA to ever play.

Or go with a congress approch, high counsil is senete, if approved, it needs Pres's Aprroval, if rejected, can be overruled with 2/3 or 3/4 majority. what ever is decided.

And the counsil in my view would be no more than 9. keep it an odd number for majority.

This is of course that CJ wants to commit to this logic. If he wants to keep it his owm, then it is his. Done and over.

But I do want to beef up the N/A's. Think outside the box a little. etc.

[DY]

Of course if CJ refuses to move with the times, it is possible that players will vote with their feet and stop playing AARe altogether.

An independent (or "rebel") council will form, creating a new ruleset (with it's founding rules taken entirely from AARe) and CJ will lose all control over the direction of the most popular alternate ruleset.

[Zero Pilot]

Still patiently waiting for AARe to come to Triplea to give it a spin. Unforutnately there is no way my ftf gaming group (who doesn't follow the game here or elsewhere) would ever embrace "alternative" rules. So I've declined to comment on specific changes as they have been proposed along the way.

However, there is no way I can see CJ considering this an "honor" that AARe has grown so big that it needs to be removed from his hands now since his rule system belongs "to the people." That's horse hockey. He obviously had a clear vision of what he was after from the start, and it was a damn good one. And yes many of the changes along the way was with the input of the masses but still they were ultimately reviewed and decided upon by CJ himself.

That is what made AARe a winner in my opinion... it was never allowed to stray from the original concept and goals, and the reason it didn't is because CJ was always there to make sure it didn't. To have the ruleset be refined to probably 95% perfection to the acceptance of all by CJ then announce to him that "thanks for all that... but we can take it from here" seems pretty deplorable imo. Keep in mind that last 5% will always be elusive to the masses because everyone will have something they wish were done slightly different.

I'm sure CJ has spent more time pondering and playtesting AARe than anyone. It's a credit to him the ruleset is as good as it is, period. Perhaps everyone wishes to tweak that final 5% to their idea perfection, but the thing to be realized is... that last bit of tweaking comes down to simple difference of opinion and nothing more. You will always have that final 5%... some will forever insist that CVs defending at 3 is the way to go, others will insist they defend at a 1.

You will never get everyone to agree on every single little thing 100%. The fact that AARe is so close to pleasing everyone right now is a credit to CJ's work. The most common reaction to playing AARe is "heck, I'll never go back to playing the box rules again!" And that should tell you something.

To place the future of AARe into the hands of a self appointed committee is a recipie for disaster. You could just soooo very easily "committee" the thing into oblivion... and ruin it completely.

And at some point the ruleset must be considered a finished work to stand on it's own. Obviously CJ has refined this thing to that point. CJ's AARe started as something of an (advanced) "houserule" effort and has grown to so much more... even to the point of a AARe official ranked tournament. But one should not loose sight of the ability to take AARe and add your own houserules and tweaks when your group gets together and plays.

Does that mean the ruleset as it stands is flawed? No. Will it ever be considered 100% perfect by 100% of the community? No. It's impossible, and a self appointed committee to "take it from here" (!?!) could likely botch the effort in trying to do exactly that. I can see where CJ might say well, a committee can do whatever it wants... but don't call it Enhanced. Yet to call it something different would be lame.

Probably very close to 100% of those who have played AARe will not play any other way... and that is the true measure of success of the AARe effort. At some point it must be considered a done deal. Perhaps it takes wisdom and restraint to know when to leave well enough alone~ZP

[Da Black Gobo]

Excellent agruement, I agree with ZP all the way. :)

[Vollick1979]

DY has spoken true words of wisdom.

I know of at least 2 other Enhancers that have serious reservations about the NAs as they currently stand. Now what happens when more people try and modify the game because they're not satisfied with the current rules? ZP insinuates we should be happy with a game that's 95% perfect. I say that's horse hockey! ZP also insinuates that a committee could ruin the game. Well I think a committee could be helpful in creating an even better game.

ZP also tells us to not lose sight of the fact when our gaming group gets together that we can create our own "house rules" to Enhanced. Well if those "house rules" can make for a better game why shouldn't they be considered for AARe? Afterall Enhanced is nothing but a bunch of "house rules" compiled together and the results are great but to say they can't be improved would be foolish!

