When you're in the planning phase, how consciously do you go through the different possibilities of your and your opponents moves, in the coming turn and beyond?

Or, have you moved a lot of that to the back burner of your brain?

Moving activities to the back burner of your brain is what 'skill' does in a person. It routinizes mental processes. At the same time, that also creates exploitable habits.

I'm curious how that works out in X-Wing players.

Part of it is a matter of tactics (or strategy, I forget which is which). If things are going well, then I hardly think about moving at all and it just takes second to decide on movements. If things are going bad or unpredictably, then that planning becomes much more conscious.

40% planning

40% unconscious

20% the force... (trying to increase that one one game at a time)

But when I'm focusing on a game, don't ask me what's happening around me; I have no idea. They could have started a body painting contest on the other table and I would probably not notice unless someone jabbed me while calling me by my name. It's actually so bad that I make sure that my mini case and backback are set up in a way so that no one can take a hold of them without bumping into me

I think I focus too much on enemy ships, so I'm definetly concious of them and where they may end up (even phantoms when their decloaks are jeopardized by asteroids and such) but I think so hard on them that I often derp up hard with my ships

Still havn't the art of thinking beyond the following turn, so I often set up my chaffe for a flight through asteroids because I'm too focused on blocking

Strangely, I've had an easier time interalizing pre-manuever movement such as Phantom Decloaking and Advanced Sensor B-wings than the simpler ships so I don't have to think too long about those. Still can't fly Echo worth a ****, mind...

I play much like I do my job. I over think. If I want to do well I let my eyes and hands do their thing and do it well and keep my stupid brain out of the decesion making loop.

I do my actual thinking for the next turn as I watch the dice roll

Part of it is a matter of tactics (or strategy, I forget which is which).

I think there are two ways to distinguish between the two - only one of which is relevant to our game.

The first is the level of analysis. In that understanding, it's about aggregation. The strategic level is about winning the political war, whereas tactical is about winning the military engagement. Generally speaking, the first is what generals and politicians consider, whereas the latter is for junior officers. Between them is the operational level of analysis, which - roughly speaking - has to figure out how to get the two to align with each other. There's probably a more precise way to translate this, but it's not what we're thinking about in this thread.

The other way is where tactical thinking is about matching specific capabilities to specific weaknesses. It's dependent on the technology being used. Strategy, on the other hand, is about outguessing your opponents intentions. The reason why Sun Tzu is still relevant is because he talked about that perennial aspect of conflict based on strategy, whereas he can't tell you if it's better to have Advanced Sensors or Fire Control System on your B-Wing.

I play while asleep.

It depends on how much beer I have had.

Part of it is a matter of tactics (or strategy, I forget which is which).

I think there are two ways to distinguish between the two - only one of which is relevant to our game.

The first is the level of analysis. In that understanding, it's about aggregation. The strategic level is about winning the political war, whereas tactical is about winning the military engagement. Generally speaking, the first is what generals and politicians consider, whereas the latter is for junior officers. Between them is the operational level of analysis, which - roughly speaking - has to figure out how to get the two to align with each other. There's probably a more precise way to translate this, but it's not what we're thinking about in this thread.

The other way is where tactical thinking is about matching specific capabilities to specific weaknesses. It's dependent on the technology being used. Strategy, on the other hand, is about outguessing your opponents intentions. The reason why Sun Tzu is still relevant is because he talked about that perennial aspect of conflict based on strategy, whereas he can't tell you if it's better to have Advanced Sensors or Fire Control System on your B-Wing.

So strategy is building a list and tactics is flying it?

Part of it is a matter of tactics (or strategy, I forget which is which).

I think there are two ways to distinguish between the two - only one of which is relevant to our game.

The first is the level of analysis. In that understanding, it's about aggregation. The strategic level is about winning the political war, whereas tactical is about winning the military engagement. Generally speaking, the first is what generals and politicians consider, whereas the latter is for junior officers. Between them is the operational level of analysis, which - roughly speaking - has to figure out how to get the two to align with each other. There's probably a more precise way to translate this, but it's not what we're thinking about in this thread.

The other way is where tactical thinking is about matching specific capabilities to specific weaknesses. It's dependent on the technology being used. Strategy, on the other hand, is about outguessing your opponents intentions. The reason why Sun Tzu is still relevant is because he talked about that perennial aspect of conflict based on strategy, whereas he can't tell you if it's better to have Advanced Sensors or Fire Control System on your B-Wing.

So strategy is building a list and tactics is flying it?

No.

Tactics is calculating the best probabilities of using the capabilities you have, and covering your weaknesses. Strategy is guessing what your opponent is probably going to do.

Given that the only thing that really exists behind a 'fog of war' in X-Wing is the movement dial, this is not really a strategy game as it is a tactical game.

since i am on some really good pain meds right now as i recover from Piriformis Syndrome i just try to keep conscious period and not fly into asteroids... Funny thing is the pain meds don't seem to help or hurt my flying skills..lol

since i am on some really good pain meds right now as i recover from Piriformis Syndrome i just try to keep conscious period and not fly into asteroids... Funny thing is the pain meds don't seem to help or hurt my flying skills..lol

If you play for fun, they won't detract from the experience

I have always wondered about this question. I don't "think" when I play. It's strange, it's like having someone else move my body. I sound like a nutter I know but it's the only way to describe it. Warhammer was always strange. It's like waking up 3 hours on and only just getting what happened.

Once again I am not nuts, promise.

I'm fully aware of every detail going on on the table. What moves my opponent is likely to take, what moves he/she CAN take, what order things are executed in, what actions are most suitable for the situation at hand. When I pick up the dial in the planning phase I usually get a gut feeling about what to do, then I run the analysis, if I then get stuck in two or more possibilities and can't decide which one I go with the gut, if that is one of them that'd be. I rarely forget about my own or my opponent's game effects.

Feels like my head was made for this game.

I'm fully aware of every detail going on on the table. What moves my opponent is likely to take, what moves he/she CAN take, what order things are executed in, what actions are most suitable for the situation at hand. When I pick up the dial in the planning phase I usually get a gut feeling about what to do, then I run the analysis, if I then get stuck in two or more possibilities and can't decide which one I go with the gut, if that is one of them that'd be. I rarely forget about my own or my opponent's game effects.

Feels like my head was made for this game.

How long have you been playing this game?

I'm fully aware of every detail going on on the table. What moves my opponent is likely to take, what moves he/she CAN take, what order things are executed in, what actions are most suitable for the situation at hand. When I pick up the dial in the planning phase I usually get a gut feeling about what to do, then I run the analysis, if I then get stuck in two or more possibilities and can't decide which one I go with the gut, if that is one of them that'd be. I rarely forget about my own or my opponent's game effects.

Feels like my head was made for this game.

How long have you been playing this game?

Ever since Wave 2 came out. I'm a sucker for A-wings.

If I have to go down the conscious thought route, I'm flying something new or just doing well. When I'm playing properly most things are just ticking over on automatic, I normally spend more time rotating the dials to the right moves than I do considering them.

I'm fully aware of every detail going on on the table. What moves my opponent is likely to take, what moves he/she CAN take, what order things are executed in, what actions are most suitable for the situation at hand. When I pick up the dial in the planning phase I usually get a gut feeling about what to do, then I run the analysis, if I then get stuck in two or more possibilities and can't decide which one I go with the gut, if that is one of them that'd be. I rarely forget about my own or my opponent's game effects.

Feels like my head was made for this game.

How long have you been playing this game?

Ever since Wave 2 came out. I'm a sucker for A-wings.

Okay, that's interesting. I would have thought that most long-term players would have been less conscious of their playing, and have routinized more of their thought process.

How much thinking goes into every turn depends on how well my strategy is playing out. When everything is going according to plan I go then tried and true tactics get used. When things are not going according to plan that requires a lot more evaluation which may lead to a change in tactics.

Part of it is a matter of tactics (or strategy, I forget which is which). If things are going well, then I hardly think about moving at all and it just takes second to decide on movements. If things are going bad or unpredictably, then that planning becomes much more conscious.

I see "strategy" as being the metagame and tactics are "at the moment" decisions being made to achieve a goal. I'll also say that the two are not always tied together. A couple of examples of the two not lining up.

Pearl Harbour: Tactical Victory for Japan but a Strategic loss for them. Maybe the Rising Sun didn't perform all of their objectives but I'm not sure anyone could say it wasn't a complete tactical victory for them. It is a strategic loss because they missed a number of things and also because of what it did for the American mindset.

Doolittle Raids: Tactical Defeat but Strategic victory. Ok, the American may not have lost any planes over Japan but they launched early, caused very little real damage in Japan, and lost all planes and many crew so there is no way I'd say it was a tactical victory. On the Strategic level it radically changed the Japanese mindset causing many resources that could have been devoted to the front to instead be diverted to home defense against another attack that wouldn't materialize until years later.

Happy Veterans Day to anyone who has served, or is serving, in our Armed Forces.

I am a very seat-of-the-pants player. I usually don't make a lot of conscious cost-benefit analyses during games. This cost me big at World's last week in one of the streamed games when I forgot Chewie with 3PO, R2D2, and MF title could potentially absorb 4 hits without dying. I basically threw away a game that I had locked down pretty well because I didn't think about it.

So yeah, I'm going to try moving in the other direction in the future.

I read that in Chess a novice player's thought process is 90+% calculation and ~10% pattern recognition, while a grand master was more like 40% calculation / 60% pattern recognition. There is a bit in one of my chess books about a grand master finding the solution to a chess problem faster than a super computer just because of pattern recognition!

I can only assume this game is the same, in that after so many games, you have run the calculations so often that just looking at a situation you can spot the pattern and quickly play the best move.

Though you also have to consider peoples' personality types; what side of the sensory - intuitive axis on the Briggs Myer scale they are on would indicate if they are more likely to internalise their thought processes or not. I see this a lot playing Blood Bowl where the crazy amount of games I've played and my intuitive nature means an optimum solution just seems to present itself to me, while my friend, with an equal amount of experience, goes through all the options individually. He usually takes longer ( a lot longer!) to play his turns but the plays are usually just as good as mine.

.., while my friend, with an equal amount of experience, goes through all the options individually. He usually takes longer ( a lot longer!) to play his turns but the plays are usually just as good as mine.

Interesting. Why do you figure your friend's approach to the game is different than yours? Does he just not trust his instincts the way that you seem to do?

Sorry I missed you at game night yesterday Mikael!

I've been playing X-Wing since it was released and I have never played with what I would call "intuition". For me it has always been about making the best possible decision with the information available to me. This meant that at first, before familiarizing myself with every ships dial/pilots/upgrades, there were a lot of 'best guess' situations, which in turn led to a lot of learning experiences. Now that I am familiar with all components of the game I am constantly assessing 'optimal play'. In any given turn the ships in my squadron will have one to two optimal maneuvers/actions available to them based upon what I believe to be my opponents optimal maneuvers (influenced by PS/Upgrades/Pilot Abilities). The better you are at forecasting optimal play one, or even two turns ahead, the better you will perform.

Sorry I missed you at game night yesterday Mikael!

Yeah, it's been more difficult for me to make it out to Guardian Games on Monday nights. I will be going to Rainy Day more frequently, but I don't think they're quite up to your level out there. Still, if you want to meet up for an ad hoc game some time or another, give me a shout out on Facebook.

I've been playing X-Wing since it was released and I have never played with what I would call "intuition". For me it has always been about making the best possible decision with the information available to me. This meant that at first, before familiarizing myself with every ships dial/pilots/upgrades, there were a lot of 'best guess' situations, which in turn led to a lot of learning experiences.

Is it a question of forcing yourself not to listen to intuition, or does intuition help you identify the optimal maneuvers?

Now that I am familiar with all components of the game I am constantly assessing 'optimal play'. In any given turn the ships in my squadron will have one to two optimal maneuvers/actions available to them based upon what I believe to be my opponents optimal maneuvers (influenced by PS/Upgrades/Pilot Abilities). The better you are at forecasting optimal play one, or even two turns ahead, the better you will perform.

So, here's the aspect of strategy vs. tactics. Being able to identify the most optimal maneuver is tactical. Not always going for the most optimal maneuver in the hopes that your opponent counts on you to do so, and thus getting the leg up on him is strategic.

I remembered a funny moment during a local tournie last sunday, but am not entirely sure if it's relevent

Had a bloody game against Whipser + mini-swarm where it came down to 1 Bandit versus two damaged academies with what could have been a 2nd Bandit getting his 2nd turn of asteroid damage in a row and dissappearing like it was The Empire Strikes back (which my opponent kept quoting for when the Ties would retaliate on my head hunters...prophetic)

Anyway, my Head-hunter did a hard right turn last round and I thought I would do it again to bring him away from the table edge and face back towards where the acadmies where approaching. Thing is, I conciously made the decision to make a big show out of spinning the dial around and looking serious so that it wouldn't be obvious that I was repeating a manuever with the only ship I had left.

He positioned one of his academies perfectly to block the hard right, and the other for a Range 1 from out of my firing arc

That was my 2nd tournie ever, and he definetly was no stranger to that kind of enviroment