Jump to content

Opinons on Scenario Balance


Recommended Posts

Okay, you have 5 shermans against some unknown force. How will you concentrate your force? Where is this dominating position? I hope you don't mean, in this exortation to apply this force from the very start, that you suggest taking your shermans and busting over the ridgeline against completely unknown forces. What if there's a couple Tigers back there? Or five stugs? Or five Panzer IVs? Or a flock of Panzershrecks in good positions? Or AT guns? Setting up the stugs, I can ensure that you have to come into my line of fire one at a time (though perhaps rapidly), exposing your flank, have almost all areas where you could fire at me covered by more than one stug, and the hill you're most likely to come over covered by all three. I can have this in place by turn 3-4, which should work out fine as long as you don't know to be reckless. This is a very strong position, and should be able to knock out at least one, and probably two shermans without a loss. Now you have 3 shermans against 3 stugs, the ridgeline still on the stugs' side, a reasonable picture of each others' forces, and a good game. But the balance relies on the surprise factor of the stugs' managing good ambush positions, which works a hell of a lot better if you don't know there's only 3 stugs on the other side....

-John Hough

(typos fixed)

[This message has been edited by John Hough (edited 04-06-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

HI KNAUST

how goes it old friend smile.gif

I must chime in here in disagreeemnt with you on the unbalanced nature of CE

I find playing CE that either side has a very good chance of winning this scenario even with full disclosure on units

I find myself in vicous battles here when playing both sides

I would love to play you as GErms since we never did finish our match

Send me the setup if you would like smile.gif

CYA

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think with a lot of us scenario designers our first and foremost priority (for historical scenarios at least) is to put the player "in the shoes" of this historical counterpart, be that in a balanced (Which almost never happens historically) unbalanced or whatever situation. (All this within the parameters of a FUN experience.)The player is given a mission and is graded on his RELATIVE PERFORMANCE to the mission goals, not on how many units he has to kill or whatever. Though the CM points structure regarding VP locations, unit costing, and scenario parameters points manipulation and otehr factors lends itself to aiding this relative performace assessment. In short we strove for attaining a level of historiocity for the scenarios at least in so far as what situation and forces you are presented with at the opening shot. These are also aided by the scenario breifings and selecting scenarios that would be challenging fights. (I.e. you'll get no "Panzer Lehr company being carpet bombed for 40 minutes then being attacked by a few frsh tank battalions", type scenarios, though you are free to create those on your own.)

There were also a number of ahistorical or hypothetical scenarios which just made good fights and we also assessed scenarios based on multiplayer vs single player. Some excellent single player scenarios might not make the multiplayer scenarios. For instance, good luck trying to get over on a Human British player in Villers-Bocage with your small handfull of Tiger tanks. By nature the human player will not make the same mistakes as his historical counter parts yada yada yada...

Scenarios went through extensive "in house" testing before being put out to fellow desigers were assigned scenarios tobtest and detailed AAR forms to fill out. (Cripes I must have played La Fiere about thirty times before releasing it to general testing, I still can't bring myself to look at it again <grin>!) The designer then went back and made changes based on the forms and the designers intent and then there was usually another test... Plus we were always downloading the scenarios to play again on the side.

These issues have been hashed out very extensively in our testing forum. We hope that we have provided a good mix of all types of scenarios. Wild Bill and his raiders took the lead on coordinating the testing process and believe me it was in damn good hands.

Designing scenarios is such a fun process, personaly I just can't get enough of the map maker, and have a hard time driving home from work without specing out any piece of terrain I happen to be driving by. It's almost a sickness...

Cheers...

Los

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi SSPL,

I will soon send you my file ( me as americans)

Hi Hough,

ok you are right, but where will you deploy your shermans?

Anyway I'm always ready to learn something, so if you wish to be so kind to teach me...send me your file (you as germans)

Knaust (the learning commander)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alas, I no longer have CM on my machine, as I recently had horrible problems and was forced to format my HD and reinstall everything. So I'm not planning on dling CM again until the gold demo. Particularly since it'll mean getting the latest TNT drivers, which will ruin Myth for me....

-John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Various answers...

I would guess that Chance Encounter underwent about 3 minor revisions and a few even more minor tweaks. One thing that slipped through in the briefings, for example, was some off board artillery support for the Americans. I yanked that out and forgot to change the text, which caused a good deal of confusion for some people smile.gif IIRC one minor revision was changing the contors of the map a bit more to widen the flat ground inbetween the two ridges. It was obviously needed and took only a couple of minutes to do. I also gave the Germans an additional StuG because I found it was too easy for the Shermans to get the upper hand on two. I also probably tweaked a few experience levels and such.