Personally I think Kaiten Torpedoes is a terrible NA and if changes aren't made I could start my own ruleset calling it Enhanced Enhanced or Advanced Enhanced and someone else could start his own calling his Modified Enhanced or Enhanced Enhanced Max or something silly like that. How great would that be? :confused:

It's better to bend a little than break!

[axis_roll]

The collective develops a rule change proposal and asks CJ "YEAH" or "NAY".
what is wrong with this approach? CJ has been very flexible in the past when presented with the logic behind said rule changes.

This is the way it should remain, IMHO...

[Kaufschtick]

Taking away control from CJ is not what I would like to see.
The man has created something truly great and I trust his wisdom....not completely of course...but enough to know his heart is in the right place.

I have suggested rule changes and have had some passed, some vetoed, and some the cat didn't lick up.

Stephen's idea is close to what I would be thinking of.

Holy Smokes! I come back to the boards and I am a first-hand witness to a mutiny!

Doc Vader, I thought you were supposed to throw The Evil Emperor over the railing, not a council of players! :eek:

[cousin_joe]

Well i've just recently joined a club but it appears that the majority of players still play 2nd edition and haven't switched to AAR. To be honest I don't want to play LHTR and from the people i've talked to they don't either. Enhanced is far more interesting and takes less time to play than either LHTR or OOTB rules. Keeping Enhanced consistent with LHTR is a disservice to Enhanced, and I find it hard to believe that anyone reading the Enhanced rules would be drawn in because of all the similarities it has with Enhanced. If you want people to see what a great game Enhanced really is stop piggybacking it on the back of a flawed, boring LHTR.

Well Joe you keep telling us how much better Enhanced is to LHTR but you keep playing LHTR. What type of message is that sending? ;)

I'm stuck playing the LHTR tourneys because that's all that is available.

AAMC should be hosting an AARe tourney soon, and if there's enough of a player base to play the tourneys, I will quit playing LHTR all together.

I really feel that once people start playing AARe competitively, they will really see how much better it is than playing the LHTR stackfests.

[cousin_joe]

Thanks for the support everybody, especially Da Black Gobo, Axis Roll, axis_roll, Lt M Cotten, Kaufschtick, weezer271, Zero Pilot and Moderator Sinister :) You guys rock!!! :D

I'll post my thoughts in a bit :)

[cousin_joe]

Holy Smokes! I come back to the boards and I am a first-hand witness to a mutiny!

Doc Vader, I thought you were supposed to throw The Evil Emperor over the railing, not a council of players! :eek:

I'm not sure what's up with Doc Vader lately... I think teaming up with Luke Vollickwalker in the game against the Axis Rolls has turned him over to the Light Side of the Force :D

[cousin_joe]

Hey guys,

I appreciate all the suggestions, but here's the situation. The AAMC tournament will likely be starting in mid-April... that means we need a firm ruleset I'd say within the week. That gives us time to do some playtesting and make any further tweaks long before the tourney begins.

There is no need to create a council for Enhanced. As always, all players are free to make suggestions on rule changes. I will be opening up a new thread specifically looking for any last minute rule changes players feel the need to be made. I am fairly happy with the Enhanced 2.1 Beta rules as is, but definitely would be open to some new ideas if they were appropriate. Basically nothing too radical or needlessly complex would be my main criteria.

Phase I would be basically just brainstorming for ideas. Phase II would be seeing how much general support there is for the most worthwhile ideas. Phase III will be analyzing and assessing the most appropriate ideas in detail for their inclusion in Enhanced 2.1 Final.

[Vollick1979]

Well apparently all it takes to get CJ back to the boards and posting 5 posts in a row is talk of a council for Enhanced. ;)

The only reason I've seen for not creating a council is the argument that CJ has led us well this far and listens to our suggestions so why change things? One reason is to make Enhanced better; another is to provide stability to the game. What caused CJ in the first place to start his own rules? Well I don't think it would be a stretch for me to say he was less than pleased with the OOTB and LHTR rules! (Would that be fair Joe?) Well what causes other people from creating their own version of Enhanced and plastering it all over the boards? If there is a council there to listen, examine and playtest suggested rules I fail to see how that could possibly be a bad thing. When there is only one person making the decisions, no matter how wise or just they are, that can really turn people off from wanting to suggest things. For example: Give suggestions for improvement and if someone tells you why it won't work but the reasons seem arbitrary that doesn't foster a positive environment.

