• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Balancing a Scenario
05-12-2011, 12:16 PM,
#1
Smile  Balancing a Scenario
As some of you are aware, I have been working on making a scenario for WF. I started it simply as historical-fiction to learn the base mechanics of scenario making. I thought what I had put together might be a size 5 or 6, and was surprised to find it a nine! I'm wondering if there is a rule of thumb or other criteria that one can use to get an idea of the scenario "size" that one is building?

Another issie is that one of the biggest hardships is "play balance". I have made many scenarios for another period of history that I enjoy (antiquity), but WW2 is new, and play balance is a real difficult aspect, especially when the game has no "point system". What you think is balanced turns out not to be and what you have is a real hit & miss methodology for making the scenario "balanced".

If some of you old timers are out there and would like to share your experience on how you determine play balance in a scenario, I would really appreciate the benefit of your experience.

Hope to hear from some of you!

Thanks in advance.

Big Grin
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 12:45 PM,
#2
RE: Balancing a Scenario
(05-12-2011, 12:16 PM)RADO Wrote: As some of you are aware, I have been working on making a scenario for WF. I started it simply as historical-fiction to learn the base mechanics of scenario making. I thought what I had put together might be a size 5 or 6, and was surprised to find it a nine! I'm wondering if there is a rule of thumb or other criteria that one can use to get an idea of the scenario "size" that one is building?


Complexity (or size) is dependent on the number of units in the scenario. The more units you have, the higher the complexity.


(05-12-2011, 12:16 PM)RADO Wrote: Another issie is that one of the biggest hardships is "play balance". I have made many scenarios for another period of history that I enjoy (antiquity), but WW2 is new, and play balance is a real difficult aspect, especially when the game has no "point system". What you think is balanced turns out not to be and what you have is a real hit & miss methodology for making the scenario "balanced".

I am confused by the "no point system" reference? Can you explain?

Jason Petho
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 08:02 PM,
#3
RE: Balancing a Scenario
Map
Mission
Units
Victory hexes

Point values of units are not going to be a good "rule of thumb" for trying to balance a scenario.

How big is the map? How difficult the terrain?
What do you want both sides to do?
What period of the war ... and what theater?

Victory hex location and point values. What are the benefits of taking it or holding it?

As most know from reading about WWII and the tactics used, a three to one advantage was often needed to attack a defended area. This does not always work in CS. But, it can when you look at what affects balance above. A simple formula of "buying" so many points, as in the original Steel Panthers or Combat Mission does not work.

There is almost a "feel" to balance.
I set up each side and then play against the AI, once from each side. If I win from both sides and with similar points I then move on to play test against players of varied skills, often from both sides.
Then it becomes a matter of tweaking to get the "feel" right.

cheers

HSL
Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 08:24 PM,
#4
RE: Balancing a Scenario
(05-12-2011, 12:16 PM)RADO Wrote: As some of you are aware, I have been working on making a scenario for WF. I started it simply as historical-fiction to learn the base mechanics of scenario making. I thought what I had put together might be a size 5 or 6, and was surprised to find it a nine! I'm wondering if there is a rule of thumb or other criteria that one can use to get an idea of the scenario "size" that one is building?

Another issie is that one of the biggest hardships is "play balance". I have made many scenarios for another period of history that I enjoy (antiquity), but WW2 is new, and play balance is a real difficult aspect, especially when the game has no "point system". What you think is balanced turns out not to be and what you have is a real hit & miss methodology for making the scenario "balanced".

If some of you old timers are out there and would like to share your experience on how you determine play balance in a scenario, I would really appreciate the benefit of your experience.

Hope to hear from some of you!

Thanks in advance.

Big Grin

Send over the files and I'll explain you a method on how to do it based on what you have.
Quote this message in a reply
05-13-2011, 12:06 AM,
#5
RE: Balancing a Scenario
Jason,

A point buying system is a mathematically derived methodology that is used to determine what a base value in the game that a unit is worth. It will be based on a number of characteristics the unit has. Weapon effectiveness, movement allowance, & armor defensive value are three characteristics one would use in the CS system. Fire cost would be another. These values are then combined to give a total point value of the unit.

