Single Comment

Grin, Jeremy, I have never lost any version of Chief online, and very few
have managed a draw against me. I did make a stupid blunder in an early
face-to-face playtest game, and resigned rather than continue the game.
That's my only loss. I have very high hopes for my newest Warlord
opponent. He has picked the game up very fast and very well. And so far he
enjoys the scenarios. While he lost our one completed game at the end, he
won more than one of the battles within that game. Yes, I am looking for
someone who can beat me, [and then beat me again.]

I will be happy to demonstrate my preferred style to you. It is not
passive. I see it as Cautious - Opportunistic. I suspect others could see
it as Aggressive - Reactive. I see the game as similar to a boxing match.
Both fighters can stay in their corners throughout the bout, and neither
gets hurt. I would find that boring. If someone stays in their corner, so
to speak, I go in and get them. If they come out, I go out to meet them,
bobbing and weaving and jabbing and feinting as best I can. 

The series of games is meant to eventually simulate a wargame. Chief showed
me the way. The Warlord scenarios are a nice step toward realizing that
design goal. Chief is the first stop on [one of] the right road[s] to that
goal. It's a good game in its own right, but it's a signpost to where I
want to go. Warlord begins to show the potential of this approach. It's a
better game than Chief, more refined, less obviously chesslike, with rough
edges smoothed down and a more wargamish feel. You can lose not only an
exchange, but a piece or two, and not be in more than serious trouble,
rather than at death's door. Of course, you better be able to compensate
for a good thumping, but the point is you can, often enough. If you are
good enough against that particular opponent at that time.