What's A Good Scenario For Fair PBEM Ladder Play?

[Col Deadmarsh]

There's a gillion of these scenarios out there. What's a good one that's fair for both sides or an unbalanced one that's good for a mirror game? And where can I find it?

Oh yeah, I've been playing QB's since I first got this game so if you can recommend a good canned scenario WITH BRIDGES or REPLACEMENTS, you will get a gold star.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

[WWB]

Most of the stuff at der kessel would be good, see also the cm scenario depot for reviews, etc.

WWB

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]</p>

[Treeburst155]

Try my "Flag Rush Hill" at the Scenario Depot.

It's even with lots of tactical choices for both players.

Treeburst155 out.

[Foobar]

My personal favorite, "Move It or Lose It"

[Screamineagle]

While I have the utmost respect for the gents who work their hearts out at the previously mentioned websites, and I frequent both of them looking for fair, balanced, PBEM. I find some difficulty in choosing a fair PBEM battle, most games are geared toward the AI.

In my most humble opinion, a lot of the scenario design guys are worried about historical accuracy vs fair, balanced play and the design is biased toward playing the AI, leaving us PBEM guys with a decesion between QB's or Scenaorios that are not very well balanced.

While I enjoy the historical accuracy, I prefer a fair balanced game in most instances.

[WWB]

While I do not have too many scenarios out, I design purely for multiplayer for two reasons:

1) The AI is too goddamn hard and to control and direct without imposing artifical restrictions (padlocked units, restritive setup zones, etc.) and/orgiving it massive materiel bonuses to make up for stupidity. Which pretty much means I am lazy, but who cares.

2) The AI cannot appreciate my work.

In general I go for interesting playbalance, gorgeous maps (which you will rarely, if ever get with a QB), and historical feel. Meaning I use units which might have fought together and common tanks, etc., while maintaining balance.

Look at The Lists at the depot (see link above) and pick one of the battles top rated for PBEM. Those things are quite, quite balanced and generally make for a more interesting gaming experience than QB MEs.

WWB

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]</p>

[Treeburst155]

I have two scenarios at the Depot. Both are designed strictly with balanced PBEM in mind. I don't bother with the AI at all, when playing or designing.

Treeburst155 out.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wwb_99:

While I do not have too many scenarios out, I design purely for multiplayer for two reasons:

1) The AI is too goddamn hard and to control and direct without imposing artifical restrictions (padlocked units, restritive setup zones, etc.) and/orgiving it massive materiel bonuses to make up for stupidity. Which pretty much means I am lazy, but who cares.

2) The AI cannot appreciate my work.

In general I go for interesting playbalance, gorgeous maps (which you will rarely, if ever get with a QB), and historical feel. Meaning I use units which might have fought together and common tanks, etc., while maintaining balance.

Look at The Lists at the depot (see link above) and pick one of the battles top rated for PBEM. Those things are quite, quite balanced and generally make for a more interesting gaming experience than QB MEs.

WWB

<hr></blockquote>

What he said.

An add-on: balancing a scenario for multi-player involves something else than equal purchase points. To do it well you actually have to think a bit, and the real unbalancing effect is a case of PEBKAS. I.e. I can do what I want to balance a scenario, if the players are not evenly matched, it won't play well-balanced.

All my scenarios are balanced for multi-player, except for the one where it says differently on the tin. You normally have to give the AI a bonus to have a decent fight against it.

[Holien]

Move it or Lose It!!!

You can play this multiple times and it will not play the same.

I suggest playing it blind as it is serious fun blind.

South of Sword is also good and provides some interesting challenges.

H

[Stoffel]

if you like bridges you can try my: cross the bridge , scenario

its at the combat mission scenario depot

see the link written in the other reply

[Silvio Manuel]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Holien:

Move it or Lose It!!!

You can play this multiple times and it will not play the same.

I suggest playing it blind as it is serious fun blind.

South of Sword is also good and provides some interesting challenges.

H<hr></blockquote>

I second South of Sword, its one of my favs. Also "First Clash at Cambes"- another M.E.