This gives a very dependable manner in which to determine the eveness of a match up, but does not include other variables such as defensive position, etc... Separate values have to be assigned for that.

It is a very involved and detailed process but once completed, it works.

:)
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
05-13-2011, 12:54 AM,
#6
RE: Balancing a Scenario
(05-13-2011, 12:06 AM)RADO Wrote: Jason,

A point buying system is a mathematically derived methodology that is used to determine what a base value in the game that a unit is worth. It will be based on a number of characteristics the unit has. Weapon effectiveness, movement allowance, & armor defensive value are three characteristics one would use in the CS system. Fire cost would be another. These values are then combined to give a total point value of the unit.

This gives a very dependable manner in which to determine the eveness of a match up, but does not include other variables such as defensive position, etc... Separate values have to be assigned for that.

It is a very involved and detailed process but once completed, it works.

:)

How does this differ from the Victory Point system for the units?

Jason Petho
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
05-13-2011, 01:36 AM,
#7
RE: Balancing a Scenario
(05-13-2011, 12:54 AM)Jason Petho Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 12:06 AM)RADO Wrote: Jason,

A point buying system is a mathematically derived methodology that is used to determine what a base value in the game that a unit is worth. It will be based on a number of characteristics the unit has. Weapon effectiveness, movement allowance, & armor defensive value are three characteristics one would use in the CS system. Fire cost would be another. These values are then combined to give a total point value of the unit.

This gives a very dependable manner in which to determine the eveness of a match up, but does not include other variables such as defensive position, etc... Separate values have to be assigned for that.

It is a very involved and detailed process but once completed, it works.

:)

How does this differ from the Victory Point system for the units?

Jason Petho

If I undestand correctly, a strength point gives "X" victory points in the game, regardless of what type it is. So if you lose a SP of PZ VIb's, you get the same VP's as if you lost a SP of T-26's.

If that is not correct then I am even more confused than usual!

:)
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
05-13-2011, 01:44 AM,
#8
RE: Balancing a Scenario
(05-13-2011, 01:36 AM)RADO Wrote: If I undestand correctly, a strength point gives "X" victory points in the game, regardless of what type it is. So if you lose a SP of PZ VIb's, you get the same VP's as if you lost a SP of T-26's.

If that is not correct then I am even more confused than usual!

:)

No, that is not correct.

Each platoon has a different Victory Point value per SP.

For example:

M3A1 Stuarts are worth 3 Victory Points per SP.
M4A2 Shermans are worth 5 Victory Points per SP.
M4A3E8 Shermans are worth 6 Victory Points per SP.

Jason Petho
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
05-13-2011, 02:04 AM,
#9
RE: Balancing a Scenario
(05-13-2011, 01:44 AM)Jason Petho Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 01:36 AM)RADO Wrote: If I undestand correctly, a strength point gives "X" victory points in the game, regardless of what type it is. So if you lose a SP of PZ VIb's, you get the same VP's as if you lost a SP of T-26's.

If that is not correct then I am even more confused than usual!

:)

No, that is not correct.

Each platoon has a different Victory Point value per SP.

For example:

M3A1 Stuarts are worth 3 Victory Points per SP.
M4A2 Shermans are worth 5 Victory Points per SP.
M4A3E8 Shermans are worth 6 Victory Points per SP.

Jason Petho

I feel so much better now. That's the information I was looking for and I'm glad I was wrong. Is this information in the unit parameter data in the game? If so, there's where I need to go.

As always Jason, you are a fountain of information.

Thanks!
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
05-13-2011, 02:11 AM,
#10
RE: Balancing a Scenario
(05-13-2011, 02:04 AM)RADO Wrote: I feel so much better now. That's the information I was looking for and I'm glad I was wrong. Is this information in the unit parameter data in the game? If so, there's where I need to go.

As always Jason, you are a fountain of information.

Thanks!

You should be able to find that data by using the Unit Viewer.

Start --> Program Files --> John Tiller's Campaign Series --> Unit Viewer.

OR

Start --> Programs --> John Tiller's Campaign Series --> Unit Viewer.

Jason Petho
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)