MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Decisive Action
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
After Action Review.
Join to comment
 Group admin 
All,

DA was my third group effort here on MOCpages. Like the two before, it was designed to accomplish a specific mission:

“Our mission is to help all group members to improve BUILDING and COMMUNICATION SKILLS, and to have FUN.

To accomplish this mission, I set three specific goals for this group:

One. Stimulate the production of NEW MOCs on MOCpages.

Two. Incentivize QUALITY in building (and presentation) as well as RATING of other players MOCs.

Three. ENTERTAIN all team members.
For the first time, I feel that we have achieved all three goals admirably.

One. Stimulate the production of NEW MOCs on MOCpages.
Level of achievement: Good.
Discussion: I start from the basic assumption that the most effective way to improve building skills is by building. Building equates to experience, and experience informs and guides future builds. 240 MOCs have been built specifically for this group. That they are built specifically for this group is MOSTLY ensured by enforcing specific criteria (specifications in the rules). Some MOCs were not built for this group, but rather were effectively cannibalized from pre-existing efforts… but for the most part, the MOCs in DA were built for DA.

Two. Incentivize QUALITY in building (and presentation) as well as RATING of other players MOCs.
Level of achievement: Good.
Discussion: Again, my starting assumption is that repetition often (but not always) leads to improvement. The use of yellow heads as a source of player power has consistently been a hotly debated topic. Many equate the use of reviews to a popularity contest. In some cases, popularity has certainly played a role. However, I believe it is folly to deny either correlation between yellow heads and quality, or the causal link between the two. It is of course true, that popularity CAN and often DOES effect the yellow head count. But this is immaterial for two reasons. First, it is an occasional factor, not a consistent or defining factor. In other words, sometimes a popular builder gets more yellow heads than a hated builder. The fact remains that beautiful MOCs pull in yellow heads. This truth is not diminished by the fact that some yellow heads are pulled in by other factors. The second reason that popularity is immaterial in this context is that the popularity dynamic DIRECTLY SUPPORTS the GOAL of IMPROVING PLAYER COMMUNICATION SKILLS. Popularity and or political power are usually derived directly from a players on-line communication efforts. Active, talkative, socially engaged players will draw more yellow heads and THAT is intentional. The point being that communication becomes ENCENTIVISED. Want more yellow heads? Learn how to talk to your allies. It is not a flaw in the system. It is the very intent of the system. In the end, well built MOCs generally earned their builders more power in the game… and that is the point.

Three: ENTERTAIN all team members.
Level of achievement: Good (I guess…).
Discussion: Nobody comes to MOCpages for study, or work, or anything else but fun. No fun = No dice! So…18 attack windows, 240 task built MOCs, almost 3K in conversations and I don’t know how many reviews… I conclude that the participants must have enjoyed it. The incentive of winning the prize is really only relevant for the players who spend most of the game in the lead. Most players know that they will not actually win… after all, there can be only one. So again, I can only conclude that you were all motivated by the entertainment factor.

So for my part, I am completely satisfied with the performance of this effort. DA, my third MOCpages group has worked better than either of it’s predecessors. It would not have been possible without Keith’s encouragement, and more importantly without his ferocious application of mathematical competence (a competency lacking on my part!). And of course, all of the players. I truly belave your efforts have made MOCpages a more vital and interesting place.

On this thread, I ask you all to leave your recommendations for DA 2.0. Tell me what you liked, what you did not like, and what you think we should try to add in DA2.0.

I thank you all in advance for your feedback.

Attack!

Permalink
| September 30, 2013, 10:55 am
First off, what you created here blew my mind. I have never pushed my building, communication, and tactical skills like this before. This was my first helping of your cuisine and I'm happily sated.

I think that everyone will agree that the play, although complex at first, was straight forward and exciting. Once we got the hang of the scoring and strategy, as well as the attack time ;), it became a wonderful game of tactical positioning. The alliances proved to be more important than anything else. The make up therein was the dynamic that determined the winner. At the point when the TOs were voted out, the game changed only in defensive power. I don't know if having a lifespan for the TOs would be prudent, or having total defensive power of the TO divided by the number of attacks against the entire TO just as it is for individual Generals.

This would be my first thought to get the ball rolling. A second thought would be regarding timing. Having the final attack occur before the MO starts would likely attract more participation. Either that, or continue until there is only one. (that might get self indulgent after a week or two, but at that point more battles per week wouldn't be a stretch.)

Just a start.
Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 12:03 am
 Group admin 
Quoting matt rowntRee

King and CGF rowntRee GN.