Knaust, I agree with you that this scenario is unbalanced in favor of the US forces *AFTER* it has been played once, especially if you are talking about the AI playing as the Germans. Against a human it is more balanced. However, as others point out, this is an unfair advantage and there really is no good way for the scenario designer to work around such a problem.

As in real war, you will do better the more you know about your enemy and the terrain. I was playing a game once where I knew the US had 2 batteries of 105mm howitzer support. Sure enough, a huge bombardment came raining down on my left flank. Blew the crap out of the woods but only managed to take out a few guys because it was not over my current positions. I figured that the US shot their bolt and didn't worry about bunching up in spots for the rest of the game. Did that give me an advantage? Sure as Hell did wink.gif Otherwise I would have had to proceed much more cautiously than I in fact did.

Nope, once a scenario is played the designer's balancing is almost certainly altered.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I think with a lot of us scenario designers our first and foremost priority (for historical scenarios at least) is to put the player "in the shoes" of this historical counterpart, be that in a balanced (Which almost never happens historically) unbalanced or whatever situation. (All this within the parameters of a FUN experience.)The player is given a mission and is graded on his RELATIVE PERFORMANCE to the mission goals, not on how many units he has to kill or whatever.

Los<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DITTO. smile.gif

I'll take the historical before balanced any day.

Looking forward to some of your scenarios.

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

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!***$^&%#$&@$*@%$*@&

#*%^#*fumblewithkeyboard&^#%#(&)%^(#*%)_%.

[This message has been edited by DEF BUNGIS (edited 04-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by DEF BUNGIS (edited 04-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by DEF BUNGIS (edited 04-07-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahem, Sorry for my lack of replies for PBEM's as I am stuck in the dregges of essay and Final times, so, be patient.

I have to agree with Knaust about the American's having the upper hand. But, this can also be attributed to the fact that nobody really knows how to use StuGs as well as Shermans. I can use Shermans pretty well, even when the numbers are even, but, StuG's are WAY trickier. Also, Knaust and my PBEM game (Grammar?) was decided pretty quickly. I lost 2 Stugs by turn 2, mainly due to the fact that Knaust concentrated his Shermans and I only engaged them piecmiel or was caught manuvering into position. My last Stug was lost because I delayed it's retreat trying to save some HMG's and Schrecks from his advancing army.

However, the German infantry kicked his butt out of the German VP forest. Never seen so many Americans run in terror since 1812! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t really want to be polemic, but just to exchange opinions!

Playing a scenario after having it already played is just like to have already scouted enemy forces….but IMHO this doesn’t change the balance/unbalance of a scenario in any way.

In fact, if the Amis know that they have to fight 3 stugs they simply rush to the dominating position (the hill sloping from the woods to the church) just to try to catch stugs on moving (oh another american advantage…shermans are better than stugs while moving).

If the Amis are in the dark about enemy forces, they have their inf scouting the enemy battlefield from the woods near the vl before moving on the shermans, then they proceed to occupy the dominating position if they see only 3 stugs.

The battle would be completely different if the germans had a Tiger instead of 3 stugs:

- shermans can’t hardly penetrated the frontal armour of the Tiger even at 100mts, then they had to encircle it. But screcks and fausts could then be an effective covering screen on the German left!

Hehe Tom….attacking german inf in the woods was really crazy (no mortar or tank support available and I had 3 out of 4 vls!)…I tried it in order to enliven the last 3 turns of the game. eek.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Playing a scenario after having it already played is just like to have already scouted enemy forces….but IMHO this doesn’t change the balance/unbalance of a scenario in any way. In fact, if the Amis know that they have to fight 3 stugs they simply rush to the dominating position (the hill sloping from the woods to the church) just to try to catch stugs on moving.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with this, IMHO, is that CE is a meeting engagement where the US has not scouted the German forces and position.

Would a general continue to rush the Shermans to the dominating position without knowing what he was up against? Are there any enemy troops in those buildings? What is on the other side of that dominating ridge anyway? Even if he knows there are 3 Stugs, would he blindly rush his Shermans forward without knowing where those Stugs were located?

