Jump to content

Why are maps balanced?


simast

Recommended Posts

And by maps, I mean the actual maps and not the battles. I am playing one WEGO game right now (the first meeting engagement battle in the list) and this:

2vs3qqc.jpg

The fence is here so you wouldn't use your truck and rush into a good position too soon too fast. The map is full of other goodies. Every tree is placed to obstruct something...

Also, found this line in the latest patch:

some Meeting Engagement maps were re-balanced.

I understand there is a lot of work put into these maps and don't want to undermine the effort, but why would you want to balance the maps at all? The only balance that should be done is with forces/OOB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order balance out-of-balance QB maps using OOB you would have to give one side or the other more purchase points. That's fine in theory, but the problem is if the map is picked at random you don't know before hand if you are getting a balanced one or not.

I get your point about QB unit purchase points, but the screenshot and my issue is with a scenario map, not a QB map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand there is a lot of work put into these maps and don't want to undermine the effort, but why would you want to balance the maps at all? The only balance that should be done is with forces/OOB.

That's a pretty preposterous notion. You can't separate terrain balance from forces balance. If the defenders are at the top of cliffs with plentiful cover and concealment, the attackers are going to need overwhelming odds to balance the game we're playing. Or the map maker could tone down the elevation changes and add defilade where the attacker can approach.

Balance is balance, no matter where it comes from. And QBs only get their balance from the map; can you imagine how difficult it might be to get two opponents to agree whether the given map ought to reward the disadvantaged side with 10 or should it be 20% more force points? And that's when the map is manually selected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a pretty preposterous notion. You can't separate terrain balance from forces balance. If the defenders are at the top of cliffs with plentiful cover and concealment, the attackers are going to need overwhelming odds to balance the game we're playing. Or the map maker could tone down the elevation changes and add defilade where the attacker can approach.

I know you mentioned the game here, but how would you approach such a battle in real life (given the fact CM engine was always striving to be as realistic as possible in depicting tactical combat)? I can already imagine the attacking force commander saying something like "this isn't fair! let's lower the elevation and balance the forces" :rolleyes:

Unless there are other factors involved? Like engine limitations? I just don't buy it. Given how realistically CM does everything else, it bothers me that we have these Call of Duty style map balance fences placed in the game.

And QBs only get their balance from the map; can you imagine how difficult it might be to get two opponents to agree whether the given map ought to reward the disadvantaged side with 10 or should it be 20% more force points? And that's when the map is manually selected.

I know map balance is needed for QBs since you can choose your own forces, but there is no excuse to balance the scenario maps, which is what I am referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you mentioned the game here, but how would you approach such a battle in real life (given the fact CM engine was always striving to be as realistic as possible in depicting tactical combat)? I can already imagine the attacking force commander saying something like "this isn't fair! let's lower the elevation and balance the forces" :rolleyes:

Unless there are other factors involved? Like engine limitations? I just don't buy it. Given how realistically CM does everything else, it bothers me that we have these Call of Duty style map balance fences placed in the game.

I know map balance is needed for QBs since you can choose your own forces, but there is no excuse to balance the scenario maps, which is what I am referring to.

i wasnt there, so this is only a guess, but maybe, just maybe a commander might say, oh **** call for reinforcements theres more than we thought, lets pull back, wait for more guys and then go at them?

or maybe skirmish after skirmish was an unbalanced, unfair slaughter - thats great, i dont want to play a game like that. If you do thats cool, but ill see you back here in 6 months complaining how you keep getting beaten

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, irl, if the terrain was preposterous for an attack ... you'd go and attack somewhere else.

So a QB map assumes that the eventual decision to attack/probe/whatever has led to the battle being on terrain in which both sides ( the players ) feel they stand a chance.

If you want to create a more "lopsided" affair, grab that scenario editor and get started, there's nothing stopping you.

Assuming the map builder created that fence that annoys you just to stop some sort of truck rush may be inferring a bit much, maybe he just put it there to look good. Besides, how much is it going to slow you down ? 20 more seconds ? Hardly serious in the timescale of a battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know map balance is needed for QBs since you can choose your own forces, but there is no excuse to balance the scenario maps, which is what I am referring to.

............

Some of the Meeting Engagement QB maps have been edited - more precisely the setup zones have been edited to provide more balanced setup conditions.

/sdp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wasnt there, so this is only a guess, but maybe, just maybe a commander might say, oh **** call for reinforcements theres more than we thought, lets pull back, wait for more guys and then go at them?

You mean you will use overwhelming force to beat the opposition? And will not bring an excavator and try to level their defensive positions before the battle? Makes sense. Which is also my point.

So a QB map assumes that the eventual decision to attack/probe/whatever has led to the battle being on terrain in which both sides ( the players ) feel they stand a chance.

QB has nothing to do with this..

Anyway, I did notice this and thought this can be relatively easily avoided for scenario maps. If no one else thinks this way, I am fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two (at least) competing theories of gameplay at work: 'authenticity' camp and the 'chess game' camp. The first has the scenario/map designer trying to reproduce an actual location or event. The new map editor features make this an easier task. The second tries to accommodate the H2H player's obsession with 'play balance' - that one side not be given an unfair advantage over the other. The 'authenticity players tend to get annoyed with 'chess game' style maps and the 'chess game' players tend to get annoyed with 'unfair advantage' reality-style maps. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just too good not to bite at

The fence is here so you wouldn't use your truck and rush into a good position too soon too fast.

I've no idea who's map this is, but if I wanted to block trucks, you'd have something more substantial than a fence in the way.

The map is full of other goodies. Every tree is placed to obstruct something...

Well I guess it obstructs the LOS from behind the tree at the very least

So no fences in scenarios, no trees, how about houses can we use them ?

If you think I sit there and place everything for design effect, you have no idea how I make maps ;)

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, come on. A chessboard is "balanced." Every other map is going to be "unbalanced" to some degree unless, say, you simply made each player's "half" a mirror image of the other's. If that's what you want -- a gladiatorial arena for a glorified game of digital team paintball -- go abead and build your own. Or just play World of Tanks and have done.

Me, I am at the very opposite end of the spectrum; I like nothing better than to play games with mismatched forces but the stronger force having to struggle through god-awful terrain and the weaker force having to make best possible use of thatterrain.Like, oh, nearly all real WWII battlefields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point about QB unit purchase points, but the screenshot and my issue is with a scenario map, not a QB map.

It's quite obvious from the screen shot that the truck will get to where it's going faster by going down the road. Putting a truck on open ground will slow it down to a crawl anyway, so your theory is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sight*

Found some more cheap hippie jokes:

How do you know a hippie stayed at your place?

(He is still there)

How do you get rid of the hippie staying at your place?

(Offer him a job)

Where do you hide money from a hippie?

(Under a bar of soap!)

What do you call a hippie who just broke up with his girlfriend?

(Homeless)

How many hippies does it take to screw in a light bulb?

(None, hippies screw in tents)

Why do hippies wave their arms when they dance?

(To keep the music out of their eyes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have designed a few maps/scenarios.

So far from my limited experience:

Fences have negligible impact on any effort to restrict movement.

I use heavy forest to channel vehicles for the AI side.

Trees seem to not block LOS for my AI troops.

I use buildings or actual terrain to prevent game starting with troops unintentionally in LOS of each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...