Why not HtH

[6plus1SMC]

Hi everybody.

I play 99% HtH and  I am constantly  looking for HTH ones.

On the fewgoodmen.com I came (after reading in these forums) across Theforger's 35(!)  Rollbahn D scenarios, all having the comment "Axis versus Allies, possibly a H2H. But no Allied briefing" and Commanderski's Tank Battle of Lisow with the comment "Designed to play Germans against the Soviet AI" also with no breifing for allied side.

These scenarios seems to be  very well researched and I think interesting to play - I do like historical or semihistorical scenarios best.

So how come that designers dont add breifing for the other side just incase one would like to try it out in a HtH game,. The comment could be something like " Bare in mind that the scenario is designed for play vs AI - but I have added breifing for both sides in case of a HTH".  Nobody could complain about lopsidedness or something afterwards - but both players would get a feel for what they are in for when playing.

I guess what I am saying is: How come fewer and fewer scenarios seems to be designed with HTH, if only partly, in mind?

 

Best regards

Morten

 

 

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, 6plus1SMC said:

Hi everybody.

I play 99% HtH and  I am constantly  looking for HTH ones.

On the fewgoodmen.com I came (after reading in these forums) across Theforger's 35(!)  Rollbahn D scenarios, all having the comment "Axis versus Allies, possibly a H2H. But no Allied briefing" and Commanderski's Tank Battle of Lisow with the comment "Designed to play Germans against the Soviet AI" also with no breifing for allied side.

These scenarios seems to be  very well researched and I think interesting to play - I do like historical or semihistorical scenarios best.

So how come that designers dont add breifing for the other side just incase one would like to try it out in a HtH game,. The comment could be something like " Bare in mind that the scenario is designed for play vs AI - but I have added breifing for both sides in case of a HTH".  Nobody could complain about lopsidedness or something afterwards - but both players would get a feel for what they are in for when playing.

I guess what I am saying is: How come fewer and fewer scenarios seems to be designed with HTH, if only partly, in mind?

 

Best regards

Morten

 

 

I think the reason is simply that people expect some sort of 'balanced' scenario if it is advertised as a H2H scenario. Although I think there is a lot of fun in such a scenario and often enough options for both parties involved to have a fun game. Might not be balanced but if you don't mind too much about that I think most scenario's can be interesting to play H2H. 

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

Rollbahn D is a campaign, which is only playable against the AI. As to why the battles aren’t available for H2H play I guess that is one for the campaign author to answer. I know in Cold War they made the US campaign battles available as scenarios so they could be played H2H. 

MMM

[Erwin]

Need to figure the logistics problems.  Playing large scenarios H2H may easily take two or three or more months.  So, playing a H2H campaign of 8-12 large missions as in Rollbahn D...

[6plus1SMC]

35 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

Rollbahn D is a campaign,

As the scenarios is shown in Thefewgoodmen.com, they seems to be individuel  scenarios. If only the designer had in the breifing  shown the the terrain, and written  "it's 16/12 and we are outnumbered - hold them back as much as possible, try to keep obj X".

21 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Need to figure the logistics problems.  Playing large scenarios H2H may easily take two or three or more months

Belive me I know - I have games that are running on the 2nd year... - and that is not a problem.

 

Lethaface  wrote: I think the reason is simply that people expect some sort of 'balanced' scenario if it is advertised as a H2H scenario

Well but no scenario is ever balanced - not even chess. Perhaps the difficulty lies in balance the victory conditions - but if players agree - due to the designer notes that the game IS unbalanced and designed for AI play only - why not give the player the the posibility to feel welcome, by writing a breifing for the "AI" side. 

Best regards

Morten

Edited February 22, 2022 by 6plus1SMC

[Vacillator]

I think we should see what @theforger and @Commanderski say as they are very good, recent examples. 

At first glance adding a simple briefing to the 'other side' in each scenario does not seem too onerous, but to do this for each of 35 battles in Rollbahn D I suppose it all adds up. 

In the Battle of Lisow the 'other side' is on the defensive in carefully placed positions, but I imagine most of the units can be shifted around in setup zones - you might not of course know where the enemy is likely to appear.  So a limited form of H2H is possible?

[Commanderski]

3 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

I think we should see what @theforger and @Commanderski say as they are very good, recent examples. 

I actually thought about putting in some Soviet information for briefings, etc..but not sure how enjoyable it would be for both sides as HTH. It would definitely really be challenging for both sides.

