Very Unbalanced Forces

[pcelt]

With apologies, may I refocus on an issue which was raised a couple of days ago but received no specific response from BTS.

Several members drew attention to incongruities which occurred when raising the troop ratio to +150%.Examples were cited of increases such as--Rifle Platoons +0% but MMG+ 800% and Engineers +600%. Another example revealed the provision of 11 Sherman105's and another of an increase to 15 panzershriek teams.

For anyone wishing to change the game weightings in this way for whatever reason this poses an important problem. There still needs to be a credible balance within the new increased force both for immersiveness and playability. If this does not exist then this useful play option loses most of its value.

Could I respectfully request a comment on this issue from BTS and if the problem is substantiated ,some commitment to tweaking this anomaly at least for an early patch.

I apologise for raising this criticism when there are clearly so many brilliant aspects related to the game and I would like to place it clearly within that context.

Thanks

[CrapGame]

I kind of like it the way it is. It may be unwieldy at times, but at least the scenario will be different each time you play it.

CrapGame out

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yup, totally see your point. What you are saying is that the increase should be more proportionally to your existing force isntead of random? If so, that makes sense. Right now it is random, and it bears looking into to see if a change is needed. Not going to happen for 1.0, but it is something to think about after.

Thanks,

Steve

[Guest tom w]

I see the problem with the unbalanced force that is random.

BUT that can make it fun and a little surprising too. This is not a REALLY bad feature. The scenario IS very well balanced until you start to play with that "unbalancing" modifier, and you woudl do that to play paly around just for fun or to give an unskilled human opponent a fighting chance, or to test out or play with the Computer AI and see what it will do with a larger force.

I'm not sure this random or unbalance force generator is all that bad a thing because it is intended to make the scenario unbalanced by the ist very use or implimenatation, that the the force pool you get does not EXACTLY reflect what you had when you started and that it is somewhat random is not really a big deal in my opinion.

-tom w

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[pcelt]

I can clearly see there may well be something intriguing and novel about facing a totally randomly augmented force but i believe above all else the protagonists need to maintain a certain level of credibility as real military forces.Otherwise immersiveness and the belief that you are fighting a possible engagement from WW2 goes out of the window. Controlling or facing a force which contains the same small number of rifle platoons but eight times as many MMG's or 15 panzershriek teams or six times as many engineer units as initially, results in a fantasy sitn rather than a credible military one.

I am not suggesting that the increased force needs to reflect the exact proportions of the basic ititial force----but I suggest that the random factor introduced should be a smallish one----enough to introduce some surprise elements but still balanced enough to be a credible WW2 military force.

Basically if I opt for one of these augmented sides I still want an immersive WW2 military scenario rather than a fantasy one.

[TZEENCH]

Hey is there any way to increase both sides randomly- like a PBEM? ("how in gods name did he get 5 Stugs")

[guachi]

I think having a bit of randomness is a good thing, but the one example I had (referenced by pcelt) was a little too random.

I didn't mention that my reinforcements were also out of whack. the initial allotment is four shermans and a platoon. I got 12 shermans and a platoon.

I have to admit, though, that having 18 MMGs and a company of tanks is pretty sweet.

[Lee]

I agree with pcelt. The extra forces you receive should be heavily

weighted toward a realistic force balance based on the units you

started with. With a nice dose of random chance tossed in to

keep things interesting. So you might end up with 2 extra schreck

teams or 5, but not 15(lol). You might get 3 extra platoons of

infantry, or only 1 but two more pillboxes, or 1 extra platoon and

a onboard mortar team, etc. This way it's a believable force to

fight against but you still never know quite what you might get.

[Guest Big Time Software]

There is nothing to say that we couldn't have a system that was proportional yet still unpredicatble (random). Right now it is totally random, and some feel that is bad (and I would tend to agree). But I think we all like the concept of not knowing EXACTLY what extra stuff is going to be had. This is doable from a coding standpoint. It has made The List for future consideration

Steve

[TZEENCH]

Play around with the settings, its intresting on what you get and were, What setting will you get (like 2 Ig150s) esc. I think that one is 125% or something, Hell with that many germans you could counter attack.

[CrapGame]

I definitely believe that there has to be some randomness to what you receive, especially with the reinforcements. After all, no one (except maybe Monty )would put off an attack that had to be made because the scheduled reinforcements were not of the same makeup as the starting force.

I think the randomness factor adds another element of thought to the game, as you may have to alter plans for a counterattack, etc. because a jabo shot up your reinforcement column, and all that made it up to the front was the 2 panthers and 6 mg42's. You takes what you can gets.

CrapGame out

[Thomm]

Actually I am shocked how this force manipulator was implemented, resulting in Arcade battles. How did this slip through the -as I suppose- critical Beta tests.

By the way, I have only Diners! What can I do?

Regards, Thomm

[Guest tom w]

Hi Steve

I'm glad its on the list, but, (big but,) the scenario's are balanced BEFORE you start to mess with the force pool multiplier, so since it throws the play balance off anyway, is it really that big a deal that it does so in a totally random and unprediticable and unrealistic way? I don't think so. If you want realistic play balance, don't mess with the force Pool multipilier, but if you want some wacky "arcade" style abstraction for fun or to test out some other features with a really large force (however radical or unrealistic) crank the thing up to 125% or 150% or whatever it goes up to. I think it adds a new and fun dimension to the game.

(its not realistic, but that ok, it can be fun to play with)

Ok, sure you should give it a fix and tweak it a little, but all I'm saying is that I hope this "minor" issue is towards the bottom of The List. It would be my opinion that there are more pressing things on the list to work on.

TCP/IP first is a good one.

Please keep up the good work!

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

This is doable from a coding standpoint. It has made The List for future consideration

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[pcelt]

Tom, yes certainly the force pool multiplier changes the play balance but this should reflect meeting essentially a larger force than expected( albeit with some elements of surprise) and this is quite credible in military terms and provides a test of military decision making and tactics------But this is quite different from meeting a force so unbalanced as to be ,in your own words totally "whacky" and "unrealistic". Such an encounter is of no genuine military interest or challenge but a fantasy game. I am not purchasing this excellent game in order to explore fantasy situations.

Re your second point, may i respectfully suggest that it is not up to you to determine what are "minor" issues or what place on "the list" they should occupy . This is a decision for BTS as a result of their own informed judgment.

[Guest tom w]

OK

Re: my second point

Just thought I would post my opinion

I'm sure Steve and Charles and BTS will fix whatever that want when ever they want

No doubt about that.

We disagree here, but that's ok

I just don't see this random force mutliplier to be a really big deal in light of what I consider a MAJOR issue (previously dicussed at Length) like the fact that LOS and LOF GOES right through live, and KO'd tanks and other vechicles unless they are on fire and smoking.

This means you can fire right through your own AFV's that are right in front of you or right through your enemy's AFV's if the "juicier" ones are "attempting" to hide behind "heavier" AFV's in front. There will be no quick fix for this one either (we are told this is a BIG problem that will hit the cpu hard and slow the turn "crunch time" way down, OK) but I would say that is something MAJOR to look at compared to the randomness of the force pool modifier.

Again, we disagree and that's ok, I respect your opinion and BTS says they will look at it and its on The List. So is LOS and LOF through live AFV's so they will look at that one too.

Those are just my opinions. the wonderful thing about this game is that it will be released soon and it will be a GREAT game, despite all the flame wars (and this is not one here at all) and the complaining and the bitching. BTS listens to those that have great idea's and puts up with the rest of us so they have shown themselves to be VERY tolerant.

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pcelt:

Re your second point, may i respectfully suggest that it is not up to you to determine what are "minor" issues or what place on "the list" they should occupy . This is a decision for BTS as a result of their own informed judgment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[pcelt]

Cheers Tom--agree entirely with your key sentiments----whatever occurs re improvements or in whatever order BTS decides

we both ,and everybody else have a really great game to explore and enjoy.

Best Wishes

Dave

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually I am shocked how this force manipulator was implemented, resulting in Arcade battles. How did this slip through the -as I suppose- critical Beta tests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably because none of us really think of this as a highly critical feature, and therefore never use it. Please keep in mind that the reason you guys are all playing around with this setting is because you only have two sceanrios to play with, and only one of which is new. I personally have *NEVER* changed the setting in a real game. There is no need. The scenarios are balanced and therefore why mess around with the settings? Even a proportional system would totally undo the balancing.

Also keep in mind that a modest increase (125%) usually doesn't exhibt wildly strange forces. But you guys are hungry for new ways to play the same old same old, so you're pushing things to the limits. I think that once you have the full game you won't care about this issue one way or the other

Steve

[Guest tom w]

OK

Sounds good to me...

So does that mean you can let slip another

new gold Demo scenario to keep us all busy?

hint hint.....

Just before this upcoming long weekend (candian Victoria day this monday) would be really GREAT timing, unlike the release of the Gold demo before the weekend before Mother's Day...

(Just Kidding, we all really could hardly wait any longer so it had to come out sooner or later)

Thanks

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

But you guys are hungry for new ways to play the same old same old, so you're pushing things to the limits. I think that once you have the full game you won't care about this issue one way or the other

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[pcelt]

Steve

I did not intend to come back on this topic again-----an earlier post from you implied sympathy with the idea of more balanced increased forces and its inclusion for consideration in future patching.

I would just like to briefly refer to the idea of it not being something very critical because it will hardly ever be used.

This may well be true for many experienced gamers. But I can think of many situations where beginners or less skilful or less experienced players find many scenarios too difficult and in order to gain confidence and some success and to learn the tactics, use the increased forces option on their own side. The problem here is that unless these new situations provide credible and realistic force mixes to use and gain productive experience with ,they will provide little transferable training for the basic scenarios.

And such players are more likely to become confused by the strange troop mixes and no better equipped to transfer to the basic scenarios with realistic forces. This is surely undesirable when attepting to attract new and inexperienced players to learn and enjoy the game.

On the opposite side of the coin, I'm sure most experienced and skilful players who sometimes want a more challenging scenario, prefer the increased opposition (though presenting some surprises) to still represent a credible military force to attempt to defeat rather than an extreme fantasy situation .

