thanks matt, we'll be sure to get you on the list. check back in here regularly tho, to keep apace of the games. and check out the 4 games going right now - ask questions, add observations, and see how the games already being played may help you =)

@babak - my name is one character longer than yours. i don't call you "ba" or "bab" - djbent is not sohard to type out. if you must shorten it, make it "bent" - dj is simply a title (like ms. dr. senora, etc) which stands for "one who plays music" as dr stands for "one who charges you lots of money to rush through a 30 minute appointment"

;D

I would like to signup. It is a pity I missed the last one.

Would like to sign up at some point, but don't have the points right now.

'dr stands for "one who charges you lots of money to rush through a 30 minute appointment"'

ROFL

Don't forget Lawyers. Convicts must really hate them. They were charged thousands of dollars to be thrown in jail.

@djbent - LOL... loved it ;P I do try to shorthand the most nonsensical things sometimes... i spelled out 'laurenceofarabia' just two comments later hahaha...

for SoW 5 - we have a few considerations - do we want to have so many games going at once? will it get out of hand? or can we keep this growing. my sense is that if we have enough dedicated Vets, it could be done... but we really need to make sure we have 2-3 vets commenting and 2 vets in each game before we start... I think we can pull that off.

for now - here is the rookie list as of now:

1- MattBreuer
2- yeehaws
3- sineWAVE42


meanwhile - we also need a vet to help out with SoW 2. we need a 2nd commenter in that game ASAP - so we'd really like someone to commit to doing that please. thanks.

=D

i think we should wait on SoW V - b/c of the vet shortage. we need to get all our ducks in a row first. and there are the complaints about knocking off those really important forum threads... lol

but for real, i think maybe 4 is good for a little bit? i'm going to talk to ghost about getting access to the blog, then we can put more stuff over there, including the basic info of "admissions building" and refer people there to submit interest, etc.

bump.

also - a question for all the commenters... should we or should we not be making specific tactical move recommendations or predictions? this is an issue i'm debating myself... on the one hand, as vets we may have insights into specific moves that the new players would not see and thus be teaching them more effectively. on the other hand, I fear that it would be too intrusive in he game for the peanut gallery to be so intimately involved in giving such specific move ideas to the players...

what do you all think?

Babak

having been is SoW games on FB, I think *specific* tactical advice is too intrusive, but pointing out a better move afterwards probably helps. The *strategic* comments on moves (I found) made me think about *tactics* more. I think it also impacts on your diplomacy, as you're being observed, so you don't want to completely make a fool of yourself.

Perhaps an idea is (if commentators want to) would be for them to email predictions, and then reveal them after the fact (with the caveat that if a 'front' has bounced/held, a successful plan is not disseminated)

I don't necessarily agree - while it is true that you often gain more experience from losing than from winning, as long as you're pointing out *why* a set of tactics may be wise I don't see a reason not to do so - especially if you offer a menu of choices instead of just a set of moves.

stratagos - it's not about winning/loosing perse, but more about making sure that the commentary doesn't overly influence the game. I think it's OK to say something around the *general* defence or attack in a given area, but to point out specific moves (A Switz-Moon, A Siberia S A Switz-Moon) is probably taking it too far

In another game I would agree, but the whole point of this series is to teach....

Two things:

1)Number of games
I think we already have too many. The forum threads are already borderline annoying to the rest of the community who isn't participating and we don't want to alienate them. Secondly, what makes the games great is lots of people participating in the commentary thread. SoW2 already only has one person commenting whereas SoW1 has had 6 or 7 people comment, SoW3 has at least 2, and SoW4 has had two or three people commenting. I feel kinda bad for the rookies in SoW2. Stratagos has done a great job, but I feel like the rookies in my game aren't getting the feedback that they need to improve.

