Shaka of Carthage Posted August 23, 2003 Author Share Posted August 23, 2003 Kunniworth I agree that a editor would solve some of the issues we have. Then the debate would be about the type of editor, since some want unit mods, others want hex mods and even more want both. But until one is issued or we are given permission to develop it ourselfs, we have to make do with what we have. So we develop House Rules, modify the campaigns or handicap our play. We don't have any other choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 As originally posted by Jollyguy: One thing we've learned with SC is that a "fix" can have unintended effects somewhere else. Hubert was wise to offer patches reluctantly, and only after extensive play testing and comments by all of us. Right on the money. Even the "best intended" of house rules are suspect, since there hasn't been any attempt to collect and analyze any game data, has there? Anecdotal reporting, as with AARs, could help, but a more thorough analsis would be definitive. And, it is unlikely that we will see another patch, which is, and has to be, fine by me. I wouldn't mind an editor that would allow changing the OOB and status of ALL Countries, but hey, if it's not in the cards... agree with the expressed sentiment that Hubert has gone above and beyond in trying to accomodate the dedicated players. :cool: As originally posted by JerseyJohn: Didn't we all believe computers would make those things all but obsolete! Ah, yes indeed, which is why I can't seem to go back now and patiently set-up and play the WiF or A3R games... too much bookeeping! Though, my son and I do occasionally get great enjoyment out of the new Axis & Allies Pacific board-game... it is balanced on a razor's edge, with one small run of dice-rolling luck often the difference between two equally determined foes, as fathers and sons... can sometimes be. As originally posted by Shaka of Carthage: I'd suspect that my brain chemistry has been altered by the effect of reading this forum over the past year or so. LOL! Very true... I hereby apologize if ANY of my posts have contributed to any... ummm, existential malaise... ***I do have one other observation... it seems more than a little ODD that there has been no consensus reached... on one particular MOD that makes head to head play... very nearly PERFECTLY balanced. Seems as though, by this late date, and with so very many games having been played, including solo, that ONE UNIQUE version would have soared to the forefront... as that elusive, "balanced" head to head game. :confused: Perhaps this is what Mr Bill was alluding to... his '39 scenario comes close (... though, not so much for solo play) but I wonder? Has any consensus been reached? And, could there be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted August 24, 2003 Author Share Posted August 24, 2003 Even the "best intended" of house rules are suspect, since there hasn't been any attempt to collect and analyze any game data, has there? Yes there has. Arby, KDG, etc have broken down and analyzed the combat system. I believe one of them even has it setup on a spreadsheet. I've recorded the incremental effects that adding strength points have on the experience bars. The above is why there are statements about problems with the Panzers and the combat results in general. Its also the basis of why German units, if they are given the proper experience bars at setup, can't be "bleed white" by Russian corps later on, since they have very little chance of receiving damage. Unit limits, aircraft ranges, amphib ranges, etc are all based on the historical counterparts. If a aircraft has a combat radius of 300 miles, then you can assume strike range should be 6 hexes, not 9 or 12. Some of the House Rules and suggested changes are based on valid data. Not a "seat of the pants" lets change this because it will make it more "balanced". So while Jollyguy has a valid point about the ripple effect of "fixes", it has been considered by some of us. Thats one reason why other than the map changes suggested by Liam and JerseyJohn, I don't support any other map or MPP changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Most Balanced MOD I've been saying it since Bill first sent it out for playtesting, Mr. Macon's 1939 Fall Weiss Campaign should be the candidate. Bill designed it with the goal of equalizing the original 1939 Campaign and I believe he succeeded. Unfortunately it appears to have never caught on. I'd vote for it as the default Ladder and PBEM League MOD, no bidding required. Immer Agreed, I honestly don't want to keep track of anything, that's what the computer is for. It would even be good to have an option where the computer automatically numbers each unit upon it's creation so the player doesn't need to bother with it. An arrangement where, if you start off with 3rd, 5th & 10th armies the computer reads that info and numbers the next three 1st, 2nd & 4th, skipping the one already in existence and, as it moves higher up, seeking to complelte the string and extend it beyond. This would also be a good competitive feature with the rename option turned off, that way if you see certain units you know it's that specific force and not a different one with the same name. But game programs don't seem to put much emphasis on keeping track of things for human players. [ August 23, 2003, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Shaka, I am well aware of the excellent work that you and Arby and others have already done in regard to unit capabilities/limitations and the like. What I meant was... analysis of data in regard to... WHICH MOD... is most balanced? Surely by now there would be CONSENSUS on what that would be... and this is paramount... WITHOUT ANY BIDDING necessary. A Mod that you can play from the very beginning, that requires NO house-rules and NO bidding. I would agree with JJ that Bill Macon's Mod is quite exemplary. However, we would need 8 or a dozen players to test it and determine if it WITHSTANDS the rigors of... many and assorted strategies and quite unique "player quirks" etc. I would truly like to see this happen... some SC Board Consensus on the most balanced head to head Mod... AND, if possible, the same for a solo game played at a particular standard. The question remains... can it, and should it be done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts