Game Theory: Nonreactive Planning

[Doctor Amos]

Nonreactive planning is, at its basic level, building a strategy against the game, not the other player. Every choice you make in games comes in, essentially, two flavors: bringing you closer to winning, or keeping you from losing. Nonreactive planning focuses on simply moving towards victory while ignoring loss mitigation.

To simplify and give an example, "How do I beat Perdita?" is a reactive question. Perdita doesn't ask how to beat you, she simply does it. A Perdita strategy does what it does, and forces you to cope with it.

Building nonreactive forces focus on "asking questions" rather than "providing answers." If you ask many hard questions (typically, "can you deal with this?") your opponent is forced to provide a reaction or fail. However, if you have the wrong answers, or try to cover too much ground, your answers end up being either ineffectual or incapable of actually acheiving victory. If, however, you ask only one question very strongly, all your force is delivered to a single objective.

In general, then, the idea is this: Come up with a plan, and stick with it. Play to your strengths and don't worry about what the other guy is doing. You can't beat everyone, so focus on doing what you can and doing it well.

[Dumb Luck]

Sometimes though the opoonent will take something that prevents you from playing the way you do best. Gremlins work best ranked up, shooting. An Arcanist player comes along, dumps Kaeris on the board. I'd be a fool to stay close together with all those blasts coming my way.

[Doctor Amos]

That's a reactive strategy, not reactive planning. You still take gremlins with the intent of lining them up in a gunline. From setup to the last turn, the battlefield will dictate how your forces will be used. However, you don't plan on blasts.

[Cadilon]

I like the direction you're going. I think said another way, make the other guy dance to your tune, play to your strengths, and react to you.

However, is there some room for anticipation? You mentioned Perdita. Perdita out of the box has no way to deal with counters. If you know the opposing player is playing rezzers, wouldn't that affect who draft for your crew? For example, taking Guild Hounds and the Executioner?

I've been meaning to read Sun Tzu for years. Now might be a good time.

[Doctor Amos]

Let's talk about an Excecutioner for 'Dita. It's slow, it doesn't shoot, and it wants to be much, much closer than the rest of the family wants to be. The list would be stronger against more foes if it were replaced with something that shoots, or facilitates a shooting strategy. Against 1/5 of your enemies, you have no means of dealing with their replenishment other than shooting the fresh dead. Against nearly everyone, however, you have a more powerful and focused force.

It's not that you can never plan on some contigencies, of course, but it is a fundementally weaker way of thinking. Given two choices, you generally want one that plays to your strengths rather than hedging out weaknesses.

[Cadilon]

Well reasoned. You've given me much to think about.

[Ratty]

As Amos says Non-Reactive Planning it's about maximising your Bang, it's not about trying to consider what is being brought against you. However if you went for Von-Schill you could cover the counter issue without significantly reducing your ability to shoot.

[Buhallin]

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."

[Magno]

nonreactive planning is a luxury for crews that dictate most match-ups. You can't really have Nonreactive planning in a miniature game. Non-reactive planning is for game where its a multiple player solitaire game. Something like Race for the Galaxy, Twilight Imperium at the beginning of the game, some sets of Dominion, etc.. Games where there is little no interaction between players en route to achieving victory. Most Malifaux games, you're neck deep in interaction with other player's models or scenario/schemes by round two. Nonreactive planning in Malifaux is limited to creating the biggest most affective Combos and synergies you can, which is for the most part already lined up for us by the designers.

[Doctor Amos]

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face."

It doesn't mean you shouldn't plan, though. The rest is tactics.

And, I disagree with you Mango (not surprisingly). Another truth about wargaming is that you can't be preared for everything. No list can have an answer for every opponant. If you try, you take non-optimal choices, dead choices, and can end up disjointed and unable to complete objectives.

[Buhallin]

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face."

It doesn't mean you shouldn't plan, though. The rest is tactics.

Oh, I agree.

But trying to plan based on ignoring that punch to the face seems impractical to me. It makes for a nice theory, and certain crews can certain plan with a greater deal of independence than others, but overall I don't see a great deal of benefit from the practice.

[wrabbit37]

Malifaux seems based on a lot of reactive planning. You learn a lot of information about the game before you ever make your plan to play it. You know what the terrain is going to look like. You know what your opponent's faction is. You know what your strategy is. Given that information, you create your plan to win.

[Doctor Amos]

@buhallin: You take masters, strategies, et all that allow you to be nonreactive when you plan nonreactively. You have to take control of your own game.

@wrabbit: If you had unlimited acess to models and unlimited time to plan, yes. And Malifaux is much more reactive than, say, Magic or Warhammer. However, limiting facors of all kinds force you to narrow choices. Secondly, you have to decide how you want to answer enemy threats. You can either try to find a silver bullet, or to refine the tactics you already use. Taking VonSchill over the Excecutioner, for instance.

Always, however, you want to put the opponant on the defensive. You always want to have the intitative. You want to control the state of the battlefield and the flow of play. To paraphrase another quote, don't load up on silver bullets with a model's names on it, but instead make bombs labeled "occupant".

