Through The Ages-Part II-Rules of Analysis and Flow of a Game

Here are some of the basic rules I'm adopting for analysis of TtA:

• Number Players: 4
• Expansions: None (base game only)
• Number of Rounds in Game: 20
• Age A  = 1
• Age I   = 7
• Age II  = 6
• Age III = 4

Recognition of Pearl Harbor Day

Every Pearl Harbor Day I go out and find an American Flag regardless of where I'm at and spend a few minutes reflecting on the impact and sacrifices of Dec 7th, 1941.  Five minutes of my time is little enough to ask to remember those that died that day, and during WWII.  In Florida, I used to go out front of the Office Depot and spend some time gazing at the flag waving from the flag pole.  In the Longmont, CO Office I would walk several blocks to the Police station.  Today was not as auspicious.  It was in just in my garage, but it is a tradition I remembered.

Does anyone out there do anything special for Pearl Harbor Day, or is just me?

Lastly, a friend of mine sent me an article on the submarine forces during WWII, which I share with you now: Submariners at Pearl Harbor.

Through The Ages- Part I - Overview

 This will begin the analysis of Through The Ages (TtA), a board game by Vlaada Chvátil.  In general, I like Vlaada's work, it is original and funny.  Most of his games are relatively short, have "two distinct parts" (Planning and Resolution), and require quick thinking or on the spot decisions.

TtA is nothing like those games.
Theme
Through the Ages is a civilization building game.  Players manage their nation's economies to discover technologies, construct buildings, discover new lands, and manage military conquests.  Most of this is done abstractly, but no less clearly.  Up to 4 players may play a game of TtA, but a face-to-face game can take upwards of 3 to 6 hours, depending on the number of players and the degree of Analysis Paralysis.  This makes playing TtA an all day affair.

Fortunately, the people of boardgaming online have created an electronic Play By Email (PBEM) version of the game which also alleviates all the "accounting work".  This leaves the players with the strategic decision making and the low level details to the computer.
Two Types of Boards
Common (Scoring) Board
The first board is essentially a tracking and scoring board combined.  It contains all the players current important information in a glance.  This board measures the following for each player: Culture, Culture gained per turn (Culture Rating), Science, Science gained per turn (Science Rating), and Military Strength.

This board also holds the Civil cards in a "Card Row".  Players may select a card from this row by using one, two, or three of their actions, depending on the card's position in the card row.

Military Cards are placed in a pile and are drawn randomly.  Some military cards are "Events", and these can be seeded into the "Future Events" pile.  When an Event card is placed in the Future Events, the top event of the "Current Events" pile is drawn and resolved.  If there are no "Current Events", the Future Events are shuffled and become the "Current Events".

Player Board
Every player also receives a Player Board.  The Player Board contains the cards in play in an organized fashion.  Unfortunately, the Player Board cannot hold all the cards in play, so some cards will "Leak over" onto the table.  The important aspects are there, however.  From here, the player manages their workers, resources, and other important aspects of their civilization.
General Concept
Each player receives a number of Civil Actions (CA) and Military Actions (MA).  These two types of actions are spent on different things:

Military Actions	Civil Actions
Build Military Units (troops)	Increase Population
Declare Wars	Assign Worker
Declare Aggressions	Learn Technologies
Draw Military Cards into hand	Retrieve card from Card Row
Controls Military Card Discards	Build Wonders

At the end of the turn, the civilization generates the resources in the following order:

• Happiness - Every population added to potential worker pool increase unrest.  If there is every more Unrest than unassigned workers, the player generates no other items.  To offset unrest, the player's buildings generate "Happy faces".  Every Temple and Theatre generates happiness.
• Food - Equal to the number of workers assigned to Farms minus any consumption (population eats some food).  This comes from the blue "Resource" tokens in the player's bank.
• Production (ore) - Ore is added to the player's Mines for each worker assigned to a Mine minus any "Corruption".  These also use the blue Resource tokens, just like the Food.  Corruption occurs if the player uses too many Resource tokens.
• Science - Generates science equal to the player's science rating.  Basically, any worker on a Lab or a Library generates Science.
• Culture - Generates culture equal to the player's Culture Rating.  Basically, every worker on a Library, Theatre, or Temple card generates Culture.