Perhaps this is where some of the division is: CJ it seems you're trying to create a game that is accessible to tournament players, I want to see a game that is accessible to all players, both casual and tournament.

[axis_roll]

Perhaps this is where some of the division is: CJ it seems you're trying to create a game that is accessible to tournament players, I want to see a game that is accessible to all players, both casual and tournament.
What's the difference between a 'tournament' rule set and a casual one?

A tournament rule set is standard enough to have wide acceptance, and is generally backed by some sort of organizational effort (RE:LHTR). CJ is trying to get the latter in AAMC with a tournament to validate the playability of A&ARe 2.1.

Anybody and everybody can create a casual rule set (commonly called house rules). Individualistic ideas are more involved in casual rules versus tourney rules, for a variety of reasons.

Personally I like one person (if they're the right person) having the final say in what goes into the rules. Obviously this person has to be diplomatic or the rule set will never graduate from casual to tournament status.

While I appreciate your goal Vollick, I don't think it easily attainable. What your are seeking is a "majority rules" set of rules....

[Lt M Cotten]

So where is this going? Does this discussion mean that if CJ says "no" to the council idea that some sort of rebellion will begin? I can hardly see that as being good for either AARE or the A&A community.

Can you imagine the chaos that would surround AARE if the main supporters split? It seems that the whole endeavor will fail if we do not remain united. Do any of us really want this?

[axis_roll]

So where is this going?
Good question.

I think at this current point in time, CJs direction is to get a frozen rule set for the upcoming AAMC tournament. I agree with his goal.

Does this discussion mean that if CJ says "no" to the council idea that some sort of rebellion will begin? I can hardly see that as being good for either AARE or the A&A community.

Can you imagine the chaos that would surround AARE if the main supporters split? It seems that the whole endeavor will fail if we do not remain united. Do any of us really want this?
I doubt this would happen. If it did, that would really suck. Too many people realize that this rule set is too good to let factions destroy it. Although Vollick does have good intentions with his council idea, I think he's adding too much 'corporate structure' to the process.

Right now it's working well this way: We play, we find problems, we weigh pros and cons, we game test new rules... then either they're implemented or rejected. CJ gives a final stamp of approval.

I can not remember any rule changes that the collective thought were good for the game that CJ rejected. There maybe some that happened, I just can not remember that happening.

Why fix something when it's not broken?

[Lt M Cotten]

I think at this current point in time, CJs direction is to get a frozen rule set for the upcoming AAMC tournament. I agree with his goal.

Right now it's working well this way: We play, we find problems, we weigh pros and cons, we game test new rules... then either they're implemented or rejected. CJ gives a final stamp of approval.

I can not remember any rule changes that the collective thought were good for the game that CJ rejected. There maybe some that happened, I just can not remember that happening.

Why fix something when it's not broken?

I agree. Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way.

[AxisRoll]

Well I know I would stick with 1 ruleset. This way there would be more players to play.

a_r and I played with houserules for 10 yrs, they we the best for the old map. But they were so elaborate, there was our 5 player group that knew them. And that gets old to play the same guys.

Now with the internet. expanding to world play. That is the bomb. We have to keep unity. I will stay with CJ, and hope his rules continue to gain support. we are on the right track.

If we have good idea, they get added.

And remember 1 set of rules, will never please everyone.

Definition: Rules
An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.

[cousin_joe]

Well apparently all it takes to get CJ back to the boards and posting 5 posts in a row is talk of a council for Enhanced. ;)

The only reason I've seen for not creating a council is the argument that CJ has led us well this far and listens to our suggestions so why change things? One reason is to make Enhanced better; another is to provide stability to the game. What caused CJ in the first place to start his own rules? Well I don't think it would be a stretch for me to say he was less than pleased with the OOTB and LHTR rules! (Would that be fair Joe?) Well what causes other people from creating their own version of Enhanced and plastering it all over the boards? If there is a council there to listen, examine and playtest suggested rules I fail to see how that could possibly be a bad thing. When there is only one person making the decisions, no matter how wise or just they are, that can really turn people off from wanting to suggest things. For example: Give suggestions for improvement and if someone tells you why it won't work but the reasons seem arbitrary that doesn't foster a positive environment.

