Battles play tested for H2H?

[GerryCMBB]

Hello All:

I wonder what I paid for with CMFI after reading the thread about battles set up as best vs AI. I don't play vs AI and obviously not QBs then. There could be a 1000 QB maps and it would not matter to me.

There were some new features added but some did not work (assigning numbers to HQ units) or did not work well (Target Briefly did not work well with Mortars). So mostly I am paying for new units and battles.

I play small or medium H2H games. So that is not a large selection of battles. Now if some were never tested or initially designed with H2H in mind that list gets smaller.

I am curious how many battles are tested (percentage-wise in a module on average) for H2H play.

Thanks,

Gerry

[womble]

I don't play vs AI and obviously not QBs then.

Erm, that doesn't necessarily follow. At all. You can just as well play QBs vs humans. If you elect not to, that's your choice.

There were some new features added but some did not work (assigning numbers to HQ units) or did not work well (Target Briefly did not work well with Mortars). So mostly I am paying for new units and battles.

And:

• Moveable Waypoints
  
• Target Armor Arc Command
  
• Expanded Floating Icon Categories
  
• "Fog of War" Floating Icons
  
• 2D Editor Map Overlay
  
• Auto-Assemble Road/Wall/Hedge Tool
  
• New Rendering Shaders
  
• Bump and Normal Mapping
  
• Improved Framerates
  
• Pausable Realtime TCP/IP Mode
  
• UI improvements.
  

And those are just the headline changes. An entirely new method of dealing with textures is hardly "chump change".

[JonS]

I am curious how many battles are tested (percentage-wise in a module on average) for H2H play.

AIUI, all of the release disk scenarios are able to be played either way against the AI and for H2H. There's no guarantee that they're balanced (whatever that means) in any particular play mode though.

Obviously(?) the campaign scenarios are vs the AI only.

[eltorrente]

I don't play vs AI and obviously not QBs then.

This statement makes no sense to me.

The AI is HORRIBLE in QB's, therefore the only way to play QB's is against a human - unless you want a ridiculously easy game every time.

Even the scenarios that people put so much thought into in making AI plans are simply too easy and that makes it no fun.

As you can tell, I don't like playing the AI either - therefore I play QB's quite a bit.

[GreenAsJade]

eltorrente, he said he does NOT play vs AI and "therefore *not* QBs". This is what does not make sense.

EDIT: oops, I see what you mean, sorry!

[eltorrente]

eltorrente, he said he does NOT play vs AI and "therefore *not* QBs". This is what does not make sense.

Uhhh.. yes, I know. Which is why it makes no sense to assume that since he doesn't play AI, that that would mean that he doesn't play QBs. QB's are for Human vs Human.

[GreenAsJade]

AIUI, all of the release disk scenarios are able to be played either way against the AI and for H2H. There's no guarantee that they're balanced (whatever that means) in any particular play mode though.

Absolute bollocks.

Sure, no menu pops up and says "sorry, you can only play this VS AI, hah hah", but a scenario that has been designed for vs AI play is _highly likely_ to be an _unpleasant experience_ for one or both of the players if played H2H.

Let's not get sidetracked by silly debates about "is it truly balanced?". We're talking about "FFS, where's the fun in this??" Alvano Anvil is a classic example. It's either "play vs AI" or "hah hah have fun banging your head against a brick wall while you try to attack a human who is so well equppied he's bored stiff waiting for you to threaten him".

Designing a scenario to get that sweet spot where it's fun for two reasonably matched players to play against each other is a skill. To say otherwise is a massive slap in the face of all those designers over the years who've slaved at doing exactly this.

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

All this being said, I don't think you necessarily ever expect to pay for that many H2H battles to be supplied. Given that the average enthusiast will play many many battles of a title, then inevitably the CD supplied ones quicky run out. You paid for a platform upon which to create and play new battles, and you gambled that someone will be keen enough to create them.

GaJ

[GerryCMBB]

I made a mistake. Let me clarify. I don't play Battles vs AI; nor campaigns as they are against the AI; nor QBs (I like the history part of Battles).

So let's not get hung up on my mistake and sorry for the confusion in the first place.

I am sorry but I believe that all Battles provided for purchase should be play tested to be reasonably balanced for H2H. I define "reasonably balanced" as giving two players of equal strength a fighting chance, and therefore much more engagement and fun.

CMx2 is a lot of work for players. It is reasonable I think to expect scenarios to have been play tested H2H to make for enjoyable H2H experiences. Notice that this has nothing to do with ego or winning versus losing. I lose at lots of things.

Gerry

Uhhh.. yes, I know. Which is why it makes no sense to assume that since he doesn't play AI, that that would mean that he doesn't play QBs. QB's are for Human vs Human.

[JonS]

Absolute bollocks.

Umm ... what? I think you might have read rather more into what I wrote than was intended.

[GreenAsJade]

I can't guess what was intended

What I find unhelpful is the continual raising of the point that "technically you can play any battle H2H if you can play it vs AI" in the context of discussion that are talking about games that are _suitable for_ H2H play. If you did not intend to assert that vs AI games are suitable for H2H play, then I'm not sure what the point of your statement was... because the OP's point was clearly aimed at exploring the question of what battles are suitable for H2H play.

GaJ

[JonS]

What I wrote was "AIUI, all of the release disk scenarios are able to be played either way against the AI and for H2H." The 'able' in there wasn't intended to be a "technically able to", but an "it's practical to." To put that another way: it was my understanding that release scens were intended to be playable - 'suitable', if you like - in any mode. Not necessarily balanced in any mode, but not pointless either.

So I was answering the OPs question directly: which scens can be played H2H? All of them.