Combat Resolution

Combat in TtA is geared towards the defensive player, but will differ slightly depending on the type of conflict: War or Aggression.

Military Units

Every military unit generates a "Strength".  Additionally, combining military units in particular combinations may increase this strength if the player has a Tactics card in play.

During War and Aggression, a player may sacrifice (return the Military Unit's worker) to the player's Yellow Bank.  This unit will then generate an additional amount of "Strength" equal to its value.  If units are spent in combinations of the same type as the Tactics card, then the Tactics cards strength is also added second time.

When players declare any "sacrifices", the Attacking player declares sacrifices first.  Then the Defender.  This gives the Defense an edge in knowing what the other player is going to commit.

The standing Military Strength is capped at 60.  Players may sacrifice units to increase this beyond 60, however.

War

A war is resolved on the turn AFTER it is declared as the first part of the Attacker's turn, before all other actions.  In Wars, the player with the Highest total wins the war.  Thus, with Wars the attacker and defender are at risk.

Wars have wide ranging and devastating effects depending on the War card played.  Some may steal culture, Steal the other player's Yellow Tokens from the Population Bank, Destroy buildings, Take resources, etc.

Wars are not available until Age II.

Aggression

Similar to Wars with three important differences.

1. Aggression cards resolve immediately when played.
2. The Attacker, even if he loses, does not suffer the consequences of the card
3. The Defender may play Defense cards to "boost" the player's strength and prevent the Aggression.

More Information

For more information, it is recommended to read the rules.  The next article will delve into the beginning of strategy analysis. 

Upcoming - Specific Game Strategy Discussions

Game Specific Strategies/Tactics Coming 
In the coming weeks I will begin discussing various strategies, or analysis, of specific games.  The objective is to provide guidance about particular aspects of games.   I often feel there are few "best ways to win" in a well designed game, but I'm looking to put my thoughts on electronic paper and back them up with objective analysis.

Site Changes
I am also trying to determine a way to collect these articles into a "forum" which people could comment on.  I plan to post them to both this blog, and to the forum.  I haven't found one I'm happy with yet, so let me know if you are aware of a good forum service and I'll check it out.

Initial Games

The first game I plan on analyzing is:  Through the Ages.  I've played quite a bit of in the past few months and there is more than enough meat to chew on for quite some time.

Other Suggestions
I'm also looking to get suggestions on what game(s) to analyze after Through the Ages.  Any ideas?  If there is one you would like to see, please either send me an email or leave a note in the comments.  It does take some time to properly analyze a game, and it takes repeated plays (especially if it is a really deep game).  As such, I may create a list of games people suggest and have players vote on the next game I should analyze.

Doctrine vs Strategy

Doctrine, Strategy and Tactics all differ slightly.  Strategy defines the objectives needed to achieve success.  Tactics describes how those objectives will be taken.  But dictating over both is Doctrine.  Doctrine is a military concept, but also one which can be applied to players when playing a game.
Doctrine
Doctrine is something which is taught, and it becomes and these teachings become an ingrained belief.  Often armchair generals talk about "why didn't xxxx use yyyy when it was obvious zzzz wasn't going to work?"  The reason: Doctrine.

Doctrine forms the basis of military thinking around how the next war will be fought.  As such, it determines what military engagements "should be like" in the next war.  Nations then build units around this "should be" doctrine.  This enters into a self-fulfilling prophesy, however.  As the units are designed for a specific type of war, then the next war is fought using the tactics which best fight that type of war.  Thus, in most cases, Doctrine is "correct" not because it is "valid", but because the units are designed to operate in that way under the best conditions.

Changing Doctrine
Doctrine can change, albeit usually under duress.   It would be great to say Doctrine changes before it is required, but often this is not the case.  Doctrine changes primarily when:

• Technology makes it obsolete,
• Terrain makes it impossible, 
• Necessity demands it.