3 hours ago, 6plus1SMC said:

play 99% HtH and  I am constantly  looking for HTH ones.

 I'm going to add some Soviet setup zones, briefing and a few minor changes and I'll post a HTH version in my drop box. Should be later tonight or early tomorrow  Then you can test it out against an opponent.

[womble]

I would have thought that, given the limitations of the AI, and the necessary force levels therefore to provide a challenge for a human on the other side, any human player taking over from the AI would often find themselves with a surfeit of riches in terms of their available forces, giving each side rather uneven prospects of victory under the HvAI scoring scheme. That might suit some, but would also mean things like briefings would be equally, possibly comically, lopsided.

[Vacillator]

14 minutes ago, womble said:

any human player taking over from the AI would often find themselves with a surfeit of riches in terms of their available forces,

For H2H you may be right, although I really would like to try the excellent Battle of Lisow as the defender vs AI at some point if the Germans had some AI Plans.  I'm aware that some might say 'open up the editor and add some' and I have no defense against this.  To me this one is a little on the large side to contemplate H2H but I might propose it and see . 

No spoilers were involved in the posting of this .

Edited February 22, 2022 by Vacillator

[Commanderski]

17 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

at some point if the Germans had some AI Plans

I'll give that some more thought. I started too originally but with the amount of Soviet forces it might be too easy. It might require another separate version.

[Glubokii Boy]

IIRC it was mentioned in a simular thread a while ago by one of the guys around here that one solution to customize the scenarios to be more of a challange regardless of witch side the player chose to play in a player Vs AI game or a H2H game could be to add a note to the briefing screen or designer notes that states...

What units NOT to use when playing the various sides (the AI gets to use all that is avaliable regardless of the side it plays)

If playing the attacker the player may be instructed NOT to use 1 of the 3 avaliable tank platoons for example.

If playing the defender he might be recomended to not use a pair of tank destroyers for example

For H2H games some simular instruction on how to ballance the scenario for H2H might be avaliable in the note.

 

To me this sounds like it could work rather well. The one problem i can see with this would be how the scoring is handled with regards to force conditions and unit objectives.

 

 

I

[Vacillator]

7 minutes ago, Commanderski said:

with the amount of Soviet forces it might be too easy

With the amount (and quality) of German forces it might not be.  That's why I'd like to try.  Anyway, great work .

[Glubokii Boy]

32 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

although I really would like to try the excellent Battle of Lisow as the defender vs AI at some point if the Germans had some AI Plans. 

Me too...

Designing attacking AI scenarios is unfortunatelly the most difficult thing to do though. It is doable...but certainly difficult.  The severe lack of such scenarios is sort of a proof of this. If  Commanderski is up for a challange though...Go ahead and give it a try. 

I would play it...

[Vacillator]

1 minute ago, Glubokii Boy said:

Designing attacking AI scenarios is unfortunatelly the most difficult thing to do

I'm certainly no expert but yes.  There is at least one in our midst who can work such magic @George MC.  I was reminded of this when assaulted by very fast-moving AI T34s in a recent work ...

[domfluff]

3 hours ago, 6plus1SMC said:

Well but no scenario is ever balanced - not even chess. Perhaps the difficulty lies in balance the victory conditions - but if players agree - due to the designer notes that the game IS unbalanced and designed for AI play only - why not give the player the the posibility to feel welcome, by writing a breifing for the "AI" side.

I've been doing some thinking about this.

I agree that with a game like Combat Mission, having a scenario that each player has a 50% chance of winning ("balanced") is both not really plausible, and worse, doesn't really play to the strengths of the game.

I think the better option for balance is a scenario which gives each player an equally interesting problem to solve. Those scenarios that can do that, or something close to it, are the ones which should be suitable for H2H play. If they can't offer that, then perhaps they're better off being AI-only.

[Commanderski]

2 hours ago, Glubokii Boy said:

If  Commanderski is up for a challange though.

Well I like to learn new things so I'll give it a go and see what I can come up with.

[kohlenklau]

Personally, I now write scenarios playable from only one side at a time versus the AI enemy so I can focus on what I am doing (for free $0.00) and see the end of the tunnel (and get the f out before a train kills me). To throw a briefing in for the other side for H2H would not take me very much time but I do very small and tiny scenarios. Ready...GO! mark time 1834 CST...

BRIEFING FOR ENEMY AI SIDE IN CASE A DUDE WANTS TO PLAY IT H2H

NOTE: This scenario was designed for play by the human against THIS side as AI. Here you get a very simple briefing.