Thanks for the initial feedback. I think I botched the timing of this thread! Once the fight was over, the fans left the building in a hurry!

Keith and I are about to link up at Brick Con in Seattle, so we will both be off the net for the next few days.

After that, I think I will simply start pinging the individual players for thier feedback over the weeks ahead.

Thanks Again, and well played!
Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 9:45 am
Quoting Michael Rutherford

Have fun up there!

I think you'll get quite a bit of detail as how to refine the game. It is absolutely worth continuing and perfecting.
Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 10:11 am
DA 1.0 was brilliant! Thankyou. Thoughts on DA 2.0:

TOs: These may have been more powerful than you expected, hence the necessity to abolish them. A game without them would be over too soon, probably, but if they appear in DA 2 their influence needs to be reduced. Emperor And Overlord Of All The Earth matt's suggestion is one way; I reckon if each ally adds a fixed amount of defence related to their territories it might work better.

MOCs: The mix and number of builds required was supremely well judged and this shouldn't change; however I would change some or all categories so DA 1 players won't (say) start building a super-awesome tank right now that'll take six months and blow everyone away.

Map: Don't change a thing!

The CCCP will be back!
Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 10:59 am
Great ideas.

I would say the only change to the map should be to make Antarctica at least 3 territories. That way Hayden won't get trapped there again (cheap shot. =]) and it will be more like a continent to conquer and position from rather than making it an island.

The rest of the map is perfect.
Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 11:42 am
Michael, I haven’t "flown the coup” yet! I sat down once to seriously write some things, but every time I had a suggestion I began overanalyzing it. I think I need to step away for awhile and think. Also, right now my focus is wrapped up in whether I will get to proceed on to round 3 in the MO. So perhaps, when you guys return from Seattle I’ll be in a more rational frame of mind and have something for you.
Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 11:58 am
Personally, I would like a more complex game with more required builds! It was nice to have one item to provide for an entire range of defense or offense but that is not reflected in real war as you well know. More teams, more builds with ground support, aerial supremacy, ground supremacy, special use infantry and infantry support, ground and air logistics as well as sea logistics, bases, forts, rules on how they can be used to overcome huge threats/fortifications...helicopters. Everything built has a weakness, a player could build a team/weapon to put a stop to the powerful smiley powered tank, build an anti-aircraft system to remove the bacon dropper. More later...
Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 4:09 pm
Watch this space over the coming days, I'll be writing something or other...
Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 4:11 pm
Dear all,

You know how annoying it is when you write a really long comment, but spend so long over it that MocPages times out and loses it? Arrgh, I just did that...

Anyway, I think I owe it to Mike and Keith for all their hard work to write it again!
First off, the plaudits for DA 1.0 - for me personally it certainly achieved its goals. I was hooked by the game; I built more MOCs, left more reviews and got more involved in the social aspects of MOCpages than any other group or contest I've joined before. I think the game was a great idea and a great success!

But what first got me interested in DA was the strategy aspect - I love games and strategy, so my suggestions for DA 2.0 will be to do with game mechanics.
Obviously the TOs became a dominating feature of the game, and a number of good suggestions have already been made for giving them some role in DA 2.0 without being so all-powerful. Here's one more idea that I don't think has been mentioned: have a single, defensive MOC category that contributes its MPs to everyone in your TO, and that you have to have built in order to benefit from others' TO MOCs. Something to do with artillery, or communications, maybe?

On the more general game dynamics, the growth of attacks with territories owned gave a fairly slow start but with the potential for runaway leader(s) late on.
To give a pace that would hopefully keep more players' interest for longer, how about a sequence something like the following:
1 territory = 1 attack
3 territories = 2 attacks
6 territories = 3 attacks
10 territories = 4 attacks
15 territories = 5 attacks
21 territories = 6 attacks and so on.
The idea is to make an alliance of several players with a few territories each more powerful than one player with a lot of
territory, which would hopefully encourage more cut-and-thrust, generals getting knocked down but then making a comeback, etc.
For a thematic justification you could cite the increased costs and inefficiencies of running a large empire compared to a small one.

That's all for now, thanks again Mike & Keith for a great game!
Permalink
| October 2, 2013, 4:01 pm
I have rather a long list, in no particular order:

1. Let all players who join before AW1 pick their own color, first come first served with a reasonable difference between colors.

