Matrix Improvements

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Truth to both Guberman and KKR. :smoke:
In all it is a game? Historically there were very few "battles" where the attackers did not have the "numbers"?

I do think the designer has the ability to tweak a scenario for balance. Whether through victory conditions or the "piece" of the battle the "historical" designer is depicting? :chin:

And, Herr Huib, I do not like the new scenario reporting. As I recall it was a discussion with you that caused 'others' to change the old way. I prefer the old way. I will not support an effort to change the scenario reporting system, unless it is back to the "old way" or a dynamic new way that still allows players to rate for balance.
I think enough "balance" information can be gleened from the reports that it should be left in.
But, as both Curt and Rod have said, balance has many things that effect it's perception. The scenario report, both new and old way, give players a chance to state their opinion, from their perspective.



Ed

[Huib Versloot]

Ed,

The old scenario rating system is still in place so there is hardly such a thing as an "old way". Only the star rating and comment field was added to what we already had and filling those fields is not mandatory. So if you don't fill out the added fields, you still have the same system you always had.
What I tried to say is that statistically the balance rating is useless. Example: 2 ratings: 1 + 7 = 8 = 2 perceptions of unbalance = statistical average = 4 = balanced. (this might reflect the win /loss ratio LOL)
Note that this average summary nonsense was actually a column in the scenario database in the "old way". Unfortunately what we now have in the "new way" is a calculation of the average # of stars that is fluked, but that is a php programming issue rather than wrong use of numbers. The only thing that works well at the moment is the average entertainment rating.
Now where is Umbro... to fix it...

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Herr Huib,

Thanks for your input. It is precisely the star rating, which muddles both balance/entertainment ratings, and the comment section that adds to "hurt feelings" for more sensitive designers when players comment in open and honest ways? :rolleyes:
IMO, the H2H playtest area is the place for comments?
Or, e-mail direct from the designer? :chin:

Within the scenario listings players can look at wins/losses for the individual scenario. Plus, the balance and entertainment ratings which give even more information, that can be assessed.
I also look at who has played the scenario and from which side. :2guns::smg:
I'll even send a message to one or both of the players to find out what their experiences were in playing the scenario.

Lastly, for those who have been around longer than you, the "new" reporting system is just that ... new. That differentiates it from the former or "old" reporting format. You can continue to split hairs if you wish.
I will still prefer the old way. It worked. And, I still do the same research on a scenario without just relying on the data found within the report. I just don't rely on any one player's rating/reporting.
I even read the designers description of the scenario to see if they say it was designed for H2H play. ;)

[Huib Versloot]

To be honest I wouldn't mind if there was a return to the old way was implemented or something new for that matter. What I had in mind when I proposed a star rating system, was that the designer still had some feedback as to were the strong and weak points are in his work post testing. In practice the comments on scns differ so much that it is hard to do anything with them.
As it is in case of my own scenarios I only act on win /loss statistics. A less than 25-30% win statistic for one side after 10+ games played is reason enough for me to make adjustments to a scenario :stir:. Anything over 30% I consider balanced and I just hope the stronger player takes that side having looked at the win/loss rate before starting.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Thanks Herr Huib. :thumbs_up:
Yes, I try to mirror games where balance seemed to become an issue. This way my opponent, who may be a "weaker" player, can have a chance at victory. If we are relatively equal in skill and it is an awful "one sided" design I will offer my opponent a draw result but, a report of balance and entertainment that reflects our experience. If it goes beyond I will work out a "comment" with my opponent that reflects our experience.
I think that we may have to take a look at the way games are reported, and if the system is working on, the other ladders? :scare:

When I get over my fear of such a project I will move it to the front burner. :stir:

[junk2drive]

I've often wondered how CS battles could be concidered "balanced" with all the behind the scenes dice rolls and random thingys.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Just design one where two players, who play an average game, with average dice rolls, can battle each other to a draw. :smoke:

Too many designers want exact historical units, in exact historical positions, but then take no interest in the "game" part of their design. Others design purely for the game and lose the "historical feel" of a battle.
I've also seen some who try for historical flavor but replace the PzKw IVH's with Panthers and pump the platoon full of tanks, because they could not understand how the Germans could win with the "lesser" tank and smaller numbers. :chin:
All my designs are attempts at replicating historical events but within the parameters of the game. Some scenarios come out O.K. and others "really suck". If a scenario design is played and they are way out of balance I go back to the drawing board and fine tune it. I'm not too sure of the compitency of the AI and I try to stay away from designing games strictly for play versus the computer. :dunno:

I think balance is a "feel" thing. :stir:

[von Flannell]

I'm with Roadrunner here - game balance is crucial. The Germans won in many situations when they shouldn't have done (e.g. with limited numbers of Pz IVs rather than Panthers) due to their excellent training at all levels and their superior command & control (I find this whole aspect completely fascinating and have read about the war the Eastern Front a lot). This only changed towards the end of the war due to attrition and improved Soviet tactics, C&C, doctrine etc. For example, at the start of the war, Russian tanks did not have radios (apart from platoon commanders tanks) and signals were sent by flags and by prearranged tactics, pretty tricky in the middle of a battle when tanks were buttoned up and individual tank commanders were looking through observation ports with smoke everywhere.

In a H2H EF game, the command and control etc achieved by both commander is absolute - you know exactly where all your units are, where all the LOS enemy units are, and your units all do what they are told to. The reaction time to an enemy surprise is therefore immediate, and I feel far too rapid to reflect the Soviet situation, at least in the early part of the war. Imagine having a one turn lag for Soviet movements....., or a one turn lag for the Germans and a two turn lag for the Soviets. The title of this thread is 'Matrix Improvements', I'm not for a moment suggesting that the above would be an improvement, but it would make things more realistic, as would a degree of random cluster:censored: with units not obeying or misinterpreting orders - see Charge of the Light Brigade or Black Hawk Down. In my younger days I used to play all night Advanced Squad Leader sessions and we would simulate the Fog of War with a 'herbal cigarette'.......!!! Extremely effective, though the arguments about the rules slowed things up hugely. More seriously, the Extreme Fog of War could be made more extreme e.g. more smoke from burning vehicles and guns fired?

This is why I support Roadrunner in game balance vs realism. A scenario depends on the geography, the balance of forces opposing each other and the ability of the opposing generals. Thus the scenario designer has the problem of balancing the geography and opposing forces to make a scenario balanced so we can find out who the best general is. Easier said than done.

By the way I'm a noobie (-ish) who doesn't have time to play online, so I only play LCGs or very occasionally DCGs when I run out of LCG's. Ironically, given my above comments much prefer LCGs vs DCGs as they are more historical, though even harder to balance over say 10 scenarios. I think that playing the Germans against the Soviet AI (on at least the hard setting for DCGs) might be pretty realistic in terms of the relative ability of the two sides tactical control etc, at least until the Soviets recovered from Stalin's pre-war purges and Hitler got involved e.g. with the no retreats and replacing generals far too frequently.

Oh well, that's enough from me, by the way I think that you guys are great and I love reading the posts. Any LCGs gratefully received, waiting for PB2 if it hasn't dropped off the list of priorities - haven't seen a post on that for a while......

von Flannell

[Mr. Guberman]

...he said "herbal cigarette"...mmmmm!

...long time gone...but...you know...

Cheers
Town Drunk