2)Specific Moves
The point of this is to teach people how to play, right? Well, mastery of tactics is a HUGE part of the game and is often overlooked in my opinion. There are many moves (especially when you want to defend a territory) that are overlooked by rookies. I think that it is ok to discuss specific options that a player has, but it is definitely not ok to say what a player SHOULD do. In thinking through my own comments I have probably violated that principle once or twice. I think it is ok to phrase things like this, "If I were player X I would be worried about that alliance and I'd probably try to protect this territory. Here are some possible ways it could be protected..." Something like that doesn't cross the line. This does however, "Russia you need to move Sev-Bla, Bul-Con, GoB-Swe, and StP-Nor."

I want to clarify - I think it's ok to point out a weakness and to suggest that a player should protect that weakness. I don't think you should tell players exactly what to do. It's a bit too much like playing for them instead of acting like a tutor.

if we decide to go with stratagos' perspective, i would think we'd need to be sure that commentators then are equitable with their suggestions - when they say specifics, say them for all or most of the powers, and not just for the rookies/less experienced players. and that would become burdensome, i think, which is why i would lean more towards forgoing the whole specific moves thing. but i don't feel strongly one way or the other.

i completely agree with jacob that we already have too many games for the same reasons. so let's hold off on #5 for a bit.

BORDERLINE annoying?........

Oh, my side.

That was for Jacob's 7:45 PM post.

maple - for once we agree =)

however, the issue isn't so much the school of war as it is our forums - they simply aren't conducive to what we are trying to accomplish here.

Oh, we've agreed more than once. I don't reveal it because it would damage my crusty reputation.

SOW is fine, if run with pure(lol) intentions. If it's an excuse to smoke out unsuspecting newbs for a turkey shoot, then it's less than fine.

mapleleaf - i've been involved is SoW since it's facebook inception. The honest intent was and is to try and improve the play on the app, and to try and help new players, and mid ranking players play in way that helps them learn, and encourages commitment.

It's helped me a lot, and I'm glad to see it here. I can understand how people who don't want to take part find the threads annoying, but there doesn't seem to be a better option.

"If it's an excuse to smoke out unsuspecting newbs for a turkey shoot, then it's less than fine."

He's found us out! The games are so low pot, and I think for many veterans, anything short of a straight solo win damages their ghost rating, so there's not much motivation to join these games as a vet except to better the hobby.

I for one have really been enjoying reading the expert commentary on these games and also am enjoying the game I'm in (getting feedback on my moves and suggestions from experts).

I think I stand to learn a lot, and the SoW game I'm in is satisfying as there is a lot more diplomacy then in a usual low level game I would normally play.

I also hope there won't be any CDs since everyone is keen to play and learn/teach.

I especially hope to learn a lot more in the mid and late game and getting different points of view. I've been posting little bits here and there on the threads hoping to get some discussion going and I'd love to see others do the same.

I also don't see too much problem pointing out specific moves (since it is a big part of the game). The players don't have to take the advice. It should all be treated as suggestions since the commentators aren't privy to the press.

I think we probably have enough games for now. 3 or 4 is heaps.

I also can't see how 5 threads on the forum can be that annoying, considering some of the threads on here! I mean I do enjoy reading those diplomat1824 posts! After all, you don't have to open the thread! It's only 5 threads out of 50! They are Diplomacy related.

Lastly, I found these articles (probably linked to before) invaluable when I started playing:

http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/resources/strategy.htm

I read those articles when I was first getting into the game. It's interesting to go back and read them now that I have a bunch of games under my belt. I don't always agree with them now =)

bump

hmm... good discussion...

I think I'm leaning towards the Jacob view on commenting on tactical moves... no "you SHOULD do this/that"... more along the lines of "to defend Mun, here are a couple of sets of options"

on # of games - agreed. 4 is plenty. we'll hold off. in fact if any rookies want to play in game 5 when it starts... you HAVE to post and ask questions in the other games. we want to see you participating and learning like texas has been doing... thats what this is all about... even feel free to add your own take and see how the commenters would rate your analysis of the situation...

I've really enjoyed this SoW experience so far - it has been fulfilling to see the players in my game appreciate the level of diplomacy and to ask specific questions... like Chris said - the goal here is quite altruistic (and yes, we dip players are capable of that motive)

i think we could move all this over to the blog soon, and then go back and re-post something on SoW when we are close to starting a new game... ??

but we can keep it alive for now