Ah that makes sense.
1 Like
Questionable might be underselling it, to be honest. Both sides were capable of atrocities; the Nazis just did it more.
1 Like
I would argue that the difference between sometimes executing POWs and actual genocide of millions is a bit larger than “the nazis did more”.
1 Like
I’m aware of that. That said, when I said questionable, this was in regards to the examples that Allen said per his post that I quoted. Terrible examples on cruelty of war, but unless he does otherwise, I don’t imagine him setting up atrocities to the extent done by Nazis, Soviets, Japanese, etc… for the MC and his tank crew in this WiP.
1 Like
Please keep the focus on the WiP – this is not the place to debate the atrocities of WW2.
8 Likes
I’m with MIGSey. Thus far the only real dilemma has been whether or not to cannibalize a busted tank, pretty easy decision. What about lying in a report to look better (or make someone look worse)? What about a member of your tank crew committing a crime and knowing that if you report him, you’ll lose him?
Basically, the moral dilemmas don’t have to be about how you win the war.
4 Likes
@Eiwynn - As said, yeah, we’re not delving into a debate about atrocities in WW2. There’s not enough time and bandwidth to… yeah, we’re not.
Let’s go over the moral issues faced thus far. We’ll track these and they’ll get nastier as the fighting intensifies.
-
Shooting French troops as they retreat. Not a big one. They’re armed and have been shooting at Americans, but still, killing isn’t a normal act for most people and until this point the American forces were almost entirely unbloodied in Europe.
-
Cowardice in battle, laying back during the fight at the Fire Control Tower. You don’t have to risk anything, though doing so pisses off a colonel. “But this was an infantry fight…”
-
Post battle scavenging from a friendly tank. “Someone else would just take it…”
-
Taking souvenirs and more from the French Fire Control tower. “Hey, everybody does it, right?”
-
Gunning down enemy tankers after they bail out of their vehicles in Casablanca. “They’re still combatants, right?”
-
Hanging back and letting others fight in Casablanca. “Fighting from a distance is smart, right? And we don’t have much gas anyway, so…”
-
(Chapter 3 onward here) Stealing from a supply depot. “But we need it…”
-
Getting a British sergeant killed because you were stealing from a supply depot. “He should have just let it go…”
-
Ignoring a potentially dangerous recon opportunity. “We have orders, so, no…”
-
Letting Luftwaffe prisoners die without medical treatment. “That’s not our job.”
-
Killing Luftwaffe personnel. “We couldn’t take them with us, and I don’t want to fight them again. So no, they didn’t surrender to us.”
-
(Chapter 4) Trading at the crossroads. “Everybody does it. Besides, we need it.”
-
Gambling at the crossroads. “Hey, they chose to gamble with me.”
More to come and likely darker. But that’s what we’ve got for now.
8 Likes
Finally got a chance to work on the dice and poker gambling part of the Crossroads. The Craps portion is relatively easy now that I’ve laid it out but it could get more complicated very easily.
Playing chess in Tin Star required a lot of abstraction. Poker here will no doubt be the same. Craps could be different.
My question is this, what would the average player expect from a mini-game? How much realism? How much choice?
Let me know your thoughts.
1 Like
I realize this may seem a needless addition, but could the rules of whichever gambling mini game be stated? I apologize, but I don’t actually gamble, and I don’t know how that works. I cannot for the life of me comprehend the kinds of cards in a deck.
Similar to the Tin Star scene where the Tin Star MC can ask a character (I’ll censor the name due to spoilers: Maria Agustina ) about the rules of chess. That character’s explanations were simple enough to understand, even though I more or less randomly decided to deploy my knights or sieze control of the center or swap queens.
I actually liked that scene, because of the simplicity in explaining the rules (and the history! Although I don’t think our fellow soldiers would explain the history of poker or craps).
I expect either one of two things from a mini-game in a game:
One: something similar to Tin Star, where we choose general choices, but nothing too specific. For example, instead of "I move my pawn to [coordinate], I prefer “Move my pawns to create an interwoven front”. Then after we choose, the game tells the player the move of our opponent, and so on until the game ends.
Two: this approach was used in the HG Sabres of Infinity by Cataphrak. There was a scene where the MC there can decide whether or not to join a card game, or a chess-like war strategy game, or neither and just talk with an infantry captain. In making the choice, the game mentions that the MC is expected to use his cash on hand. I recall that the game mentions the infantry captain explaining the rules to the MC (not to the player), and the MC’s stats dictate whether or not they win or lose, and how much money.