In the American Civil War (ACW) tactics were driven by the Doctrine taught at West Point, which were a product of Napoleonic wars.  In true Napoleonic style, this meant the three arms of the army (Infantry, cavalry, and Artillery) working together in coordinated unison.  However, in the United States the terrain prevented much of that required coordination.  Technology changed such that artillery was deadly at long range, disrupting the ability to hold formations together.  During the ACW, the defensive was so much stronger than offensive, the South eventually developed "Trench Warfare".  This confirmed what the British learned during the New Zealand Wars (aka: Maori Wars), fighting behind fortifications in long lines would cause greater damage to an attacker than the defender.  Unfortunately, this lesson was essentially ignored by the military of all nations until World War I established trench warfare as the new doctrine until the development of aircraft as the decisive weapon of war.

Necessity also demands changes.  Nearly all navies of the world subscribed to the "Decisive Battle Doctrine", where a great naval battle of both sides duke it out and the war is then decided.  At the center of this naval doctrine was the battleship.  With the destruction of the American battleships in the Pacific in 1941, the US was forced to change its doctrine.  The US fleet could not take on the Japanese fleet in a decisive battle.  Instead, the US adopted a "Commerce Raiding" doctrine.  American fleets avoided large scale battles with the enemy where possible, instead focusing on destroying critical enemy ships at given times, and then retreating to conserve ships.  Only after achieving production superiority did US ships engage in fleet battles, and even those were initiated by the Japanese.

Doctrine In Games
A major difficulty for designers becomes the recreation of "period" doctrines.  In many ways it is simpler to simulate units at the operational level, where the distinction between types of units becomes blurred and all that matters are armies.  At lower levels, it becomes more difficult as the differences between the types of units: artillery, infantry and cavalry, become more distinct.  Unfortunately, it is tempting to use 'Napoleonic cavarly' with a "german Blitzkrieg", a way in which cavalry were not used.  Some systems attempt to prevent this in the rules, but this can quickly create a large rules set with many exceptions.  
Doctrine Of a Player
Players also adopt a play style which can become their "Doctrine".  I know of a player who prefers the idea of "bigger is better".  Regardless of the game, the player will always build the unit with the biggest guns, despite the evidence there are more cost effective units out there.  The result is the player becomes predictable and easier to counter.
Know Your Doctrine
Knowing your style of play becomes critical to understanding your strategic and tactical blind spots.  Oftentimes I will try a new strategy not out of boredom, but to see what I can learn about my play style.  This challenges me to try to work outside what I'm familiar with and learn how others counter it.  I like to think it makes me a better player in the long run, it certainly doesn't add to my Win-Loss rate in the short term, but it keeps my opponent's from knowing what I will do next.  And, every once in a while, I combine elements to form a new strategy which throws everyone off kilter, and makes the game fun.

Sources:
Carl Boyd, "The Japanese Submarine Force and the Legacy of Strategic and Operational Doctrine Developed Between the World Wars", in Larry Addington ed.Selected Papers from the Citadel Conference on War and Diplomacy: 1978(Charleston, 1979) 27–40; Clark G. Reynolds, Command of the Sea: The History and Strategy of Maritime Empires (1974) 512.


The Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee (February 1947), Transcribed and formatted for HTML by Larry Jewell & Patrick Clancey, ed., HyperWar: Japanese Naval and Merchant Shipping Losses During World War II Japanese Naval and Merchant Shipping Losses During World War II by All Causes NAVEXOS P-468, Hyperwar project ed. Patrick Clancey


"Japanese Naval and Merchant Vessels Sunk During World War II By All U.S. Submarines". Valoratsea.com. Retrieved 2010-10-31.


 "Creating military power: the sources of military effectiveness". Risa Brooks, Elizabeth A. Stanley (2007). Stanford University Press. p.41. ISBN 0804753997


Joseph H. Alexander, Closing In: Marines in the Seizure of Iwo Jima (1994) a short Marine Corps history


Schenker, Carl R., Jr. "Ulysses in His Tent: Halleck, Grant, Sherman, and 'The Turning Point of the War'". Civil War History (June 2010), vol. 56, no. 2, p. 175.


Simpson, Brooks D. "After Shiloh: Grant, Sherman, and Survival". The Shiloh Campaign. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2009.


Steere, Edward. The Wilderness Campaign. Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Co., 1960.