Perhaps this is where some of the division is: CJ it seems you're trying to create a game that is accessible to tournament players, I want to see a game that is accessible to all players, both casual and tournament.

AxisRoll, axis_roll, and Lt M Cotten make a lot of good points here. Vollick, check the forums, for any ideas previously rejected ideas I have for the most part explained why they were not implemented.

You are very correct that I am dissatisfied with both the out-of-the-box rules and the so-called Larry Harris "Tournament" Rules. These "Tournament" Rules are terrible, as optimal strategy is predetermined (KGF,Race to Moscow), purchases are mainly INF, with INF pushing being the primary tactic, thus resulting in boring stackfests, where the winner will be determined primarily by dice. Hardly the way I'd like to see a "Tournament" be decided :rolleyes:

So what is the goal here? The goal all along really, has been to create a ruleset that is ideally suited for tournament play. Compare the Enhanced 2.1 Beta version with LHTR and this becomes very obvious:

Reasons Why Enhanced 2.1 Beta is Superior to LHTR for Tournament Play

-There are more valid options for overall grand strategy (VC target, NA picks, etc)
-There are more valid options for purchases (all non-INF units more viable)
-There is more valid tactical maneuvering (due to revised NA/Tech)
-Games are more fun, with more difficult decisions to be made
-Games are faster paced, and dynamic rather than static. They also finish sooner.
-Games have a more climactic conclusion, typically decided on the last round
-Games are decided more on strategy rather than dice (MOST IMPORTANT)

This has always been the goal of Enhanced, and 2.1 has accomplished that. The key to success has been a unity of vision, one that would never be acheived with a council of several different-minded players, endlessly arguing and debating what the game should be about.

Now you speak of casual play. Casual to me would suggest more dice rolling, and leaving the game more up to chance. If you really want casual, then maybe it's best to stick with out-of-the-box, or possibly consider finishing your A&A with cards variant, where card draws introduce a lot more randomness. Personally, I would not want to pollute Enhanced with these ideas. With that said, a lot of the features that make a tournament game good, also make a casual game good. In just a regular FTF game, I'd rather see who outstrategizes who, rather than just who outrolls who.

Bottom Line: Enhanced has been primarily designed with Online Tournament Play in mind. This of course has lots of features desirable for casual play, but ultimately it's about coming up with a strategy-focused game, with built-in familiarity to the already established LHTR, and reasonable simplicity, suitable for Online Tournament Play.

[Stephen]

So what is the goal here? The goal all along really, has been to create a ruleset that is ideally suited for tournament play.
This could be where I, and anyone who thinks like me (not that there are those like me), may differ. I don't like tournament play, much preferring casual play. This may be an oversimplification, but it's often hard to reconcile the two goals of a) having fun and b) winning. I'd prefer to have fun first and win second. Tournaments move in the opposite direction... winning is most important. Sure, tournaments can be fun, and people who play tournaments can have fun. But winning is most important. I don't want to win; I want to have fun.

The key to success has been a unity of vision, one that would never be acheived with a council of several different-minded players, endlessly arguing and debating what the game should be about.
I agree that unity of vision has been the key to success, but would argue that this may not be the key to future success and changes. If AARe is adopted by online clubs for tournament play, they'll likely modify the game to suit their own interests (much the same way they modified AH to create LHTR). Sure, they'll give you the option to change it, but there's nothing to stop them from taking the rules, modifying them as they see fit and using them.
This is not to say that you will definitely lose single-handed control of AARe, but, as the game grows, more people will want to have a say in changing it. The pressure you're feeling here is likely to be repeated in online clubs.

Bottom Line: Enhanced has been primarily designed with Online Tournament Play in mind. This of course has lots of features desirable for casual play, but ultimately it's about coming up with a strategy-focused game, with built-in familiarity to the already established LHTR, and reasonable simplicity, suitable for Online Tournament Play.
I think designing AARe with this goal in mind has been good for the development of the game. Definitely AARe is the best set of rules for A&A I've played to date. It's also good that, as a casual player, I know that AARe has not been designed primarily with players like me in mind, and perhaps this helps explain situation where we (and others) don't see eye to eye.

