"Balanced" Scenarios - H2H

[CanuckGamer]

My friends and I only play H2H so my comments only refer to that mode.   We try to only play scenarios that indicate they are suitable for H2H. We have been playing the CM series for 20 years, so from the beginning.  Lately we have been noticing that a lot of the scenarios are so lopsided that they are not even worth playing.  For example Against the Odds in CMRT which we are just finishing.  The Germans have two King Tigers which have proved impossible to knock out.  One of them has taken about 15 hits, 7 from the rear including 3 from a ISU122 firing AP.  The Russians have lost about 20 tanks, the Germans, 2 Mark IVs.  There have been 3 IL2s that have been flying around forever, "en route".  I am the Russian and have not surrendered only because I am curious about the IL2s and whether they will even show up.  The last scenario I played with air was a scenario from CMFI a couple of years ago.

I am  playing a scenario in CMBN called Nulli something with another friend and just hoisted the white flag.  I was the CW and had 4 tanks, of which one was a Firefly.  After finishing the scenario, I checked what the Germans had.  Total of 9 tanks, and one assault gun.  Four of their tanks are Panthers.  I managed to knock out one Panther from the rear at point blank range and one Mark IV.  My 4 tanks are destroyed.  The only CW tank that could knock out a Panther with a frontal hit would be the Firefly.  It is pretty obvious looking at the forces that Allies are totally outgunned so really have to wonder what the scenario designer was thinking.  The same is true for Against the Odds in CMRT.

I noticed in a couple of the forums today that scenarios for CMRT and CMFI are being play tested so that is good news.  I really wonder if some of the stock scenarios that come with their respective games were even tested.  

[Vacillator]

31 minutes ago, CanuckGamer said:

We try to only play scenarios that indicate they are suitable for H2H.

31 minutes ago, CanuckGamer said:

CMBN called Nulli something

I think this is BP Nulli Secundus?

Nulli Secundus doesn't mention H2H (or anything else to be fair).

FR Against the Odds likewise doesn't mention H2H (or again, anything else).  Unless I'm missing something, which is quite likely.

[CanuckGamer]

Some scenarios will indicate that it should be played against the AI.  Others will say playable in all modes.  In my two examples it doesn't indicate one way or the other so the only way you can find out is by playing them.  We stay away from the scenarios that indicate they should be played against the AI.

[Vacillator]

Fair enough my friend, it's not easy to tell which would be okay (let alone good) for H2H sometimes.  I'm wondering whether there is a register of this, perhaps at The Few Good Men or @IanL 's website?

Edited February 1, 2022 by Vacilllator

[CanuckGamer]

Sorry, I basically repeated what you are already indicated.  The assumption I make when I see a scenario that says that it should be played as a specific side against the AI is that the AI side is stronger.  As mentioned we stay away from the scenarios that say they should be played against the AI.  As these two scenarios did not make any reference to H2H or anything else as you have correctly pointed out we played them.  We also always try to play a scenario which we haven't tried before so that there is an element of FOW.  

I don't know if you have played either of these scenarios but Against the Odds has a lot of tanks and is a lot of fun as the Germans, ha ha.

[Vacillator]

I loaded them both up to have a look and I can see your issue . Just added this to my post above, will look into it:

5 minutes ago, Vacilllator said:

I'm wondering whether there is a register of this, perhaps at The Few Good Men or @IanL 's website?

 

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

8 hours ago, Vacilllator said:

Fair enough my friend, it's not easy to tell which would be okay (let alone good) for H2H sometimes.  I'm wondering whether there is a register of this, perhaps at The Few Good Men or @IanL 's website?

The Blitz have the scenarios listed and scored for playability by the members, useful resource. I tend to go there first and pick one based on the reviews. 

These are the CMRT ones:

https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/combat-mission-red-thunder/b-15.htm?action=scenarios&game=176

MMM

Edited February 2, 2022 by Monty's Mighty Moustache

[BornGinger]

I thought people play these games for a moment of fun and to see how they cope with a challenge and not always for the chance to win the battles.

[kohlenklau]

first a joke reply...