[Treeburst155]

Germanboy wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>An add-on: balancing a scenario for multi-player involves something else than equal purchase points. To do it well you actually have to think a bit, and the real unbalancing effect is a case of PEBKAS. I.e. I can do what I want to balance a scenario, if the players are not evenly matched, it won't play well-balanced.<hr></blockquote>

He makes two very important points here. If you're on the hunt for balanced scenarios, either the design of them or to play them, you should keep these two points in mind.

Treeburst155 ot.

[CombinedArms]

As I recently mentioned on another thread, I decided to see if I could create a really unbalanced scenario with equal points and came up with one with Allies having 4 Jumbo 76s and 3 Jumbo 75s & a company of infantry against about 10 PzIVs, 3 Hetzers and a company of infantry. The map featured rolling hills on both sides of a river with two bridges (this limited flanking manuevers).

The points were the same but the Axis tanks couldn't penetrate the Allied armor and were further chosen for their ability to die easily before Allied guns (the Hetzer a bit tougher but still no match for a Sherm 76). Once the Axis tanks were gone, the Axis infantry was toast.

Taking Allies vs. AI, I won something like 98-2. That was against the AI, but I think even a good human player would have a tough time winning with those Axis forces. It's even easier to create this kind of imbalance using Axis forces. The key issues, of course, is that point totals offer only a very crude idea of relative strengths. A zook, for example, can be virtually useless in quite open terrains, but can be extremely effective in some urban settings and in night battles. That's why scenario design is an art (and why I'm leary of playing PBEM QBs, since so much seems to come down to force choice.)

[WWB]

Germanboy underlines one major pont: choose your playtesters carefully. And use lots of `em.

Also, in general, due to time restrictions, smaller scenarios generally get tested much more thouroughly than larger ones. It is quite easy to hang out in CMHQ chat and get 6-8 people to play a 13 Turn, ~45 Minute TCP game. But 10,000 points is going to take a while.

WWB

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

He makes two very important points here. If you're on the hunt for balanced scenarios, either the design of them or to play them, you should keep these two points in mind.

Treeburst155 ot.<hr></blockquote>

So noted.

Obviously though, when I am playing a person for the first time, I don't know his skill level and he doesn't know mine. So when looking for a map, it's only right to look for a map that is either A) fairly balanced or one that can be played as a mirror game. If me and my opponent don't want to play two games, then we're gonna look for one that is as even as possible and assume that we are of the same skill level.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>What's A Good Scenario For Fair PBEM Ladder Play?<hr></blockquote>

A Second Job - Vossenack

Move It or Lose It

Reut Canal

To The Last Man

49th Recce

Into the East

Last Defense

The Sunken Lane

[Treeburst155]

I think the mirrored game is the way to go if you want to be sure you're on equal footing. In that case the scenarios don't have to be balanced at all, really.

A scenario balanced using the point system can very easily be unbalanced, as others have noted.

Extensive playtesting is the only way to know you're close with regard to balance.

Treeburst155 out.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

I think the mirrored game is the way to go if you want to be sure you're on equal footing. In that case the scenarios don't have to be balanced at all, really.

A scenario balanced using the point system can very easily be unbalanced, as others have noted.

Extensive playtesting is the only way to know you're close with regard to balance.

Treeburst155 out.<hr></blockquote>

Just for the record, is a mirror game is when you and your opponent play the same scenario from different sides, but at the same time?

And what is the difference between blind and double blind and what exactly do they mean? I assume double blind means both players only know they're own units and deploy zones and not their opponents?

[Holien]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Just for the record, is a mirror game is when you and your opponent play the same scenario from different sides, but at the same time?

And what is the difference between blind and double blind and what exactly do they mean? I assume double blind means both players only know they're own units and deploy zones and not their opponents?<hr></blockquote>

Yep to Mirror.

Blind is when your opponent knows the setup but you don't or vice versa.

Double Blind is when both of you have no idea about the setup or when things will happen.

These games are the only way to go for sheer terror. WB is a master of these as you think you will be wiped and then in the nick of time (or not) you get some more men.

H