[GreenAsJade]

"AIUI, all of the release disk scenarios are able to be played either way against the AI and for H2H."

I see.

In this, you are mistaken.

The experience of a few is already recorded here (some, but not all, of these entries are mine).

http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/H2H_Scenarios

it was my understanding that release scens were intended to be playable - 'suitable', if you like - in any mode. Not necessarily balanced in any mode, but not pointless either.

That would have been a good goal. I can't comment whether it really was a goal, or whether your understanding is wrong.

What is a fact is that the result is not this way. There are scenarios that are manifestly (proven through play) to be not suitable. There are also scenarios that state in their briefing that they are intended for vs AI play.

Cheers,

GaJ.

[JonS]

Now I'm not sure what your point is - most of those listed there sound like they'd be fine H2H.

[GreenAsJade]

My point is that the ones that are listed there as "not suitable for H2H" are ... not suitable for H2H.

Since you said "most of them sound like they'd be fine" rather than "all of them are fine" I've lost track of what your point is

Initially, your point appeared to be that "all the scenarios on the CD are suitable for H2H play". It is this point that I am disagreeing with.

I find my own point quite clear My point is that it is frustrating that there are scenarios on the CD that are _not_ suitable for H2H, and you don't find this out until the third turn exchange.

What is your point? Are you still claiming that all the scenarios on the CD are suitable for H2H play? Based on what experience would you make this claim?

Cheers,

GaJ

[JonS]

My point is that the ones that are listed there as "not suitable for H2H" are ... not suitable for H2H.

Am I missing something - I only saw one there that you thought was no good?

[GreenAsJade]

One definitely no good, one debatable, in that list.

In addition, the next one I opened was no good either (which triggered my "Gah - I hate this" thread). Gateway to Palermo - stated in the briefing that its vs AI only. I haven't added it to that table because the edit function in the page is broken.

So we return to your point: you said that as you understand it, all the scenarios on the CD are suitable for H2H. My point was that you are mistaken in this understanding.

The relevance to this thread is that you responded to the OP's concern that he had limited scenarios for his money by saying "all the scenarios are suitable for H2H". I thought you were making the technical point, which irritated me for its irrelevance. Subsequently you clarified that you were actually stating that you genuinely believed that all the scenarios are good for H2H, with the implication that the OP should be less concerned. I guess the jury is out on exactly how many are or are not suitable. You had said that you thought that the _intent_ is that they all are. Clearly this intent was not met.

Overall, as far as this thread goes, I think the point is actually moot, because as I said, you don't by a CM CD for the H2H scenarios on the CD. You buy a platform hoping (based on good historical evidence) that lots of good H2H scenarios will continue to be made.

Regards,

GaJ

[JonS]

My point was that you are mistaken in this understanding.

It happens.

[GreenAsJade]

LOL no worries, thanks for acknowledging Sorry for being thingy about it. Especially since what I was being thingy about wasn't what you actually meant to say

(I'm thingy about people saying that any vs AI scenario is just fine for H2H).

Phew. Let's go write some scenarios or something

GaJ

[womble]

One thing that might help assess whether a given scenario is appropriate for the particular combination of players and their aims and goals is some indication of the relative force levels assigned to each side. Obviously it wouldn't be a cure-all, since the terrain matters a lot and in a scenario, when any reinforcements arrive can be influential if they're very lop-sided.

Or maybe the briefing screen could appear when you first put in your password so you get to know sooner.

[GreenAsJade]

Or the designer (or packager) could put it in the intro screen. Simple, really.

GaJ

[noob]

In addition, the next one I opened was no good either (which triggered my "Gah - I hate this" thread). Gateway to Palermo - stated in the briefing that its vs AI only. I haven't added it to that table because the edit function in the page is broken.

I have played GTP from both sides as a H2H PBEM game against the same oppo, and IMO, it's possible for both sides to win.

The games i have played so far that i regard as balanced H2H PBEM's i.e. possible to get a win with either side, are:

Gateway to Palermo

Fight at Vallebruca

The Battle for Borgo Cascino

I have played one game that IMO is impossible for the Axis to win and that's Casa Nostra.

[Holien]

Hello All:

I am curious how many battles are tested (percentage-wise in a module on average) for H2H play.

Thanks,

Gerry

Hi, you will not get any stats for that as it was not recorded. IMO a few.

IMO Testing for a release is more about bugs than game play in scenarios although people testing do offer constructive feed back on scenario design it might not relate to balance for H2H.

GaJ and others (myself included) have started threads to try and identify good H2H games for people. Like you I want to have something that each side has a chance at.

This raises the question of what is balanced which has seen numerous discussions.

GaJ nice link to a place where we can try and rate scenarios for H2H play. This is the way to go IMO and needs to be supported by those others (small number of players) who can feed into the comments.

Hope this helps some what. I am going to bump the old CMBN H2H thread and post link to the site GaJ has listed.

Cheers

H

[Holien]

I have played GTP from both sides as a H2H PBEM game against the same oppo, and IMO, it's possible for both sides to win.

The games i have played so far that i regard as balanced H2H PBEM's i.e. possible to get a win with either side, are:

Gateway to Palermo

Fight at Vallebruca

The Battle for Borgo Cascino

I have played one game that IMO is impossible for the Axis to win and that's Casa Nostra.

I am just about finishing Fight at Vallebruca and while it is possible to win as the Germans it is unlikely. So I would have reservations about saying that is a good H2H game.

It is a great scenario but not something I would point to for H2H unless the Germans are prepared for a very hard fight.

Just my 2p...

Canister is too cool (except for when it is coming your way...)