[Hookers]

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face."

It doesn't mean you shouldn't plan, though. The rest is tactics.

And, I disagree with you Mango (not surprisingly). Another truth about wargaming is that you can't be preared for everything. No list can have an answer for every opponant. If you try, you take non-optimal choices, dead choices, and can end up disjointed and unable to complete objectives.

you can when you build your list after you know your opponent.

[Odin1981]

I like the direction you're going. I think said another way, make the other guy dance to your tune, play to your strengths, and react to you.

However, is there some room for anticipation? You mentioned Perdita. Perdita out of the box has no way to deal with counters. If you know the opposing player is playing rezzers, wouldn't that affect who draft for your crew? For example, taking Guild Hounds and the Executioner?

I've been meaning to read Sun Tzu for years. Now might be a good time.

It is a very good book. There is a reason it is still read in modern day militaries. However I would advice having a dictionary around unless you are very good with archaic words around (it was written 2000+ years ago roughly) so it won't be something you are used to reading (where in modern day literature most things are spelled out verbatim for the reader to digest).

But it really is a very good book. Hell from what i've heard buisnesses sometimes even require their employess to read it. I would however recomend that if you can do not buy a abridged version. Try your best to get a complete version it might be a little tough to read (pov perspective and examples due to ancient times=modern times not so much) but it gives a good way of looking at things compared to the usual way most western based societies view things.

[Dark Alleycat]

Sun Tzu's book is not just about warfare. and that is a point alot of people miss when they read it. It approaches warfare,as they would approach most other things,building a philosophy.

And yes,I would agree that having a plan of action before the first model is placed on the board is key. Doing everything you can to control the tempo of the game is also key. But that is not something that can be done without reacting to the situation.

[wrabbit37]

@wrabbit: If you had unlimited acess to models and unlimited time to plan, yes. And Malifaux is much more reactive than, say, Magic or Warhammer. However, limiting facors of all kinds force you to narrow choices. Secondly, you have to decide how you want to answer enemy threats. You can either try to find a silver bullet, or to refine the tactics you already use. Taking VonSchill over the Excecutioner, for instance.

I don't really follow what you're saying here - how does a limit to time and models mean you should not react to the information you have before a game? Or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say? Can you give me examples of the limiting factors that would force me to narrow my choices and how I could react to them in a reactive vs. proactive way? I don't think I'm grasping the concept.

Are you essentially saying "make your strategy to achieve your objectives independent of what your opponent is playing"? So if I know I'm playing Shared Treasure Hunt, taking Zoraida so she can Obey you to hand me the treasure if you get it first is a reactive strategy while playing Collodi so I can make sure to get the treasure in hand first is a non-reactive strategy? Why not do both and make a plan to get the treasure (Collodi) and a contingency in case it fails (Zoraida)?

[Doctor Amos]

That is essentially what I'm saying. Plan to do what needs to be done (get the treasure, hold it) and do it to the best of your ability. Don't worry about how the opponant is going to get it. Having contigencies based on your known strengths (and weaknesses) isn't bad, either, because they apply against all or most enemies you face. They are your strengths and weaknesses. But, with the Z example above, you wouldn't take a different master and a different plan if your opponent went with Perdita (or some other "immune to Wp" master), you would simply adapt your existing plan to compensate, preferably in your tactical stage.

And "Art of War" concerns mostly on fighting in asymetrical warfare, and how to take command of the flow of battle. Nonreactive planning, making your enemy fight on your terms, is a large part of that

[wrabbit37]

So how do you do reactive planning if you don't know what your opponent is taking? It seems like if you don't know your opponent's list, you can't be reacting to what's in it when you make yours, so there is no reactive planning.

edited to add: Not trying to be confrontational or anything - just trying to understand the concept you're getting at.

[Doctor Amos]

Reactive planning (which I have a file written up for, somewhere, maybe I'll post it) is essentially fighting defensively. You plan on taking apart the enemy by remove pieces until they can no longer win. Essentially, planning to win by way of not losing.

[Magno]

And, I disagree with you Mango (not surprisingly). Another truth about wargaming is that you can't be preared for everything. No list can have an answer for every opponant. If you try, you take non-optimal choices, dead choices, and can end up disjointed and unable to complete objectives.

You disagree with me, Why? You don't like logic?

So, lets go through all this effort of planning, because its the best thing to do, knowing that you're probably making those very non-optimal choices.

You toute the importance of nonreactive planning, then talk about you can't be prepared for everything. If no list can be prepared for every opponent (especially true in Malifaux); then throw out the nonreactive planning garbage and sharpen your reactive planning, strats and abilities. Your other arguements lead to this notion, "Nonreactively plan to be reactive."

"Force people to play to your strengths."

Ok, what happens when their strength mulligans your strength? Now that, I'm forced to be reactive, I'm now playing to loose because of my planning or because the construct and design of the game just set-it up that way?

