Custom scenario=play balance?

[Col. Kurtz]

I have some newbie questions for the experienced players concerning the 1939 scenario:1) Do they think a custom scenario has been created that eliminates or at least reduces the need for a large Allied bid to balance the game? 2) If such a scenario exists why do they continue to play the standard game supplied scenario? 3) If such a scenario doesn't exist what in the game engine prevented it?

[arax3]

Search the forum. Go to Otto's web site. Don't expect any answers from the "experts." They are too busy looking at themselves in the mirror, or something like that. A3

[willebra]

I think a part of the problem is that the play balance really depends on the level of play between players.

Terif wrote in his hints for newbies/ intermediates:

"The size of the bid highly depends on the experience of both players since axis only has an advantage when the axis player knows how to play his side and the advantage increases with the experience. Here some average values (March 2004):

-new vs new:

no bid necessary (Allies even can be in the advantage here)

-intermediate vs intermediate:

bid 200 system 1:8 or 1:10 (or ~100 in 1:5:20)

-veteran vs veteran:

bid 200 system 1:5:20"

The whole thread can be found at:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=002198

[Terif]

Hi Col. Kurtz,

as Willebra already pointed out, it depends on the skill level of both players if a scenario is balanced or not.

If both sides are unexperienced and make a lot of mistakes, then this favours Allies a lot. Mistakes from the axis players has much worser consequences since they hinder axis expansion and/or will affect US/USSR readiness

In SC the situation changes a lot over time. In other games it is possible to create mirrored scenarios where both sides have identical starting situations/income/units and so they are balanced. This is not possible in SC.

Both sides have very different starting positions (geographically/mpps/units) and use different weapon systems:

- Axis starts with a strong ground force, but small income base. They have to expand to get stronger, when the axis player makes mistakes, they will not grow stronger fast enough to be able to beat USA/USSR when they join, no matter if Allies play perfect or make also a lot of mistakes.

- Allies have a lot of income at the beginning, but only weak forces. Over time with tech and experience their ships and carriers become powerful weapons - totally different weapon systems than the axis uses. There are not so many opportunities to make mistakes that bring their victory into danger since most of their power will come in late (USA/USSR).

Not to forget: To every strategy there exists a counter. Allies are highly dependable on the surprise effect and that Axis don´t know where they will be attacking (in the middle game they are 3:1 inferior in mpps, ships/carriers/transports need a lot of time to move to the battlefield, while Axis can shift its forces within 1-2 turns via operating). If axis player is experienced, he knows which areas to surveille and where to place his forces to counter the usual allied strategies. So between veteran players Allies can´t do so much damage to Axis (therefore USA/USSR need additional mpps to compensate for this...), while between not so experienced ones, Allies can easily destroy a lot of axis forces and reduce the enemies income severly.

So in the end:

A scenario that is balanced for 2 veteran players is highly unbalanced if it is played by 2 new/intermediate players and vice versa.

E.g. no new player would have a chance as Axis when playing against an equally skilled opponent with the standard veteran bid of 200-1000-4000 and a veteran would surely loose as Allies when playing with the standard low bid between new players against another veteran.

So it is not possible to create a scenario that is balanced for all skill levels - and here comes bidding in: with bids depending on the skill levels of both opponents (and after some games/reading the forum you know which bid is appropriate) it is possible to nearly perfectly balance the Fall Weiss scenario since there are enough experience values to know the (more or less) exact bids that are necessary for play balance.

BTW:

If you want a really balanced scenario for 2 veteran players, I can recommand you Amona´s Fall Weiss Mod2. Here you don´t need a bid if both players are experienced (every new player has no chance as Axis.. ).

You can find it at Panzerliga (at the 5th place at the moment): http://www.panzerliga.de/dt/docs/szenarien/szenarien_sc_1.php

For 2 new players the original Fall Weiss scenario is already very good balanced and probably the best scenario

[ September 02, 2004, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[jon_j_rambo]

@YodaTerif --- I don't see that scenario on your link? Or do I gotta scroll thru them?

[Terif]

@Rambo:

Yes, you have to scroll - there are 18 scenarios. Amona´s is the fifth one at the moment

[pzgndr]

3) If such a scenario doesn't exist what in the game engine prevented it?

Short answer, the SC1 economic model fails to recreate the historical growth rates of USA and USSR. Since we don't have the increases in MPPs over time, we compensate by front loading the economies of the Allies. This skews the game by giving the Allies some incredible immediate boosts which the Axis player must fight to overcome. This may provide some play balance, but sure doesn't recreate the historical ebb and flow of WWII. I found it very difficult to work around this issue with my mod attempts.

SC2 will provide much more flexibility with regard to economics - variable Industrial Technology growth rates of 5-25%, Production Technology, resource event scripts, and a few other things.