Damn! I wonder why the scenario is titled "Against the Odds" then? 

now some actual reply...

I think the stock scenarios are supposed to be written as playable from both sides against the AI, ambidextrous?

My tiny/small scenarios are often described as PLAY AS AXIS VS ALLIED AI ONLY or PLAY AS ALLIES VS AXIS AI ONLY because I didn't take the time to write the other side's AI plan for a human to play as the other side versus what I put in the description. I guess it is sometimes/often true that a scenario writer has to beef up the AI side to give the human a good challenge SO THEN IF A HUMAN takes over that AI beefed up side, they might be at an advantage. I HAVE seen in scenarios where this is acknowledged and the scenario writer says "more experienced player should be the allies" or whatever side has it weaker/tougher/more of a challenge.

One thing that is cool I am seeing in old ASL scenario cards is a minor note for balance to do this or that for tweaking the scenario for that die rolling boardgame. add a certain extra squad or 2, remove a leader, etc. 

I guess you could do that with a CM PBEM? In the designers notes?

"If a human plays as axis, they should drive in reverse with a 10m target arc and pull back to the friendly map edge 1 of the 2 King Tigers."

 

[A Canadian Cat]

10 hours ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

18 hours ago, Vacilllator said:

Fair enough my friend, it's not easy to tell which would be okay (let alone good) for H2H sometimes.  I'm wondering whether there is a register of this, perhaps at The Few Good Men or @IanL 's website?

I have a list of scenarios: https://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/index.html

Sadly some internet vandalism occurred when the blitz lost its .org domain so I recomend either avoid theBlitz links or copy them to a editor and tweak the .org to .club before actually using them.

On the scenario lists you can search for H2H to get scenarios that have some design intent to work in as a PBEM game.

10 hours ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

The Blitz have the scenarios listed and scored for playability by the members, useful resource. I tend to go there first and pick one based on the reviews. 

These are the CMRT ones:

https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/combat-mission-red-thunder/b-15.htm?action=scenarios&game=176

This is my go to method. Check the Win% column and look for one with 5 or more play through and check the Win% column. The scenarios closer to 50 50 are better balanced if find one 33 66 don't necessarily shy away form it give the 33% side to the more experienced player and you might find it pretty fun for both.

This balance is in scoring though so you can still face a tough challenge. Don't be put off if that happens - see it through.

[BornGinger]

19 hours ago, CanuckGamer said:

As mentioned we stay away from the scenarios that say they should be played against the AI...  We also always try to play a scenario which we haven't tried before so that there is an element of FOW.

If there is a scenario which seems interesting and has a great looking map and both of you feel that you would like to play it even though it is an "against AI only" battle you could still play it. This would need some tweeking of the scenario from both of you.

What you do is to agree on how many tanks that seems fair for one side to have and if the scenario gives more than that to one side the extra tanks should either be removed or put as a very late reinforcement.

You could also copy the quick battle way of giving different tanks certain points. You then agree on how many points of tanks are allowed in your H2H game and have to remove each tank that means too many points.

The one who has fewer tanks than allowed points isn't allowed to add tanks to reach the allowed points as you both would want to keep the scenario as close as possible to how it was done by the designer.

This approach and way to make "against the AI only"-scenarios more balanced is a little bit similar to playing a quick battle but with the difference that the opponents don't have to spend time choosing their whole force but only to remove what is necessary to remove. This approach also requires that you trust each other and don't take a quick glance on your opponent's troops.

As a quick explanation:

1. You both agree on a scenario and agree on allowed tanks or allowed tank points. You also decide which side you play as respectively - Axis or Allies (NATO/Ukraine or Soviet/Russia/Syria in the games after WW2).

2. Player One opens the scenario in the editor and checks his side's amount of tanks/armoured vehiles and does the changes if necessary. After that the scenario is saved with a new name and sent to Player Two (to be sure not to do it wrong it's probably better to save the scenario with a new name before doing any changes).

3. Player Two does the same with his side's tanks/armoured vehicles and saves the scenario.

4. Player Two either starts to play the scenario and does his initial moves or sends the scenario back to Player One if he's the one who's supposed to do the first moves.

