Options 1.04

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Ed believe me I understand and respect your point of view.
However as I know you are aware, there are other points of view too and these people have as much right to expect to get their kind of fun from the game.

As I respect yours. And, I have respected every other point of view, even while, I believe, I was being trashed for mine.

I believe that the vast majority of people who play this game never in fact PBEM and someone has to speak for them.

In that I think you are mistaken. I think that game clubs, such as The Blitz, with an active ladder and solid core of players, was what kept the game going.
I know there are those who play the game only versus the AI, in both scenarios and Campaigns.
It's my opinion that the AI benefits from some of the extreme assault rules, but is still as stupid as it always was. But, that is my opinion. And, I started a Campaign versus the AI. In the time I've played three separate missions, I have played hundreds of game turns against PBEM opponents. I look forward to playing my opponents and have grown bored playing the AI. It's a matter of taste. Believe me, I know that.

I think scenario balance is a very tricky issue indeed, personally I think if there are both types of scenario balance then we go a long way to pleasing the majority.
The well balanced ones for people of similar views to yourself where you can pit yourself against an opponent on equal terms. Some of these of course are also historical in their balance.

Scenario balance is not all that tricky. It is merely a formula.
And, if you think I believe balance is found in equal force mix, you would be incorrect. Most attacks were made where three to one was the accepted "go measuring stick". The Germans attacked throughout the war often with lesser force than the defenders. They also often defended with much smaller force than their attackers.
In scenarios that feature this "lesser force", victory conditions, exit hexes, etc. all come into play to reach "balance". It's not what the make up of the force mix is for each side that determines balance. But, scenario designers cannot abandon balance for the sake of making a really realistic scenario. Old Talonsoft designers would state whether a scenario was for PBEM or versus the AI? New designers got away from that?

The other type of historical scenario for people who for instance wish to know what say the East Front was really like, where there just was no balance the most of the time.

Well, if you want to design a scenario that covers the fate of the poor Italian 8th Army at Stalingrad feel free. I could probably design a scenario that would be historically accurate and get balance, but, it would be a major undertaking.

If all scenarios are all equally balanced, then often the game paints a very false picture of history. Many people buying the game I'm sure don't wish that but may in fact begin to believe it.
Those people wish to pit their skills in historical situations and see if they could in fact do better than the commanding officers at the time did.

Once again, victory conditions can balance an unbalanced fight. And, once the fight begins the "players" will have immediately altered the history and will not see "history repeated"? And, if you play against the AI you are not even getting the benefit of a good player. The AI is a moron in comparison to the historical commanders, or other players who have a working knowledge of the game.

Have fun with the game I'm sure you still do, remember now you've got all those options.

Ah, some of the fun gets sucked out by the game engine takeover during extreme assault. Options? LOL! I do not have options. As I stated the new optional extreme assault rule makes assaults to formulaic and too difficult. The option to use the old just doesn't cut it either. Not after having a taste of what an assault formula could do and knowing that a toned down one would make the game even better.
And, the option for variable visibility was a waste of time and effort. I hope that scenario designers that use if as a factor in their design will let the players know that it is needed and why.

I nearly forgot to mention I'm playing the Budapest one against the AI and it's putting up great opposition at the moment, great game.

I will assume you are the Germans playing against the AI? Let us know if the AI does stupid things like shooting at inappropriate times, or moving into the open to get back a victory hex lost? Or, moving loaded units into place where they can be fired upon? Or, a hidden AT gun that fires upon infantry at range, which then reveals the hex the AT gun is in?
Though, with the change in Opt fire, and the greater effect of indirect artillery versus armor, it might be a little more difficult.
Let us know how you did?
And, if you have the time, or inclination, play the game versus the AI to a finish and then start over with the AI as attacker.
That is how I test my scenario designs. If I can beat the AI from either side I then take them to playing against human opponents.
Against a human and playing the scenario from both sides often points out variables that were not seen playing against the AI. So far it has not made too horrible a scenario for me. :rolleyes:

Just my opinion.



Regards,

Ed

[Herr Straße Laufer]

IMHO, game balance does not equate to equal forces, instead game balance equals the ability to be able to win a scenario from either side. A scenario can be balanced and still satisfy the needs of those who want to play from a historical perspective, they do not need to be separate from each other.

If you adjust fire power/results to give the game a more historical feel to those who want to play against the AI, then you invariably change the results for those who wish to play H2H. If you want to make a more historical game vs. the AI then you need to change the AI, not the results.

Finally, I play several opponents who are close to the top of the ladder, and I cannot say any one of them play solely for a favorable w-l record, but instead rather play because it is an enjoyable game. If you take the enjoyment out, you take out a good portion of the regular players here at the CS and the game will no longer be able to survive as it will not be able to recruit new players.

Just my $.02

Gavin

Excellent points Gavin! :smoke:



Ed

[Huib Versloot]

People should be aware how difficult it is to judge balance, yet we all seem to jump to conclusions based on our own limited experience. Tell a designer who is right with the example below. Still it is interesting that the people write down their experiences and it helps to know that sometimes we don't know.

** A Senseless Sacrifice
Member Rating Notes
Bioman 5
Valor 4
Ivan 3
XLVIII Pz. Korp 3
Smedley 3
Charlie-66 3
Feldgeneral Hoth 3 Nice scenario. Tough for Americans.
Big Dawg 3
Digger 3 Very tough for the German attacker
Adolf Vahringer 2 Very nice map as usual. The Axis had a major victory after capturing just one of the 4 VP's. By the time they captured another, the game was out of reach for the Ami's. Ended up calling the game a draw.
Hawk Kriegsman 1 excellent map, accurate OOB and a no chance for the German player.

