Two differant versions (AI and H2H) of the same scenario. Thoughts?

[George MC]

Hi

I've been desiging a few scenarios (battles and operations) lately. Given the limitations of the AI and the need to 'tweak' the game parameters it sometimes means the game is not that well balanced for H2H. So I also make a version,same scenario, balanced for H2H play (this process also works the other way round ). I was curious as to whether 1) Players found this confusing (they are clearly marked as AI or H2H in the title)? 2)Did most people play against the AI or play H2H?

Personally I do both and like the option of playing the same scenario against either.

I'm curious as to what others think?

Cheers for your anticipated response.

George Mc

[junk2drive]

Utopian outlook: Yes, wonderful, everybody should make two versions.

Reality: Tough to get feedback on anything. Twice the work. It is hard enough to get either version to work properly.

Thoughts: Make H2H or AI only versions not both.

Non historical H2H might as well play quick battles.

BFC claims most people play vs AI.

[Hans]

A possibility but I find it easier to go with either a AI battle or a H2H and work from their.

Most of mine are now for the AI and they are often historical, which throws the need for balance out the window.

Smaller scenario are very difficult to balance for H2H play. One bit of bad luck or a skilled gunner and the scenario is labelled "unbalanced" !

[Brent Pollock]

I haven't cranked out too many battles (check SD & PG for anything labelled "WBRP") possibly because I try to make three versions of the same battle:

- 2 player only

- vs Axis AI only

- vs Allied AI only.

Not every situation lends itself to all three. FOs, Exit for Points & Passengers come to mind.

I dislike simply stating "increase by x % vs AI".

[simovitch]

Being a proponent of playing vs the AI, I greatly appreciate it when a designer takes the time to produce both 2P and vs-AI versions.

I think it would be tough to find a situation where all three possible versions, as Mr Pollock suggests, would make 3 uniformly "good" scenarios. But if it can be done then all the better.

[George MC]

Lol By my reckoning that is three for differant versions and two against.

I guess I have just started doing both as I do enoy playing against the AI, but since starting to play PBEM I love being cuffed, er playing other humans (Uhm - does that sound odd?!). Since I pretty much design scenarios I am interested in I like the option of playing it either against the AI or playing against one of my PBEM mates.

Hans wrote "Smaller scenario are very difficult to balance for H2H play. One bit of bad luck or a skilled gunner and the scenario is labelled "unbalanced" !"

That's why I like BIG scenarios, although I have done a few, but you are right with smaller scenarios one bit of bad luck and it's all over.

As long as having two scenarios is not confusing then you can take your pick - I'm happy to do both if I feel the action is a challenging one to balance both either perspective.

Thanks for the comments guys - be interesting to see what others think.

Cheers fur noo

George

[Gpig]

I think that a scenario should be designed for one type of play in mind. It shouldn't be both.

And it shouldn't be listed as being playable as both in the scenario description. (Although I understand that designers want to appeal to players, wether they be A.I. battlers or TCPr's.)

Just played a byte battle off of Der Kessel that was listed as both. "Two Player or Axis versus A.I."

I opened up the scenario and in the breifing it says best played as Axis vs A.I..

I played it as Axis vs A.I. and was not impressed with the A.I.. Although I still LOVED the battle, it was mostly due to the wonderful map and interesting force mix and mission.

I killed off the A.I. pretty quickly. As it never used all of its assets.

Now I have to try and find a human player to play it against. But it won't be the same.

Gpig

[George MC]

Cheers fur that Gpig! That's a tie so far

[Mad Russian]

I found a surprising thing when I released two versions of the same scenario on the same day. I released a "vs AI" version and a "H2H" version

(multiplayer) of HSG KC Major Bake on 16 December 2004.

The AI version today has 397 downloads on the Scenario Depot while the multiplayer version has 129. In other words, for all the pomp and ceremony put forth about how players don't like playing AI scenarios, it appears to be the more downloaded version of the two. Now, I will readily admit that this is a single scenario sampling.

The scenario in question is also part of a series that has been exclusively playtested and balanced for vs AI play in the past. This was the first attempt to include a H2H version of a Knight's Cross scenario.

I agree that it is next to impossible to make a scenario that will play well vs the AI and human players. I think the scenario has to be balanced for one or the other. I often make versions for both but tend to do a few more vs the AI scenarios. With what the scenario above shows that seems to be the right direction to go for most gamers.

[Joachim]

It is H2H scenarios that are most rewarding. There are some scenes from H2H that I remember, where I can tell you the units involved in an action. But none from a battle vs the AI.

Nevertheless I finish much more games vs the AI than H2H. Battling the AI takes much less time.

Gruß

Joachim