I appreciate the decision is totally one for BTS but I would respectfully urge consideration of the above points and especially the needs of new or poorer players who are likely to opt for increased units to gain relevant experience, skill and confidence which will

apply to and help them tackle the basic scenarios .

[Fred]

I tend to agree with pcelt; getting 15 Bazooka teams as reinforcements is not very realistic, given that the designers used real world OOBs to set up the initial forces.

But Steve has his point too; usually the scenarios are balanced. I checked it in VoT and found out, that a +25% increase is all you need (in my game it made the US side win). With only 25% increase, the "fantasy factor" of the troop mix is not this high.

But BTS knows about it and its on the list.

And Steve and Charles are well known for their responsiveness for customer proposals.

I'm sure that this will not change in the future.

Fred

[This message has been edited by Fred (edited 05-18-2000).]

[Jarmo]

I'm for randomness here. It's just fun, and in a way realistic even,

to get "weird" extra reinforcements. When you suddenly want a lot

of extra forces you can't expect to get a well balanced force.

In fact I'd like even more randomness, at this point the extra troops

are same ones that you already have. Wouldn't it be nice to get

something quite different. In CE you could for example get a Puma or two.

Or Panzer IV, Tiger, 10 rabid monkeys, or whatever would happen to be availlable.

Although Mr Big is probably correct. I might not like to replay

the same battle over and over again, if I had 100 untried ones at hand.

[Lee]

Jarmo makes a good point. The extra forces needn't be made up of

exactly the types of units you already have in the scenario. I would

just like the replacements to have some sort of believable for mix

and proportionality to them. With that all important random factor

tossed in make for some very interesting combinations. I don't

mind if the extra forces are unusual in their composition, just so

long as they aren't laughable.

And, as jarmo said, it would be neat if the Germans in VoT could

get maybe an extra panzer IV to help them out if the force bonus were

turned up high enough (maybe +50% ?). This might be the only unit

they would get since it has such a high value but it would make

for a nice surprise for the enemy. Of course, there is one

big problem with this and that is how do you decide what type of

units to provide? Would certain unit types fit in logically with the

force already being fielded? Let your imagination run wild

with the most unlikely types of troop mixes.

So, in the end, they may have to leave it limited to just the

troops types that your side already has (note: This should not

prohibit the inclusion of "support" type units such as HMG's,

shreck teams, mortars and other types of similar units that could

realistically be attached to just about any force. Those types of

support units and teams are very "force neutral" and should always

be included in the calculations of possible extra forces you might

get, even if you didn't have any of that particular support unit

in your starting force composition). Even if that's the case, it

would be nice to see a bit more balanced outcomes just using what

types of troops you already have.

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Probably because none of us really think of this as a highly critical feature, and therefore never use it. Please keep in mind that the reason you guys are all playing around with this setting is because you only have two sceanrios to play with, and only one of which is new. I personally have *NEVER* changed the setting in a real game. There is no need. The scenarios are balanced and therefore why mess around with the settings? Even a proportional system would totally undo the balancing.

Also keep in mind that a modest increase (125%) usually doesn't exhibt wildly strange forces. But you guys are hungry for new ways to play the same old same old, so you're pushing things to the limits. I think that once you have the full game you won't care about this issue one way or the other

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too true, but I have to say, part of the charm of this game is the ability to 'replay' scenarios, and have them still be challenging. There are several games that I've played, especially on a tactical level, that have small replay value (unless you got your arse kicked the first time, or are trying for a 'better' final result, etc.), becaue once you know the 'trick', you know how best to proceed. And usually the attempts to make the replay more challenging involve the game giving the AI 'unrealistic' (read: cheat) advantages. I would love for replay to involve giving the AI more strength, as opposed to annoying things like better chances to kill, better intel about the enemy, etc. And I agree that this isn't necessarily a top priority change in the game, but I would dearly love to see a 'balanced, but somewhat random' augmentation of forces implemented at some point, so that beloved scenarios/battles against the AI could be replayed from the viewpoint of: Ha! I'll give you an even stronger force, and still strike you sharply about the head, my lad, and drive you back whimpering to your Mother!

-Seanachai, recent arrival, trying to work up the spit to play a PBEM game.

------------------

After witnessing

exceptional bravery from

his Celtic mercenaries,

Alexander the Great

called them to him and

asked if there was

anything they feared.

They told him nothing,

except that the sky might

fall on their heads

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hehe... you guys misread the context of my comments. I was answering Tom's question of why it is what it is right now and why it probably isn't as much of a problem as people think due to the reality of limited replayability with the Demo. Comments made prior to that about us most likely doing a change still hold true. In fact, it isn't that big of a deal to change, so do in fact look for it in the future.

Steve

[Guest MantaRay]

Well, I for one am going to be playing the hell out of the campaign system, and designing huge Tank Battles, AKA Kursk West (while we wait for CM2) , so I will not have much need to use a force X randomizer. It is just fun to do while we wait.

Ray

------------------

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

MantaRays 5 Pages

Hardcore Gamers Daily