2. Make the border lines thinner so small islands can be seen better.

3. For the Infantry moc, allow a brick-built national flag as the backdrop or part of the backdrop.

4. Allow ONE brick-build hardsuit per squad, must have some minifigure parts (head, helmet, etc).

5. Not hopeful, but can customs (BrickArms, etc) be allowed?

6. Limit TO's to 4 people and a player can only be in one at a time, or remove them entirely.

7. Possibly make some of the territories in Africa larger and fewer of them, there are quite a few in that continent.

8. New build categories:
* Land Logistical - truck
* Air Logistical - transport helicopter
* Air Offensive 2 - attack helicopter/special aircraft (V22 Osprey, etc)
* Air Defensive 2 - drone
* Land Offensive 2 - jeep/truck/wheeled vehicle
* Land Defensive 2 - artillery (on wheels, not self-powered)
* Long Range Tactical Offensive - cruise missile launcher (truck-mounted or diorama), can launch across oceans without losing attack power to bolster trans-oceanic invasions.
* Anything Goes Defensive - ANYthing; mech, frog car, snowball launcher, etc., but must have weaponry and be mobile.

I like Lucas' attack change suggestion and I agree that Antarctica should be three territories.
Permalink
| October 5, 2013, 7:33 am
Hey guys! I came (back) here on the word of the victorious Matt Rowntree; so don't shoot :-p


Anyways, I do also wish to add a few changes/additions that should be made, as I aim to do DA 2, when it comes out next year ;-)

So, I would like to see a few more categories; the ones above were some nice suggestions, so.

I feel that you all should space out the builds some; it seemed like as if the opening month and a half for DA were frantic builds, and then thats it.

The three point extra FP shots were great, so do keep that. Maybe we can also have a couple of other "extra credit"

I REALLY admire General rowntRee's generosity; so I say that in the next DA, we, of course have the winner get a prize (or give it to another player) and also, maybe have a set donated to a charity decided upon by the winning general. I know it may up the stakes, and possibly the expenses, but this is an international game; pretty cool if we could reach out and help someone get into the hobby of LEGO.

The LDD rule, upon long thought, I think, should be kept. I know that I helped moderate a dispute over the thing, but the thing is, I don't want "old fashioned" building to die away. But even so, Keith and Michael, give that some serious thought.

Now, groups and military alliances should be kept, but more regulated. For instance, I say max number of parties in alliance be kept at 5. Of course, I don't the role/power they had in here so.

I like that some of the "larger/more popular" builders signed up; I do hope that we can preserve that.

Map? Good, mostly.

Hmm, I guess that covers it. PHS out!
Permalink
| October 6, 2013, 9:13 pm
There are already plenty of ideas generated. Not much to add, but I do support having TO's without defensive powers. Each would have to fend for themselves, but the TO would serve as a consultation of coordinated attacks.

Peace!
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 5:26 pm
Sorry for the delay in posting my ideas. Here they are, such as they are…
#1 Moc categories do not necessarily need to be changed, but specifications on each moc of a category need to be changed each year. If not, people will begin building far in advance of the game. One easy spec change could be a size limit or color to a moc.
#2 No new gamers should be allowed in after the 2nd attack. I think enough people have heard/will hear about the game now that there will be more than enough people next year wanting to play at the start.
#3 Subtraction of the miniscule number of points for each sea boundary crossing that was done in DA1 is pointless. It was of no real deterrent, and you guys really do not need superfluous calculations. You have enough to do! Besides you forgot to do it sometimes! ;)
#4 TO’s do help build friendships between builders not just in the game but on mocpages which is a noble function! So I would hate to see them done away with completely. BUT…
#5 Under the initial power point calculation method, TO’s had too much defensive power. But now I really question whether calculating offensive points by NOT dividing by two would really be enough to deflate them?
#6 If powered TO’s ARE allowed, assuming a better way of power calculation can be found, generals should only be allowed to be a member of 1 TO at a time. And, although trying to limit membership numbers within a TO, ie only 6 members to a TO, might be an idea too, it would become a numbers and policing nightmare for you guys!

Permalink
| October 19, 2013, 1:16 pm
Quoting General X (aka SuperSpyX)
8. New build categories:
* Land Logistical - truck
* Air Logistical - transport helicopter
* Air Offensive 2 - attack helicopter/special aircraft (V22 Osprey, etc)
* Air Defensive 2 - drone
* Land Offensive 2 - jeep/truck/wheeled vehicle
* Land Defensive 2 - artillery (on wheels, not self-powered)
* Long Range Tactical Offensive - cruise missile launcher (truck-mounted or diorama), can launch across oceans without losing attack power to bolster trans-oceanic invasions.
* Anything Goes Defensive - ANYthing; mech, frog car, snowball launcher, etc., but must have weaponry and be mobile.

