Gah -I still hate this....

[GreenAsJade]

You start a game with your H2H oppo, exchange passwords, excitedly read the briefing, and then get to the last page and it says "Best played VS AI".

FFS!

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

BTW, something wierd has happened at

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

... it is insisting on "source mode" editing, which is too hard.

Does someone know how to fix that?

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

You start a game with your H2H oppo, exchange passwords, excitedly read the briefing, and then get to the last page and it says "Best played VS AI".

It can still be played H2H; it just means that it is probably a bit unbalanced in favor of the side that was designed to be played by the AI. And don't battle descriptions state on the selection page when they are best played against the AI? I know some of them do, but I guess it is up to the author and how alert he is whether the warning is given on the selection page.

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

Yes, that is what I hate. FFS, put the info in the battle selection page!!!!

GaJ

[Wodin]

You start a game with your H2H oppo, exchange passwords, excitedly read the briefing, and then get to the last page and it says "Best played VS AI".

FFS!

GaJ

Would annoy..maybe scenarios should state in the title if it has to be played a certain way either AI or H2H.

[MikeyD]

I've never understood the cult of the 'perfectly balanced' H2H game, myself. This is war, not checkers. Some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you. If the opponent has a thrid more men than you that just makes the game more thrilling!

[umlaut]

I've never understood the cult of the 'perfectly balanced' H2H game, myself. This is war, not checkers. Some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you. If the opponent has a thrid more men than you that just makes the game more thrilling!

I agree, MikeyD. But other players feel differently.

That is why I think the scenario designer should state whether the game is "perfectly balanced" in the description field in the editor. Unfortunately, there isn´t room for that many words in the description field, so I think it would probably help if the max numbers of characters were raised by 50 to 100 percent.

[JonS]

state whether the game is "perfectly balanced"

But what does that even mean - perfectly balanced against what standard? :confused:

IMO, about the only thing that scenario designers can really do is indicate whether it has AI plans for one or both sides, and maybe if it was designed for and/or only tested against the AI. Anything else is going to be wildly inconsistent from one designer to another, and perhaps even between a single designers own scenarios. Besides, any scenario can be played H2H.

I generally take;

* no indication to mean:- it can be played H2H, or v the AI either way (that is, there is at least one AI plan for each side)

* vAxis to mean:- it can be played H2H, or v the Axis AI (that is, there is at least one Axis AI plan, but nothing for the Allied AI)

* vAllied to mean:- it can be played H2H, or v the Allied AI (that is, there is at least one Allied AI plan, but nothing for the Axis AI)

* vAxisOnly to mean:- in a H2H game the Axis player would have a significant advantage, and probably a pretty boring game

* vAlliedOnly to mean:- in a H2H game the Allied player would have a significant advantage, and probably a pretty boring game

[poesel]

I generally take;

* no indication to mean:- it can be played H2H, or v the AI either way (that is, there is at least one AI plan for each side)

Good idea. But I would suggest 'vAll' instead of no indication. This way you would know if the designer had things prepared or just forgot to put the indication in.

[dieseltaylor]

Good idea. But I would suggest 'vAll' instead of no indication. This way you would know if the designer had things prepared or just forgot to put the indication in.

Good point

[GreenAsJade]

Some people have a goal of "perfectly balanced" but I am not one of them.

I know that there likely isn't such a thing.

However this is *completely different* from a scenario that is designed for vs AI compared to one that is designed for H2H play.

A scenario that is setup for the AI to be able to successfully defend will be ludicrous for a human to try to attack with another human defending. Even more the other way around. Scenarios have to be designed differently for vs AI play compared to vs H2H play. What works for one does't for the other. It's not some subtle thing about oh dear it might be a little unbalanced. Most times, it's chalk and cheese. Sometimes skillful designers can make the same scenario work for both cases. But it's far from the norm.

I too tend to assume that if it doesn't say, in the intro, that it is for vs AI, then it is expected to play H2H at least in addition to vs AI. That is why it is so darn irritating to get to the end of the briefing, after two turn exhanges, and find it is designed for "vs AI Axis only" or similar.

GaJ

[George MC]

Stick to mirrored battles if you want balance.

[Wodin]

I've never understood the cult of the 'perfectly balanced' H2H game, myself. This is war, not checkers. Some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you. If the opponent has a thrid more men than you that just makes the game more thrilling!

I'm not a fan of balance forced into games especially wargames myself...though I do believe in a scenario you should be able to win even if you lost all you troops..lets say you held them off abit longer or caused a set amount of casualties. I also think games should have scenarios where both sides could win or both lose. As long as it was fun to play and it felt desperate being on the side that was worse off surely that can be fun aswell. Obviously if the game was so unbalanced you where wiped out in ten turns out of say 30 something is up..but nothing some quick scenario editing couldn't fix, or the terrain prohibited any movement and your sitting ducks again thats no fun. Still I believe you can have a great game thats unbalanced.

