Matrix Improvements

Herr Straße Laufer · 12-24-2007, 09:34 AM,

"No big thang", Rod! :smoke:
Always there to help a friend. :thumbs_up:

cheers

12-29-2007, 07:21 AM,

Question on unit add-ons under the Matrix version. I have EIF version (though I have upgraded the WF side to the "Gold Version" and have the "Blitz's add-ons to EFII from way back when). I am not predisposed at this time to re-invest in the Matrix version (especially since there are other New games I don't have), but would like to include add-ons of new units. I copied several of the German add-ons from the The Blitz-EFII file into WF so I know it can be done manually. So, what new units have been added- I see some references to Piat teams for the Brits listed on another message. Is this one of them? :chin:
Also, is there a compatabilty issue playing someone using the Matrix version against my version?

Beric Kimball

Tide1 · (This post was last modified: 12-29-2007, 09:09 AM by Tide1.)

Hi Beric

As far as I know the Matrix Edition doesn't mix with the older version.
There have been dozens of units added to the Matrix Edition. The Piat is just one. I can't even hazard a guess for the total number

Tide1

simovitch · 01-03-2008, 03:56 AM,

I've re-worked the Matrix edition WF german OOB's for the DCG's and suddenly all sorts of cool units are showing up in North Africa like captured russian 76.2mm AT guns, dodge trucks, and captured british armored cars.

Before, if you could even get the darn game to work you were lucky to get a german recon vehicle or motorcycle platoon to show up in your random forces in a DCG. Many mysteries have been solved, just a few more to go.

Don Fox · 01-03-2008, 01:11 PM,

KK Said: "balance is in the eye of the beholder "

Or more precisely: Balance is usually in the eye of the loser :)

Mr. Guberman · 01-04-2008, 12:05 AM,

Don,

...agreed...

Cheers

Herr Straße Laufer · (This post was last modified: 01-04-2008, 04:19 AM by Herr Straße Laufer.)

Don Fox Wrote:KK Said: "balance is in the eye of the beholder "

Or more precisely: Balance is usually in the eye of the loser :)

:chin: Funny, I've lost more than my fair share of games but, I think that I've claimed equal lack of balance during either wins or losses, based solely on the scenario design.
After playing quite a few games you get a feel for when it is your tactics/game play? Or, an unbalanced design, IMHO.

:dunno: I'm just a .500 win/loss ratio player and always will be. My losses have been a badge of honor for me. Along the way I have seen quite a few scenario designs that I think I can fairly judge for balance. And, at .500, I'm neither a loser or winner? :rolleyes:

cheers

Huib Versloot · 01-04-2008, 07:07 AM,

The balance rating should be abolished. The win/loss statistics tell the tale, not the player's perception of balance in their ratings. Since some time I rate all scns I play 4 for balance, because I've learned I can't judge if a game is balanced after playing it 2 or 3 times. It's hilarious to read some extreme ratings and conclusions sometimes based on a single game and some other guy playing the same side saying exactly the opposite.

Mr. Guberman · 01-04-2008, 03:37 PM,

By the by...

I got into wargames, playing sundry sots (and my brother) not to collect wins, as if I were a baseball pitcher...but for the immersion...that is the way I design my scens...historically. If they cannot be enjoyed for what they are and for what they represent...too bad. As a vet, I might say...it would be terrible for me to report to my superiors that my situation was..."unbalanced"...indeed.

Cheers
Curt

K K Rossokolski · 01-04-2008, 04:40 PM,

Guberman -good stuff. The prospect of using "unbalanced" in the average SITREP does conjure up some interesting images...eg the ensuing Court Martial

Huib -absolutely, it is impossible to subjectively rate balance. The only guide we have, and an imperfect one at that, is the w/L ratio, and that may be skewed by a number of factors.