Are you a good or bad (tabletop) general?

[ochoin]

After the recent spate of defeats I was musing on my poor performance as a tabletop general.

I'm reasonably cognisant with tactical theory. It comes down to two things., I think, but knowledge doesn't help.

Firstly, I'm not ruthless enough. I can't help but try to limit losses of my plastic & metal warriors. And, to a degree, I'm sympathetic to my opponents when they're on the ropes & tend to ease off a bit.

Secondly, I don't press my attacks enough. Napoleon said something memorable about time that I can't remember....something about don't waste it. I like to have all my ducks in a row before I launch an attack & often find, by the time I'm ready, I've already been beaten.

I'm at my best with dogged defence but scenarios don't always allow this.

I should add that there is no note of despair & distaste in my musings. Win or lose a game is a wonderful thing. I have developed quite a bit of sympathy for the many mediocre generals of history. France's SYW general Soubise, is a favourite. He, like me, could win occasionally but mostly he frittered his chances away.....whilst looking magnificent while he did it.

donald

[grizzlymc]

Sadly, I rarely get accused of looking magnificent.

I am no tabletop Wellesley. On a good day I can be good enough to win the game; on a bad one, I have had humiliating defeats of the sort that bring you governorship of a yellow fevered isle. If I am good at anything it is seizing the opportunity to counter attack in defence. When this works, you can rout a careless larger enemy; when it doesn't, the Caribbean paradise awaits.

In my dim and distant yoof I was quite competitive, these days I am more interested in the nature of the problem than who wins.

And I watch the fate of my little men with dry eyes. Someone has to pay the butcher's bill for my glory.

[FreddBloggs]

Ruthlessness comes with a price, but one dead now, saves 10 later in war. A high butchers bill but a decisive victory, is likely to have a much lower casualty count than 3 or 4 indecisive ones or only minor victories in total.

I am an ok general, dogged in defence but prone to dice induced depression!

[Penda]

I am bang average, perhaps just edging the wins over the year. This month I've lost 3 out of 5 face to face games.

[Slugbalancer]

I'm good at defence but utterly reckless in attack unless I'm doing my monty thing.

[valleyboy]

These days I'm always on the winning side .........



Err and I'm always on the losing side
s'Cos I only play solo these days Sniff.....

[Jeremy]

I think I probably win slightly more games than I lose. So probably average.

[Etranger]

I take after Napoleon, unfortunately Napoleon the Third.

[grizzlymc]

These days I'm always on the winning side .........



Err and I'm always on the losing side
s'Cos I only play solo these days Sniff.....

I gather your opponent cheats like buggery. Can't you teach a kiwi to play with toy soldiers.

[BaronVonWreckedoften]

I take after Napoleon, unfortunately Napoleon the Third.

I was going to use the same line, but invoking the pig from Animal Farm.

Like Donald, I'm perfectly cogniscant with the theory, it's the feckin' dice that screw me over.