Knowing what the Germans have and where those forces are located allows the US to rush the Shermans into place. Without this knowledge, the US will have to proceed at a slower pace which would allow the Germans a chance to get his Stugs in a good defensive position.

I have a feeling that this type of action in an unplayed scenario will be very rare.

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

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have posted before about CE with Steve.

My contention is that the Stugs are not good weapons for a meeting engagement. Somehow Steve and I ended up discussing which is a better infantry support tank or something like that. Due to the relatively short ranges, being outnumbered and non-turreted, and being used in a meeting engagement, the stugs dont shine.

Stugs are good for overwatch and shooting the infantry onto the target. They were used in real life to fill in the gap between the arty bombardment and the infantry closing in on the objective. They of course had AT potential and were called upon more and more to take on this role. Steve said that later in the war german training was substandard all around and AT was probably where they concentrated training. Late in the war (Bulge) US armor crewmen were so scarce that infantry got in tanks so I cant say I followed his logic.

Anyway, I feel that against a human player, CE is definetely easier as the US. If you played the same person repeatatly and switched sides and were both fairly decent players, I believe this would show the US eventually winning more often.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Anyway, I feel that against a human player, CE is definetely easier as the US. If you played the same person repeatatly and switched sides and were both fairly decent players, I believe this would show the US eventually winning more often.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree Lewis. After the first time playing CE, the advantage goes to the US player, IMO. Why? Because the US player knows that the Germans have 3 Stugs and that the Germans start on the other edge of the map. The US player knows he needs to rush his Shermans forward to gain the advantage.

What would happen if the German player was given a Tiger or a couple of 88s or was allowed to place some schreks along the backside of the ridge in foxholes? I think the US player would have to come up with a different plan if he knew the Germans had these different forces and setup locations. What would the player do if he didn't know any of this?

I guess I'm just saying that no matter how much you try to balance a scenario, once it gets played the first time, one side will have an advantage. If only we could be like the AI and start each replay with no knowledge of the forces we face. smile.gif

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

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

What would happen if the German player was given a Tiger or a couple of 88s or was allowed to place some schreks along the backside of the ridge in foxholes?

I guess I'm just saying that no matter how much you try to balance a scenario, once it gets played the first time, one side will have an advantage. If only we could be like the AI and start each replay with no knowledge of the forces we face. smile.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well 88s would be out of place in a meeting engagement..but I get your point. It would be nice to have a variable force mix. Like3 stugs and a stug105 but no FO81mm, etc., so that theres no scratching units off a list.

Its hard to balance a scenario because once someone plays it, they are somewhat 'tainted'. Maybe BTS can get the AI to play against itself and achieve a somewhat even result after many playings.

I can crush the computer as the US in CE but have to finesse a win as the germans against the AI.

Lewis

PS I am reading 'DEATH TRAPS' by Belton Cooper and I would like to see the meeting engagement between a US tank coy, arm inf coy and M36 pltn vs. the 7 King Tigers.

Real life result:

Germans lose 3 KTs (2 to WP)

US loses all armor but two M36 at the rear of the column

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

The thing about CE was it was designed to be a more or less typical late war German force. The fun part of CM is matching up forces that aren't tailor made to fit each other's strengths and weaknesses. In fact I find such scenarios as boring as they are unrealistic (or at least atypical). The Germans didn't say, "ach, we are going to have a meeting engagement with the Americans this afternoon. They will have turreted tanks, so we should not use our StuGs today." Reality dicated that more often than not engagements at CM's level were generally unplanned and/or planned with limited degrees of flexibility. And I find that to be a facinating part of scenario making.

The most common piece of armor on the Western Front was the StuG in the AT role. In fact, the tank battalions of PzG divisions were mostly made up of StuGs (as well as other non-"tanks") instead of the turreted tanks. So I chose to give the Germans StuGs. In another scenario I might give them PzIVs. Variety is the spice of life and I for one bristle at the notion that there is some sort of right way to do force selection for scenarios. There are more or less realistic setups (and CE is quite realistic), but I'll always give a thumbs up to a scenario that is exciting and different.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve said that later in the war german training was substandard all around and AT was probably where they concentrated training. Late in the war (Bulge) US armor crewmen were so scarce that infantry got in tanks so I cant say I followed his logic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make as what you just said actually bolsters my position. If the US had to man their tanks with groundpounders, the situation for German tank crews had to have been much worse (both are correct BTW). And if worse, there is no possible way they could have the same quality of training that they did earlier in the war. And since declining training standards in the German armed forces is a very well established and documented fact, I don't know how anybody can argue that StuG crews were somehow exempt from the quality crunch. Armored training was hit particullarly hard due to high losses, lack of fuel for training, risk of attack from the air during training, and general shortage of up-to-date vehicles to train with. I have a story of one Panther unit that was given Jagdpanthers as replacements for some reason, and without even the barest of familiarity with their new vehicles, were sent into the frontlines around Königsberg.