Everyone is happy and noone will feel like Donald Duck when his cousin gets to take Daisy out on a romantic stroll.

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by BornGinger

[The Steppenwulf]

4 hours ago, BornGinger said:

You could also copy the quick battle way of giving different tanks certain points

What is that? Is there a list or spreadsheet used by players at FGM? 

[kohlenklau]

On 2/1/2022 at 3:58 PM, CanuckGamer said:

It is pretty obvious looking at the forces that Allies are totally outgunned so really have to wonder what the scenario designer was thinking. 

Battle Pack 1 for Combat Mission Battle for Normandy expands the experience of the Western Front by covering the period of combat between Normandy and Operation Market Garden. Designed by veteran CM scenario designer Jon Sowden.

The entire CMBN Battle Pack 1 was designed by Jon Sowden. @JonSIt could be that it was historical. Real War aint always balanced I have heard...

The lead up to the release of a BFC CM module or base game always involves a bunch of playtesting. I will not speak as a playtester, I am not one. Never been invited. Do not have the key to the beta testers lounge and lavatory. I do not know the secret handshake. From reading the various threads, these poor guys often play a scenario and then must stop and restart it after a code change. Do they play H2H for each and every scenario? I doubt it. 

Against the Odds was written by @snake_eye Seems ALSO to be historical. If he tweaked it to be "balanced" to appeal to the balanced scenario cult, then he gets hammered for ahistorical changes. You can't effing win!

All I know is that it is cool that you are actually playing the game and playing it H2H. Some folks just keep playing against the old AI. Maybe dip your toe into scenario editing, your PBEM buddy too..and you can both invest a wee bit of time to save time in the long run. save frustration and that crappy feeling of the game not being all you want it to be.

Good luck man

[WimO]

As both a map and scenario creator I was struggling with the question, "Should I jump into this discussion or not?" My ego said, 'Go ahead'.

I would like to begin with stating my observation that players all have different 'tastes' for the type of game they want or are willing to play. That is okay. We are all different. By 'type' here I mean whether a game is balanced or imbalanced which is the question under discussion here. Some prefer well-balanced games, I assume it suits their sense of competitive 'fairness'? Others are happy to play historical scenarios (which are often imbalanced), and still others are happy to be surprised. I am speaking as one who has been gaming in the realm of miniatures, board wargames and computer wargames, starting at age nine (that make for 62 years of gaming so far) and in the process have written rules, created games, and run convention events.

As a CM scenario creator of over 30 scenarios, and presently working on my series '82nd Airborne in Normandy', I prefer to attempt, to the extent that it is possible with the information available and the program's mechanics, historical scenarios. Although frequently imbalanced, I view the 'experience' as a discovery and reliving of the events, perhaps a role-playing experience. Through the scenario I try to 'tell a story'. Whether the gamer allows themself to be immersed into the story by reading the included notes varies from gamer to gamer. I suspect many skip the notes and jump into the game.

So what about balance in my particular scenarios? Two things mitigate against it, the first being the historical situation and the second is the speed with which I am outputting the scenarios (racing against my mortality clock) combined with lack of play-testers does not provide much opportunity for vetting. Well what about it? Do you want to play an historical event or do you want it distorted so much for the sake of balance that the historical challenge vanishes?. That's almost like asking to you want a game or an historical event, or a blend? That said, there are nevertheless things I do to try to move an imbalanced situation towards balance with the minimum of OOB disturbance. This might be accomplished through manipulation of the time variable as well as off-map artillery support.

Well that's the creator's side but there is something I hope for from players as a substitute to grumbling. Please, if you have issues with any scenario of anyone's creation, load the thing into the EDITOR and make any changes you wish. Be adventurous, be creative. So easy! Not enough tanks? Add some. Too much time? Cut it down. Disagree with the unit morale? Change it. The CM series is so very accessible to fiddling. I myself have opened up some of the existing scenarios and made changes.

By the way, map creation can take months of full-time work. And I mean 16 hour days, seven day weeks. Good thing I like it and have an obsessive personality. Scenarios also take many hours and play-testing, if testers are available, can take weeks more.