Although if you have an alternative approach, I’d like to hear it and try it.
3 Likes
An easy way out of playing the mini-game.
I know chess, but let’s say I’m the average person and you say: kings rook to A5 check. Most people would shake their head and cry.
Especially if I am reading the game to escape thinking, I’d want a choice that would be something like: I play aggressively, I play cautiously, I play defensive or I play a balanced game… and have my chances of winning based more on observing my opponent and assessing their style then countering it…
I hope this makes sense
7 Likes
@AllenGies Are you adding a minigame for the sake of a minigame? Given that there aren’t any stats applicable to poker/dice, it can’t be as a reward for building a certain way, and I don’t see a way to make victory in said game fulfilling. Is there a character who is a gambler that you want to introduce/develop? Basically, if this minigame doesn’t move you toward a story or mechanical balance goal, I wouldn’t bother with it.
3 Likes
Oh baby this a good one! I love the combat, taking care of your tank, tactics… beautifully done. Can’t wait for it to be finished!
2 Likes
@NJG - Good point. I’ve included a little primer about craps and will probably allow the player to access it at various points so they know what they’re getting into.
Cataphrak does write scenes well. But since there are no stats where the randomness of the dice are concerned… Poker though will have a component with observation, to see if you can figure out the various tells of the other players. That’s arisen out of a suggestion by @Eiwynn .
Specifically, I’ve cut back on the extent of the mini-game.
@kckolbe - As above, I’ll get the mini-games working but will try not to put too much time into it. The purpose is to give the player a chance to earn more script that they can use to buy better stuff at Sergeant Ray’s trading establishment. They might also get a small bonus to skills
@Jackpot1776 - Thanks. I’ll have to work hard to get this out when it needs to be out, but that’s entirely in my court :).
One thing I did want to throw out there. How would people feel about a small stat increase for gambling? I was thinking of a small bonus to Observation, Zeal, Leadership (Dice only), Career (Cards only) or even Logistics (though this might belong in the trading section).
4 Likes
I have mixed feelings. I’ll try to work them out and comment later.
1 Like
Going off of the moral problems of stealing or scavenging, from my time in the military we just call it tactically acquiring an item
4 Likes
I still have mixed feelings. I think I’ll need to see the impact of the increase before giving an approval or disapproval.
My tendency is to say: no.
My reasoning is this:
Gambling on the base camp is not really seen as positive or negative by a Sargent level person. As long as no one is hurt or the gambling is not seen during a major event then what people do on their own is their business.
Gambling while out in the field is something that most Sargent-level personnel would be very against because it is this level of soldier, marine or sailor that is responsible for the lives assigned to their unit. As such, even if it is in the boundary of control of the home base, you still will want your personnel to be focused on survival.
4 Likes
Well, the MC is doing something which we don’t really do, so that makes sense. I also like the idea of our stats affecting our gambling.
1 Like
Really 
? Do that few people know chess…I mean I’m a rather bad and impatient player myself, but I know the pieces and the moves well enough.
In any case I agree with the easy way out of the minigame, I still recall Vendetta’s dreaded maze from a couple years ago. 
5 Likes
Good points. I may only offer a stat increase in the gambling segment if the player gets busted out… that is, they lose most of their money. That, at least, would be a learning experience.
But not for Career, not Doctrine, nor Logistics. Definitely not Leadership.
Zeal, maybe.
Adaptability, maybe.
Delegation, no.
The personal stats for Sarcasm/Firm, Verbose/Stoic, or…
You know what. Forget it. I’ll just give them a lollypop of an experience point and let them sort it out.
On the plus side, I’ve scrapped the Poker simulator and decided to let the player report in to the local commander. You know, like a Sergeant should. 
Easier to write, and isn’t a time-sink.
Reporting in will get them on his good side. A good side made all the rosier if they stayed away from the dice and such.
Of course, being held in high regard by a superior officer can also mean they’ll be sent out on dangerous tasks because they are trusted. So, there is a downside to that.
5 Likes
My apologies to those waiting for an update. Other work has swamped me and only recently has there been time to work on debugging chapter 3 and working on chapter 4.
16 Likes