Late morning. Prybuzhany, USSR. 10 August 1941. West of the Bug River near Voznesensk.

Light wind from the east. Sky is overcast. Ground is slightly damp.

You are in command of Red Army rearguard attempting to stop or at least slow the fascist crossing of the Bug.

Friendly forces: a platoon with a HMG.

Enemy Forces: the Italian fascist forces allied to the Germans.

Mission: Prevent the Italians from taking the main building near the Orchard. 30 minute mission.

You get points for eliminating the enemy and holding the Orchard house area. 

There is a bonus for <25% friendly casualties and >75% enemy casualties.

Good luck comrade!

..and....STOP! 1841 CST.

7 minutes. But it is a tiny scenario..

 

[Pelican Pal]

4 hours ago, domfluff said:

I agree that with a game like Combat Mission, having a scenario that each player has a 50% chance of winning ("balanced") is both not really plausible, and worse, doesn't really play to the strengths of the game.

With a game like CM it is possible. Its just a lot more work than most people are willing to give for little feedback and little real activity on anything they make.

The CM2 victory point options give the designer enough options to allow a 1 platoon vs Battalion (to create an absurd example) scenario to be balanced at the end game screen. However, there aren't enough testers and not any sort of data collection to allow designers to move to that goal. FGM is maybe the closest thing the CM community has that would allow that.

[Commanderski]

11 hours ago, 6plus1SMC said:

I play 99% HtH and  I am constantly  looking for HTH ones.

A head to head version is in my dropbox if you want to test it.

Here's the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wgux74ohcjix8sp/Tank Battle of Lisow HTH.btt?dl=0

Edited February 23, 2022 by Commanderski

[Glubokii Boy]

3 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

With a game like CM it is possible. Its just a lot more work than most people are willing to give for little feedback and little real activity on anything they make.

The CM2 victory point options give the designer enough options to allow a 1 platoon vs Battalion (to create an absurd example) scenario to be balanced at the end game screen. However, there aren't enough testers and not any sort of data collection to allow designers to move to that goal. FGM is maybe the closest thing the CM community has that would allow that.

Very true.

[6plus1SMC]

Thank you @Commanderski I will give it try as soon as I get a free opening  

 

[6plus1SMC]

One think I can't understand when reading the above comments.

I have not much experience with designing scenarions in CM2, but I would think it would be easier to design for HTH, rather than having to make several scripts for both sides in order to make a AI-game.

I would think that when making a HTH scenario you have to set the stage, the area, the winning conditions, the tools for each player to achieve those conditions. Then playtest and finetune.

Then, if,  I wanted to make playing the the AI in the scenario, it would be easier to make scripts based on how humans have played the game.

But of course I, as stated, have not played around to much with CM2 scenario design, so I migth be completly wrong, in my understanding.

Best regards

Morten

 

[Glubokii Boy]

22 minutes ago, 6plus1SMC said:

so I migth be completly wrong, in my understanding.

You are completally right 

23 minutes ago, 6plus1SMC said:

Then playtest and finetune.

I guess that this might be part of the problem for many...finding playtesters 

If a scenario is to be used as a H2H game it generally needs to be well balanced i belive. 

[6plus1SMC]

1 hour ago, Glubokii Boy said:

You are completally right 

I guess that this might be part of the problem for many...finding playtesters 

If a scenario is to be used as a H2H game it generally needs to be well balanced i belive. 

Thank you !

Balance in a scenario is many things: the terrain ( shall one side over a crest - or crack troops vs not so crack troops - fewer but great tanks vs many poor tanks - victory conditions can be modified etc...

Re playtesters

I think you is correct - it's hard to find playtesteres - or even - as I myself is guilty of -  leaving a comment after having played a scenario. 

It must be very discouraging having spent hours and hours to study and make a scenario, seeing dl after dl and not one comment back.

 

Best regards 

Morten 

Copenhagen - Denmark

[Zveroboy1]

Ideally you'd need to have two different versions for each scenario : one against the AI and one for H2H play. Simply because you have to beef up the AI side to make it challenging for a human player. And as a result it would often be too easy for one of the two human players. And so two versions means twice the amount of time spent playtesting it.

But yeah you could easily add a quick briefing for the other side anyway and add a disclaimer stating it is unbalanced. The thing is often it might not simply be unbalanced, but just a cake walk for one side.