 

[chuckdyke]

16 minutes ago, WimO said:

Please, if you have issues with any scenario of anyone's creation, load the thing into the EDITOR and make any changes you wish.

I can't agree more it is the first step of becoming an editor. I suppose.

 

[BornGinger]

7 hours ago, The Steppenwulf said:

What is that? Is there a list or spreadsheet used by players at FGM? 

I was thinking that just as tanks, assault guns and halftracks in quick battles have different value points depending on how effective they are they could do the same when/if they decide to play an "against AI only" scenario and want to make it more balanced for an H2H game.

To find out the value points they can check the values for tanks, assault guns and halftracks in quick battles or make up their own value points.

Edited February 3, 2022 by BornGinger

[snake_eye]

9 hours ago, kohlenklau said:

 

Against the Odds was written by @snake_eye Seems ALSO to be historical. If he tweaked it to be "balanced" to appeal to the balanced scenario cult, then he gets hammered for ahistorical changes. You can't effing win!

 

Thanks for the given opportunity  @kohlenklauYou are right, "Against the Odds" is historical. Not to the smallest details but to the broad scope of that battle which was probably the last one the Axis won near Berlin. The scenario starts after that victory and is centered on the manner the Axis escaped the area to get as far away from the Russians with the hope of reaching the American lines in order to surrender. The scenario depicts a rearguard fight. The goals being to attrit as much the Reds, while allowing as far as possible the units to reach the Exit zones in order to hope reaching the Americans.

I have not played it H2H, but with the historical facts it is a highly challenging possibility. 

[CanuckGamer]

I'm sorry if my post came across as sour grapes and appreciate the people who spend hours creating scenarios.  Against the Odds is a big scenario with a large variety of tanks and weapons so quite interesting.  As I indicated to my friend who is playing the Germans it is a fun scenario regardless of the frustration of trying to take out a King Tiger.  His comment was "I love King Tigers", no kidding.  I am playing it out to the end and after hitting one the Tigers 16 times I think I have immobilized it.  If the IL2s appear I'm now wondering if they will attack the Tiger if it is indeed immobilized.

In the other scenario I mentioned, Nulli the CW has now lost it's 4 tanks but managed to knock out 2 German tanks including 1 Panther.  To add insult to injury, the last CW tank was knocked out by a panzerfaust.  Unless the CW get reinforcements and there is no mention of that in the briefing it will be merely mop up time for the remaining German tanks. 

On to the next scenario.

 

 

 

[semmes]

Also, you could do two scenarios, one with AI -and more AI troops, less troops for the player or different quality, or even changing the map a little-
and the "balanced" one for H2H. That's what I do.

 

We are the unwilling, lead by the unqualified, doing the unnecessary for the ungrateful.

[chuckdyke]

To have a 'Balanced' scenario you just need to have different parameters. 

[semmes]

I think he means "playing" a balanced scenario, not counting points at the end.

 

The only winner in 1812 was Tchaikovsky. S. Short.

[chuckdyke]

Warfare is just as honest and as fair as a bullfight in Spain. Some people like a 3D chess game. Tactical problem two PAK75 vs 12 JS2 they will lose but say they knock 2 out whilst crossing a bridge disable the two PAK75's and the crew exit the map. To play German could be an enjoyable scenario. I wouldn't like to do it in real life. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

It does help if a scenario designer makes it clear in the description section what modes the scenario should be played in.....Getting the AI to put up a respectable fight often (but not always) requires the use of forces that would be rather overwhelming in the hands of a human player.

The case @chuckdyke describes above might actually be one of the instances where the AI might perform reasonably well on either side, it's good on the defence and not too bad in overwhelming attacks.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead

[LiveNoMore]

I have created a number of scenarios and will tell you this. Creating a scenario that is balanced against the AI is very lopsided to favor the AI side if you are trying to play it H2H. There is no way to properly program the AI to react to all the strategies that a human player can use. So I generally stick to creating H2H games. I also enjoy playing H2H games the most.