[Otto von Blotto]

I am thinking we may be onto something here, the 1.04 Assault rules would be fine to give the AI a bit of an edge (as the AI is normally the defender) and spark some life into solo play which I find can be a bit dull and easy at times, but couldn’t a lighter toned down version be done for pbem (yes harder than 1.02 is good) it is already a switch in the game start section so could be differentiated in the code if it's a pbem use one set of rules if solo play use the other.

[junk2drive]

I have played some unbalanced scens as the easy side vs some of the old timers around here and still lost. There is no checkbox for experience level in the ratings.

[Gordons HQ]

Ed, thank you for the lengthy destruction in words of everything I wrote.
I also oppose just about everything you say without going into hundreds of repeated words here.:conf:

Obviously you have your opinion and I have mine and the two will never meet.:hissy:

I will see how the scenario plays out from both sides although that may take a little while, but it looks at the moment as if I'm getting a good battle from the defencive AI.:)

Cheers, Gordon

[Ivan]

People should be aware how difficult it is to judge balance, yet we all seem to jump to conclusions based on our own limited experience. Tell a designer who is right with the example below. Still it is interesting that the people write down their experiences and it helps to know that sometimes we don't know.

** A Senseless Sacrifice
Member Rating Notes
Bioman 5
Valor 4
Ivan 3
XLVIII Pz. Korp 3
Smedley 3
Charlie-66 3
Feldgeneral Hoth 3 Nice scenario. Tough for Americans.
Big Dawg 3
Digger 3 Very tough for the German attacker
Adolf Vahringer 2 Very nice map as usual. The Axis had a major victory after capturing just one of the 4 VP's. By the time they captured another, the game was out of reach for the Ami's. Ended up calling the game a draw.
Hawk Kriegsman 1 excellent map, accurate OOB and a no chance for the German player.

I remember playing this scenario against Valor. The really interesting thing about it is I thought I was winning easily. In the early part of the game I inflicted a lot of casualties on the Germans with my Armour. I became complacent and thought it was going to be a walk over. Valor did warn me that your scenarios can appear unbalanced at first but usually even out towards the end. I should have listened to him more intently. As the Germans closed in their panzerfausts and infantry came into their own and i got slaughtered. Very cleverly designed. I could understand how some people may actually give up as Germans early on, I may have myself, but this would be a mistake. I think the Stolberg Corridor has a similar sort of set up. It looks way over balanced in the Americans favour but the Germans can take advantage of the terrain and fight up close.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Obviously you have your opinion and I have mine and the two will never meet.

Now you sound like my friends wife! :rolleyes:
Seriously, there are two or more camps on this issue?
I clearly see what you are saying. We just disagree. (And, I did not see my argument as destroying yours, as much as I did try to show there is another side.)

I will see how the scenario plays out from both sides although that may take a little while, but it looks at the moment as if I'm getting a good battle from the defencive AI.

If you have extreme assault on you have already given the AI a boost. Now if the AI gets a "good synapse" and remembers to put his infantry in bunkers and town hexes, it will even be better?
Though I do see a good indicator would be battling the AI from the defense.

Ed

[Valor]

People should be aware how difficult it is to judge balance, yet we all seem to jump to conclusions based on our own limited experience. Tell a designer who is right with the example below. Still it is interesting that the people write down their experiences and it helps to know that sometimes we don't know.

** A Senseless Sacrifice
Member Rating Notes
Bioman 5
Valor 4
Ivan 3
XLVIII Pz. Korp 3
Smedley 3
Charlie-66 3
Feldgeneral Hoth 3 Nice scenario. Tough for Americans.
Big Dawg 3
Digger 3 Very tough for the German attacker
Adolf Vahringer 2 Very nice map as usual. The Axis had a major victory after capturing just one of the 4 VP's. By the time they captured another, the game was out of reach for the Ami's. Ended up calling the game a draw.
Hawk Kriegsman 1 excellent map, accurate OOB and a no chance for the German player.

Hello, Huib

First thing we should be aware of is that Rating star system says not only about balance of the game. That was stated clearly in the "old" system. Stars are given for ones perception how the scenario is balanced, how entertaining and last but not least OOB and map.

Definitely for those who put enjoyment first rankings may be lower, for those who like very accurate maps and OOBs the ranks may be higher and vice versa depending on the scenario.

So it may be not very accurate trying to judge just balance on those rankings.

Going back to that particular scenario you must remember that I really like infantry battles, while other may not

Best regards

Slawek

[Huib Versloot]

Hello, Huib

First thing we should be aware of is that Rating star system says not only about balance of the game. That was stated clearly in the "old" system. Stars are given for ones perception how the scenario is balanced, how entertaining and last but not least OOB and map.

Definitely for those who put enjoyment first rankings may be lower, for those who like very accurate maps and OOBs the ranks may be higher and vice versa depending on the scenario.

So it may be not very accurate trying to judge just balance on those rankings.

Going back to that particular scenario you must remember that I really like infantry battles, while other may not

Best regards

Slawek

Exactly, I used this example because of the text in bold because here you can see that personal impressions sometimes will contradict eachother. Hawk thinks it is unwinnable for the axis, while Adolf Vahringer thinks it is a design unwinnable for the Allies and even politely offers his opponent a draw instead of taking the victory. Before this system we didn't have this information and you just had to guess why people liked or disliked a certain scenario.
I guess what I try to say is that players should try to judge their own performance AND that of their opponent, whether poor, or good, before saying a scenario is unbalanced. Even if we all are Guderians.

I judge balance of existing designs just on win/loss ratios. In case of this scn it is almost 50/50, even if the scenario was designed to be tougher for the Germans (hence the title) and the stronger player should pick that side.

/H