Player types: Statisticians vs. Dramatists

[JayVissers]

When I play A&A, I don't see pieces on a board. My mind's eye flashes to scenes of history being rewritten. I envision torpedo planes streaking in towards a carrier, T-34s and Panzers charging with guns blazing at Kursk, or searchlight crews and gunners trying to bring down invading fleets of bombers overhead. I have trouble playing against people who see this inherent drama and color reduced to terms of "Hmm, X number of defending tanks equals X die rolls, with an average result of Y per die roll. I have Z pieces, and should lose AA number of them in BB turns", especially when they're saying this out loud during a game. I'm watching the movie "Midway", while they're doing the SAT's. Now I realize that these players are having fun in their own way, and don't want to belittle or criticize them. I just don't particularly want to play against them. Which brings me to the core of this posting: Is there some way that players could categorize themselves as to their styles of preferred play, and that those with similar style preferences could be matched up for tournaments at such venues at Gencon? I'd also be very interested in hearing from other players on how they view the game through their mind's eye as they're playing. After all, I know how I think. Now I want to hear from all of you...

[Der Panzinator]

I'm a visualist. :D

Yep. Pictures of tanks rolling across Russian plains with guns ablazing...
Fleets of warships firing cannons at point blank range....
Stuka dive bombers terrorizing their hapless victims...

We also have a lot of insider sayings that have developed over the years and we recieve a lot of pleasure from taunting our fellow players with historical anecdotes.

All part of the game that makes playing so much fun! :D

[Rogue Warrior]

Statistician here!

2 Inf, 2 Arm to EEU, def by 1 Inf, Odds 24:1, yup sounds good, let er' roll!

[Chuckster]

Can't you be both? I clearly fall into the statistician side of things (or, more accurately, "probabilitist," if that's a word). But at the same time, I visualize the battles, and imagine the amusing situation when, say, Japan surprise-attacks Africa.

[Drax Kramer]

If you know your history, it's better to be a statistician when you play A&A, otherwise, trying to visualise fighters incapable of shooting each other because both players pick infantry as casualties might spoil someone's fun.

You mentioned Midway, well guess what did Yamamoto order when his carriers were sunk? He ordered his battleships to retreat knowing that they were incapable of inflicting any kind of damage to carriers unless carriers stumble into the ambush.

In A&A, you can't do Midway since Japan doesn't even need to bring its carriers into the embattled zone and Japanese battleships can overwhelm US carrier fleet in no time.

No, I'd rather be a statistician and see A&A combat as what it really is, an exercise in applied statistics.

Drax

[onslaught]

I think I'm in both groups. While I'm watching my T-34's dodging stukas and fighting panthers, spilling thier blood for mother Russia, I still feel I owe my troops the respect of figuring out the odds to insure the next letter I have to write to thier mothers and wives was worth thier ultimate sacrafice to preserve the motherland.....LOL : )

[elbowmaster]

good one !! both here as well...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[DY]

Players who let emotions guide their strategies will lose with a probabilty of 0.93875 to a player who is guided by probabilty and game theory (me).

[solitaire77]

Both... depending on the battle as well. I tend to picture the heroic battles, and calculate through the large and predictable slogs.

[GrafZeppelin]

Maybe I watched too much "Sliders" or something -- but I relish "alternative histories" -- like Japanese taking Karelia, German carrier, Germans into India, big fights over West Russia, and other things that seem just plain illogical, or at least highly unlikely, historically speaking.....

[ecliptic]

Jeez go watch the history channel.