However, you don't plan on blasts.

But what if he does plan on seeing blasts and still brings the same list. Is that nonreactive planning?

Your first post says nonreactive planning is against the game itself, not the player. So what is the "game" then if you take the opponent out of it? The scenarios? The schemes? Most of which concern an opponent.

I'm confused here.

Without an opposing player, scenario and schemes concerning players and schemes, what can you plan for?

Hand size? # of soulstones? Number of models? How fast you want to be? Wait, fast why? Why do you need to be fast? To outmanouvre someone? Wait that's involving a player. To get to a interactive scenario element by turn two? Ok, stuff like that. But your expounding nonreactive planning to deal with opposing players.

It's not that you can never plan on some contigencies, of course, but it is a fundementally weaker way of thinking. Given two choices, you generally want one that plays to your strengths rather than hedging out weaknesses.

This is a poor example for your argument. I'm sure there are better ones for you to draw.

So, overspecialization = strength? Your nonreactive planning has just pigeon-holed you into a problem that you will be forced to play defensively if you encounter an enemy that can avoid being shot and get in your face quickly.

Wait, didn't you say that being reactive is being defensive and playing not to loose?

It's mind boggling to follow your logic. Nonreactive planning is what we should be doing over an ability to be reactive such that we are giving ourselves and advantage, yet that same planning can and will place us at disadvantages in many instances.

Create a strategy that is a maximum balance of two things; playing to your strengths and affording yourself the ability to react to those things will become your weakness. Its attempting a maxima-minima problem in mathematics without concrete or descritized parameters and its what makes human-constructed games a joy and challenge to wrestle.

Its like the difference between "Euor-boardgames" and "Ameritrash" games.

Euro-games are challenges against the game itself, games where the layout/setup varies little from game to game, where your nonreactive planning is at its strongest.

"Ameritrash": ala Malifaux: the game is more about dealing with probabilities, another player, and massive amounts of asymetries. Here, reactive planning and strategies are better suited, because it would have been nice if you brought that particular list for this particular match-up, but if you didn't know, then reactions and flexability serve you much better.

Having the Executioner in a Perdita list may sacrifice a little of the synergistic shooting (via Companion: Family for an "alpha strike"), but it gains you a tremendous more in defensive and deterent ability against CC troops, objectives, etc.. Because, having the executioner lurking about and making other folks think twice about cavalier bum rushes to Family models and/or objectives is playing not to loose I forgot.

Having a ton of un-used "defensive" Nuclear weapons a massive standing mechanized army really served us well when terrorism became the global warfare. All that planning of our military was against an idealized symetric enemy state. We tried forcing terrorists to play by our strengths and rules, and it didn't work. We had to react, change our strategy and our "planning".

The main point I'm addressing to your OP, is that non-reactive planning isn't worth the energy in an asymetric, highly dynamic game like Malifaux (or most any other miniature game), that relies on probability, and human psychology.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Magno

[Justin]

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."

I prefer, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face." -Mike Tyson

[Justin]

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face."

It doesn't mean you shouldn't plan, though. The rest is tactics.

And, I disagree with you Mango (not surprisingly). Another truth about wargaming is that you can't be preared for everything. No list can have an answer for every opponant. If you try, you take non-optimal choices, dead choices, and can end up disjointed and unable to complete objectives.

Oh, man, really?

Later the same page.

Damn.

[Ratty]

More or less what Amos is saying is choose your list for it's advantages and don't dilute it by swapping in models to react to the enemy.

Which on the surface feels wrong.. but I don't think it is.

Over the years I've seen that a balanced list will lose almost always to a focused list. A focused list is only going to be an almost gaurenteed loss to a list which is it's Anathama, against another focused list it's down to the player. That means if you want the best win ratio a focused list is the way to go.

In Malifaux you choose your list after Strategy... So you can react to a certain extent. However each faction is wide enough in abilities you really can't guarantee what you going to face. So you choose the best Master for the strategy and then make the most focused list possible with that Master, don't second guess the opponent and dilute your force on an off chance he is going to choose something, otherwise your going to end up with models that are redundant or sub-par. It doesn't say don't put in a model to counter attack if the enemy gets to your gunline or a model to get you to the enemy if your melee. But don't put in a model to deal with counters if you only have a 25% chance of playing Ramos, unless that model also plays well with your initial plan and the anti-counter thing is just a bonus.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Ratty

[Magno]

In Malifaux you choose your list after Strategy... So you can react to a certain extent

AHAHAAH! Dam, I never noticed that in the second book.

I guess I developed a stark habit from book one and most other gaming groups that folks usually always already had a crew ready to go, then flip the strategy.

This does indeed place more weight on "nonreactive" planning since you now have foreknowledge of what you're trying to achieve, hence you can develop a plan beyond simply exploiting game imbalances.

Ach-so, the OP carries a little more merit.

Nonetheless, a focused list is still nothing more than playing the averages, exploiting imbalances against current crews for the most part.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Magno