Anyhow, in closing, careful scrutiny will show that, in my posts, I never advocated handing AARe over to a council who would decide all proposed changes by majority vote. I never thought that to be a positive step. I think you've done a great job and no matter what happens, I'll be watching the development of AARe very closely, and contributing when I can. :)

[pagan]

this whole thing about group structures are absurd to me.

CJs game = CJs game

-CJ makes all.
-CJ decides all.
-CJ does all.

nothing else applies.

[Vollick1979]

CJs game = CJs game

Well pagan, from you I would expect something a little more profound than a simple LS equals RS statement. ;)


-CJ makes all.
-CJ decides all.
-CJ does all.

nothing else applies.
CJ didn't create Enhanced in a vacuum, there were others that gave their opinions and advice. I know to you, your logic makes sense but to me it's just rehashing the old it's mine so I can do whatever I want with it! :(

[DocD]

The problem I have with the idea that AARe was designed mostly for tournament play is that the majority of people playing it, tweaking it to perfection, and contributing to its success aren't tournament players!!

What does that say? What does that mean?

[cousin_joe]

The problem I have with the idea that AARe was designed mostly for tournament play is that the majority of people playing it, tweaking it to perfection, and contributing to its success aren't tournament players!!

What does that say? What does that mean?

What it means is, you can use Tournament Rules for Casual Play, but you can't use Casual Rules for Tournament Play... Therefore, your best bet is to invest your time in creating Tournament Rules, so that EVERYONE can enjoy!!! :D

[pagan]

VOLLICK --> It is difficult to get something profound from something so simple to digest.

on a dies note: (pun intended) _ what kind of 'odd couple' team would we be if I was your partner against them AR boys.... constant bickering and argueing about meaningless tangents to the realities of situations...

DocD --> tournament play...so what. The differences should have sides so thin that they only have a single side. If the game is to exist into the future with a large number of players, it must be played in the PBEM Ladder Groups. So LHTR is what we got, and we will make the best game of a&a out of that. I'm ok with this. I also want to play good players with the same ruleset, that has lots of variation, without confusion , for many years to come. I also understand that the current rules are not the 'final rules'. This will take at least another year of game play to iron out the balance. I am confident, however, that there will not be a constant flux of changes which would inhibit the variant from being a good variant. Let me point out that as far a variants go, this is one has promise but it still has some critical failings as to balance. If this variant does not reach that player considered balance, then it will fade into history. I am not a promoter of this variant, but I am a playtester. Nothing more matters right now.

[cousin_joe]

on a dies note: (pun intended) _ what kind of 'odd couple' team would we be if I was your partner against them AR boys.... constant bickering and argueing about meaningless tangents to the realities of situations...


I would love to see that game... Probably the first time in the history of A&A we would see Germany attack Japan :D

[AxisRoll]

It's a True Marriage. :)

[Moderator Sinister]

The polls are locked at 9-9 can I cast the deciding vote?

[Stephen]

The polls are locked at 9-9 can I cast the deciding vote?
Sure you can vote but there is no such thing as a deciding vote for many reasons:

a) many have not voted yet, are still considering what their vote will be, or are waiting to see how others vote before voting.

and

b) those in favour of creating a council don't necessarily have the legitimacy to create a council based solely on polling results. This poll is more to gauge opinion than to authorize action.

[Moderator Sinister]

Sure you can vote but there is no such thing as a deciding vote for many reasons:

a) many have not voted yet, are still considering what their vote will be, or are waiting to see how others vote before voting.

and

b) those in favour of creating a council don't necessarily have the legitimacy to create a council based solely on polling results. This poll is more to gauge opinion than to authorize action.

Well then call me back when you want the final decision and legitmacy...LOL I'll save my vote till it's important!!!

My personal belief that the game should reside with CJ since he's the guy that did all the leg work and one person right or wrong is at least decisive unlike what the COUNCIL of RULES UNDERSTANDING DIVISON of ENHANCED otherwise know as C.R.U.D.E. would be. I could see deadlocks, filerbusting, etc...

And yes I am being funny.