Also lists of scenarios saying whether to play or not due to being unbalanced used to wind me up when I used to Play HPS Squad battles...many scenarios where never played because of it.

I also hate Rock paper Scissor wargames aswell..again it becomes to puzzle\chess like.

Saying all that I always get upset when a scenario is made solely for H2H play. Especially if it looks a good one.

[George MC]

I'm not a fan of balance forced into games especially wargames myself...though I do believe in a scenario you should be able to win even if you lost all you troops..lets say you held them off abit longer or caused a set amount of casualties. I also think games should have scenarios where both sides could win or both lose. As long as it was fun to play and it felt desperate being on the side that was worse off surely that can be fun aswell. Obviously if the game was so unbalanced you where wiped out in ten turns out of say 30 something is up..but nothing some quick scenario editing couldn't fix, or the terrain prohibited any movement and your sitting ducks again thats no fun. Still I believe you can have a great game thats unbalanced.

Also lists of scenarios saying whether to play or not due to being unbalanced used to wind me up when I used to Play HPS Squad battles...many scenarios where never played because of it.

I also hate Rock paper Scissor wargames aswell..again it becomes to puzzle\chess like.

Saying all that I always get upset when a scenario is made solely for H2H play. Especially if it looks a good one.

Jeezo mate! Disnae leave many options!

[GerryCMBB]

I agree with GAJ. Not much fun playing another opponent if one is getting trounced and never had a chance from the beginning. No challenge for the trouncer either. Not looking for perfectly balanced, just want a fighting chance.

Gerry

You start a game with your H2H oppo, exchange passwords, excitedly read the briefing, and then get to the last page and it says "Best played VS AI".

FFS!

GaJ

[dieseltaylor]

Thinking about this problem further it would be interesting to play the AI and then a human, or vice versa, and actually see how bad or good the AI is in comparison : )

Given that humans are rarely equal, and especially if they are new to the game there may be a home for unbalanced - -AI side games. All we need is a reliable database to record scores and comnets on ....?!??!! HUh

[noob]

Maybe someone could come up with a handicap system like in golf, it could be applied at the end of the battle once the FOW lifts, then the scores could be modified, and a new result determined.

[newlife]

And don't forget H2H only if there are no AI plans at all

[slysniper]

Thinking about this problem further it would be interesting to play the AI and then a human, or vice versa, and actually see how bad or good the AI is in comparison : )

Given that humans are rarely equal, and especially if they are new to the game there may be a home for unbalanced - -AI side games. All we need is a reliable database to record scores and comnets on ....?!??!! HUh

Along these lines. GAJ, it sounds like you know it cannot be fare because it was designed for the AI.

I disagree, in some cases, it just takes assigning the weaker player to that side and its a good battle.

I just finished a Scenario where I was playing a new opponant, he was amazed I would pick the side he deemed So weak, and that we might select a more even battle. I warned him, if I lose, you have not proven anything. If I win, you will be in a bad place, because not only did I beat your skills, but also the odds which have been placed against me. (Needless to say, I handed him a blood bath, a cease fire was called and I had a slight upper hand in a great fight) Who felt good about the battle.

Another guy I have played for a while now that is not at my level, we always select a scenario that gives him the AI side and hopefully the advantage.

(But keep in mind, we have found some AI sides of scenario's do not mean they are stronger, some designers build battles where the AI is weak).

I think the issue is, some of us cannot handle to lose, they think it reflects directly towards them. Or maybe they are in some stupid ladder thing that it is going to reflect what type of player they are. Or whatever reason.

That fact is, you are in the wrong hobby then, because there is no such thing as balenced scenarios. and even if there was. (like blue on blue on a mirrored map) - which these are as boring as it can get. It still proves nothing.

I know a handful of excellent players, why, because I have seen it in their play. I need no chart or win / loss record to know who is good. Also I have seen some of the players who will do anything to get a high ranking on a ladder board that have done some crap and are not as good as what they think they are.

I hate QB type formats, because the best players are not the best tacticians, they are the best purchasing agents and have developed tactics for their purchasing gene.

So Gaj, learn to judge your own skill and stop with the whine about being placed in a unbalenced situation.

Second, labeling the scenarios do not fix the problem.

If it is a ego's that need purpose, spend your time trying to come up with a way to rate players to their skills that actually means something. Even many of the tournaments work on faulty concepts, but at least most of the time the cream rises to the top.

The best player I have ever played, happens to be the same guy that won 2 of my tournaments, I just cannot remember him ever commenting on any scenario we have played as to its balence, either it is fun and challenging or it is not.

[noob]

I think Slysniper is right, if a battle is not a ladder or a tournament game, then who wins or loses is irrelevant, when i fight a battle, my bottom line is that i don't embarrass myself, so even if i lose, as long as i feel i have made my opponent sweat for the win i'm satisfied, therefore balance doesn't really come into it unless it's so lopsided that the whole thing feels farcical, which is rare.