I love this idea, DA was a fantastic group but at times felt a bit restricted in what type of units to create.
Seeing this group is also for helping improve building skills, and have people branch out it seems natural to add a few new unit types to spice things up in DA 2.
Permalink
| October 20, 2013, 6:20 am
When do we start up again?
Permalink
| December 8, 2013, 9:05 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford


I'm curious when Decisive Action 2 will start. I definitely think it should be sci-fi themed with the empires launching space campaigns after the conquering empire(s) rule Earth in an uneasy balance.

PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, STRENGTH THROUGH WAR.
~ General McLegofreak
Permalink
| March 19, 2014, 6:37 pm
Quoting ~ McLegofreak

I'm curious when Decisive Action 2 will start.
~ General McLegofreak

Me too! I really enjoyed it last time and I'd love to do it again.
Permalink
| March 19, 2014, 7:30 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ~ McLegofreak

~ General McLegofreak


Mr. McLegofreak, rest assured, when we start up the engine of destruction again, you will be invited to tear your share. It will be a few months yet however. Mr. Goldman and I are both pretty busy with other stuff right now (earning a living, raising children, mostly non-lego distracters…). The next DA probably won’t be space themed. Glad you remember the group, and we look forward to watching your decisions in action in the future.
Permalink
| March 24, 2014, 3:44 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting SuperSpy X
Me too! I really enjoyed it last time and I'd love to do it again.


Mr. X. Dont' worry, your on the short list for when we re-start the wood chipper!
Permalink
| March 24, 2014, 3:45 pm
Quoting General X (aka SuperSpyX)

8. New build categories:
* Land Logistical - truck
* Air Logistical - transport helicopter
* Air Offensive 2 - attack helicopter/special aircraft (V22 Osprey, etc)
* Air Defensive 2 - drone
* Land Offensive 2 - jeep/truck/wheeled vehicle
* Land Defensive 2 - artillery (on wheels, not self-powered)
* Long Range Tactical Offensive - cruise missile launcher (truck-mounted or diorama), can launch across oceans without losing attack power to bolster trans-oceanic invasions.
* Anything Goes Defensive - ANYthing; mech, frog car, snowball launcher, etc., but must have weaponry and be mobile.

I like Lucas' attack change suggestion and I agree that Antarctica should be three territories.

Land and air logistic MOCs make sense, maybe having them can reduce the power loss from moving offensive units by half the likes the logistic MOCs get(unless they get so many likes they increase offensive power). I also like the idea of more variety of defensive and offensive MOCs. The Long Range Tactical Offensive might be nice, but maybe you can only use it when you have the main 3 types of Offensive Power. Its power could be changed from adding more power to reducing power loss, though(unless it gets so many likes it will actually increase offensive power).
The Anything Goes Defensive sounds like a good idea, could see what people come up with without restrictions.
Permalink
| March 25, 2014, 4:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Sam Sanister

Mr. Sanister.

Changes to the rules in DA2 will almost all be aimed at simplification.

There will not be any radical increase in the number of build categories. Most (if any) new categories will be swap outs with old categories. Increasing the number of build categories increases the complexity and raw effort required for battle calculation immensely.

Stuff that may change:

1. There will be at least one digital build category, and maybe several.

2. There will be no treaty organization rules. There will be no combining of player combat power, either offensive or defensive. Cooperation between players will be possible, but it will not be restricted or supported by rules. (This will probably result in rapid elimination of weak nations).

3. It will be harder to attack other players across oceans. Penalties for distance will be greater.

4. Build criteria (the specs for each category) will be changed up.

Stuff that probably won't change:

1. DA2.0 will take place on earth (no new continents). New territorial boundaries however are likely.

2. Antarctica shall remain 1 territory. The island at the bottom of the world.

3. Build criteria will remain highly arbitrary and will be enforced to the letter. Anybody who is building ahead right now is probably wasting effort.

But nothing will happen any time soon. The DA staff is currently not able to support the requirements of the job. We will wait until we can give the game the focus it needs.

Without the daily communications, the ability to answer player questions quickly, and to conduct all battles quickly, DA would be like so many other groups on MOCpages: A chat room pretending to be a war game. A debate club. A mutual admiration society. There is enough of that stuff on MOCpages already. We won't start DA again until the whole staff is able to commit their time and attention to the task, and to do it right.

Until then... Build! Post! Review!

Permalink
| March 26, 2014, 9:31 am
Quoting Michael Rutherford

How's it coming along?
Permalink
| July 29, 2014, 4:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ~ McLegofreak
How's it coming along?

Super!
Permalink
| August 6, 2014, 10:16 am
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Super!


Great!
Permalink
| August 6, 2014, 10:20 am
Other topics
« After Action Review.



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Decisive Action


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use