Again, you can't confuse the intended design and employment of the earlier StuGs with the design and employment of later ones. The change over from infantry support to the AT role is also very well documented. I'm still not sure what the point of your earlier discussion was, unless it was to give the StuGs some sort of inherent bonus vs. infantry.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway, I feel that against a human player, CE is definetely easier as the US. If you played the same person repeatatly and switched sides and were both fairly decent players, I believe this would show the US eventually winning more often.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally, 100% agree with the repetition thing. As I have said several times above, no scenario balancing will withstand repeated play. It doesn't matter how evenly the forces are matched for the terrain in question, there is always something that will give the repeat player an unrealistic advantage that will undo the balance.

As for playing CE the first time, I contend the scenario *is* an even match. Plenty of people have won as the Germans even against US players that know what the deal is. The thing is that the German player has to use the StuGs wisely, and that is a very difficult skill to learn.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Oh, another point about Lewis' point about the difference in playing the AI. The AI in the Beta Demo was not so great on the attack. As we all seem to agree, the trick of crusing the Germans is by using bold action, in particular the Shermans. So if you know this and rush forward as the US you will have a huge advantage vs. the AI. If you play as the Germans the US forces (under the AI) will go ahead slowly and therefore never capitalize on the advantage of rushing forward. So I am not surprised at all about what Lewis is saying, but I don't think that reflects on the 1st time, double blind balancing of the scenario.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Steve

I never quite got my question answered earlier and since then you have said the following which I agree wit

******************************************

Quote:

I guess I'm just saying that no matter how much you try to balance a scenario, once it gets played the first time, one side will have an advantage.

*************************************

and then you said

******************************************

Quote:

Totally, 100% agree with the repetition thing. As I have said several times above, no scenario balancing will withstand repeated play. It doesn't matter how evenly the forces are matched for the terrain in question, there is always something that will give the repeat player an unrealistic advantage that will undo the balance.

******************************************

I feel that this is totally ture in any scenarios with pregought forces

So I feel point games are much better for multiplayer -

Is there some guidelines you can give us to set up a good point spread in a variety of conditions or is it so diverse that each an every point scenario will require - alot of replaying to get right?

FOr example:

I'm hoping that we will be able to say in a defensive scenario with no fortified positions the ratio is 2 :1 in favor of the attacker

Then use the loose guidelines with some minor tweaking to get a good balanced reusable scenario that is always blind -with the exception of terrain

IS this going to be possible if so can ya release some guidelines on spreads before we get our hands on the final vers smile.gif

Thanks smile.gif

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

All I am saying is that Stugs are not a good weapon in a meeting engagement. I think CE is a great scenario that really showcases CM.

It would be fun to have 3 PIVs, 2 Hetzers,etc just to get a different perspective also. Stugs are great weapons when used in true infantry support roles. Not commenting on the scenario design here, just making an observation that stugs dont shine here. The scenario makes you either use them wisely or lose them rapidly.

Yes I still think that stugs in sturmartilerie roles (Not PZG or PZ division) might get some 'bonus' against infantry IF they arent rookies. By the way are the stugs in CE from PZG, PZ, Sturm or just manned by someone taken out of a bread line? Anyway, its just my opinion.

My point was that even the US could have turkeys in their tanks at this stage of the war. Also the Germans could have guys that have survived years of fighting. I just dont accept that training was down in germany therefore 'on the job training' and vets taking newbies under their wing cant be a substitute. The US was the worst as far as integrating replacements and even sent a company of shermans with raw rookies right to their deaths. I would wager the Panther guys had a better chance with those JagdPanthers then those toasted americans (one AT gun knocked them all out I believe).

I believe we see each others points somewhat. Stugs were one of the most successful weapons for the german armed forces (when used within its limitations). In both the AT and inf support role. It was used by panzer and arty units and knocked out some 30,000 (?) vehicles. On a final note, if someone was a great shot with HE in a stug, would he not be an excellant shot with AP?

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the StuG's seen in CE are not designed to fufill the Infantry Support role they were originally designed for. For some reason the long 75mm is not as good in the HE role than the short 75mm. StuG III's and IV's with the long barrel were a stopgap weapon. It was a good ambush tank, and had HE capabilities, but, these were limited. The problem about CE, as I stated earlier, is probably due to the fact that most of us don't know how to use StuG's and Panzerschrecks efficiently enough. Against the AI the Shermans are no trouble. But, against a PBEM player (with the benefit of hindsight given in playing a scenario multiple times) there is less of a fear of StuGs because they know how many of them there are. But, used correctly they can demolish an American advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Designing scenarios is such a fun process, personaly I just can't get enough of the map maker, and have a hard time driving home from work without specing out any piece of terrain I happen to be driving by. It's almost a sickness...

Cheers...

Los<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear ya. I was on vacation in Wisconsin and as we were driving along in the country over rolling hills past forest and fields I kept saying that would make a great battlefield. I even went so far to stop going through a little valley and took pictures to use as a reference for a scenario I would like to design. smile.gif

My wife thought I was Nuts. biggrin.gif

Teutonic

Ps I prefer unbalanced secenarios as far as forces and then use the terrain to try and equalize the disadvantage.

[This message has been edited by Teutonic (edited 04-07-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Actually, the StuG's seen in CE are not designed to fufill the Infantry Support role they were originally designed for. For some reason the long 75mm is not as good in the HE role than the short 75mm. StuG III's and IV's with the long barrel were a stopgap weapon. It was a good ambush tank, and had HE capabilities, but, these were limited. B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Major

The HE shell for the 75mm L48 was the same as the earlier 'stump' version. It would also be alot more accurate. It would put the HE where it was needed. It was also an adequate AT weapon against most armor. It would probably have less ammo because of the longer case, is this what you are refering to? I would like to know if you are quoting from any source?

The stugs in CE are designed for the infantry support role and more.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure that hte 75/L48 used the same HE ammo as the 75/L24?

The L43 and L48 are quite similar. The ammo of these two guns is interchangable. As far as I can determine, though, the L48 and L24, aside from being the same caliber, are completely different weapons.

One main reason that the L24 was a better HE gun was simply that it carried more HE ammunition since it sucked so bad in the AT role.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What occurs to me rereading this discussion is that even with only three beta demo scenarios, we're pretty spoiled. If you played squad leader or ASL, you always knew exactly what your opponent had. You could calculate all the to kill numbers before even deploying. (And if you didn't your opponent would...) Cool games, and I probably wouldn't be here without 'em, but...FOW is heaven!

My first time vs. the AI in Chance Encounter (as Yanks), I had no idea what was coming that would justify my 5 Shermans. (In retrospect, it had to be stuff coded into the demo, right, so StuG, Tigers, or Flak88?). I opened the setup file, and just froze. Is the crossroads defended? MG42 in the church? Hmm, it's a meeting engagement (already maybe an unrealistic amount of information). Which direction will the germans come from? I guessed (luckily) that the crossroads was not defended and that a rush to good positions would pay off.

My first visual contacts were with infantry way off in the swampy corner, so I figured the Germans were coming up the N-S road (from the US right). Change plans quick, reorient that way. Oops. Heart was pumping when I watched the movie, saw the lead Sherman zoom up to the left side of the church (thinking the Germans were coming from my right), spotted 3 stugs, scratch one Sherman and some passengers. I'm deployed all wrong! I recovered somewhat and pulled out a minor victory, but that instant of OH S**T was fabulous and made the eventual victory much more sweet.

Of course no subsequent reply was quite the same. Can't wait for editor and new scens, plus the kickass AI that will provide many more OH S**T moments . . .

Anyone else thinking of redoing the demo scenarios with tweaks? Not first thing, of course, but after the glow wears off in 2002 or so. Give the Yanks at 57mm ATG in Last Defence, or edit the map so the 'Cats start on the reverse slope of the hill. Replace one or more of the StuG in CE with PzIV, replace the Yanks with Brits (Cromwells?), have Germans enter a different edge, just to see how a familiar sitation plays different (guess it's a scientist wanting to control variables). These scens will be like the Guards Counterattack for Squad Leader folks, a classic and memorable starting point. (All those Russian 6-2-8 squads breathing down your neck.)

Sigh. How long 'til may?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...