zappsweden Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Rambo mentioned that you could bid for how much cash the allies should begin with. I will give some extension and example to that proposal. Without a bidding system it is difficult having tournaments with best of one game since Axis have so much advantage even with maximu allied options (free french on, partisans on and siberian war off). Let the best player win, not the best side! The player who bids the highest gets to play Axis and the other player gets Allied with extra cash for UK, USA and Russia. This means that aggressive play by the axis will be even tougher since USA and Russia enter with more "firepower". Example: 1. Player A bids 110 MPP. 2. Player B bids 130 MPP. 3. Player A accepts player B offer. 4. Player B will have Axis. 5. Player A will have Allies and will have 130 MPP bonus for USA, UK and Russia EACH. 6. Whoever is the host, opens the 1939 scenario with the scenario editor, increases the initial cash for UK, USA and Russia by 130 MPP EACH. 7. The scenario is named CashHandicap. 8. The host starts TCP/IP game and chooses the CashHandicap scenario [ January 08, 2003, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Very nice idea, simple and elegant, similar to board-game bidding I have seen in tournament play. Kudos to Rambo for thinking of it, and to you for promoting it. :cool: Who would have to bid first? In a tournament, the moderator could determine that by random chance. Otherwise, whoever challenges another to a game would have to bid first, unless the choice of sides is agreed upon. Alternatively, you could have points awarded depending on WHEN the Allies are conquered (... presumably when Russia is beaten). Best if this is included in SC2 so that you could quit at any time and still have a victory total. You could compare these point totals in any group of 4 players and the better Axis margin of victory advances to the next round. For that matter, you could simply compare the dates of Axis conquest. If there is one Allied winner, then that could be considered the superior victory. If two Allied players win in the group of 4, then, again, it would depend on victory points at the time of the opponent's conquest or concession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by Immer Etwas: Alternatively, you could have points awarded depending on WHEN the Allies are conquered (... presumably when Russia is beaten). This suddenly will produce a strange game were the Allies did not care about losing, just cared about holding on for a while and dig in. The french tactic would then be to "run for your life" as soon as the Axis made the first break in their defence line. I would not like a scenario where an allied player just need to hold on until 1943 just because he won in 1943 with Axis. [ January 07, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 The fun thing with the bidding is that if you have any favourite side or plays one side much better then you can bid so that you get that side! I will make a violent guess and judge that between equal players, 200-300 MPP bids are reasonable. [ January 07, 2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 I love this idea. Maybe it will be implimented in SC2. Hopefully not lost in the tons of pages here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Hopefully SC2 will be balanced and with options to balance it yourself (free french , ...) so a bidding system will not be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KG Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Here is a solution without making mods. Why not bid with Corps and Armies. Each side bids for the Germans, offering up 1 or 2 corps or armies, or both (maybe even a tank or HQ). Then do a transport of said pieces, send to Ireland, allow Allied ships to destroy the transport(s). Game is equalized. This would work with the current patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 That could make The UK+France versus Germany balance odd. If Axis cannot take France they are doomed. It is after the fall of France that Germany become too strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by zappsweden: Hopefully SC2 will be balanced and with options to balance it yourself (free french , ...) so a bidding system will not be needed.Lol it's funny everyone bitches about "Balance" when there can be none. The only way to get perfect balance is to create identicle starting positions on a identicle playing field with identicle pieces with simultanious moves(Good luck on that score...even if u did the game wouyld be so boring we wouldn't play it). Even a game with as simple rules as GO is not balanced. This game is Chess^9th. So in first acknowledging the fact that to create a game with unequal pieces/Board we cannot create full balance, we can design a handicapping system into that game to get as close to equalization as possible. BTW if this is implimeneted u will see the "bidding" change as different strategies are found to work against different bids. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KG Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 I agree it would make it more difficult, but is a solution without making a new patch or making a mod. Giving up two corps and one army, would be 500 MPP & should still allow Germany to take France, but would slow Germany down. Some experimentation would bring to light where the break even point was. Everyone would agree a point system would be the best route to go, but without mods and no new patch, this is a solution that could be used now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 The reason I like the bidding system is that there's absolutely no complaining about sides. There is a clear cut "level of victory". Example: I will beat you & spot you $500! I've been in alot of competitive wargame tournaments & it's the only way to play. Why? How do you measure victory, determine sides, etc. This way, you don't have to play best of something-or-other. This is how Axis & Allies is played in tournaments. The only other alternative is too set deadlines & play by point systems. Right now, the Axis can play Stallmate-47 & grab MMP's. Actually, compare the original Axis & Allies against the new Axis & Allies Pacific version. The new Pacific version has well defined victory conditions. Bidding is more "gamey". It's cool, macho, & very Rambo like. DON'T do it with removing pieces. That will just open another can-of-worms. Do it with MMP's $money. It actually adds more gamey action by the Allies. Make it simple, give the money to the British. If they got $500 extra at the beginning would sure help. That's 2-armies, or an Air-Unit & changes, or an HQ. What will happen is the good players (Legends & Icons) will think of new strategies to spend the money, & will find the "true" leveling point. Another thing: What's funny are all the sorry ass players talking about play balance. You need to have game before you bitch. Rambo Captain of Team-USA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by Hueristic: [QB Lol it's funny everyone bitches about "Balance" when there can be none. The only way to get perfect balance is to create identicle starting positions on a identicle playing field with identicle pieces with simultanious moves(Good luck on that score...even if u did the game wouyld be so boring we wouldn't play it). [/QB]Heuristic. Making a balanced game is not so hard if you have options. In fact, we already have options (Free french, partisans, Siberian wars) but they are simply not enough to level out the axis advantage. Say, we had a game where USA and Russia were much stronger. The allied advantage could then be tweaked by removing Free French and all partisans PLUS including siberian war. The problem is that the game is not even close to balance i.e all the options are already set on maximum allied advantage and still axis have the upper hand. If the game was just NEAR balance you could easily change some options to level out. You get the point? [ January 08, 2003, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 If this game is a balanced description of WW2 then how on earth did Allies hold on to Egypt in the real war?? Outnumbered in MPP by 4 to 1 by the Germans and Italians the UK cannot simply hold anything against a determined Axis player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 I want the gameengine to change. The longer the war continues the less chance of winning for the axis. The system used in the boardgame Totaler Krieg got some interesting points on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by Kuniworth: I want the gameengine to change. The longer the war continues the less chance of winning for the axis. The system used in the boardgame Totaler Krieg got some interesting points on this.Changing the game engine (in general) takes much more effort than just tweaking the starting variables (MPP, starting cash, research levels). It becomes a whole new game and that is why Hubert is working on SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Make it simple, give the money to the British. If they got $500 extra at the beginning would sure help. That's 2-armies, or an Air-Unit & changes, or an HQ. Rambo Captain of Team-USARambo, if the cash was only given to the UK it would produce a "once in a lifetime opportunity" for allies to hold or SEVERELY delay the Axis invasion of France. If the Allies can capitalize on their (say 500 MPP) advantage the Axis are doomed. BUT, if the Allies fails, the game goes almost as before because the 500 MPP wont do much difference in 1942 when Axis have conquered Vichy, Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar, Norway, Sweden, Egypt and Iraque. The problem with the current 1.06 system is that an historical outcome in France makes Axis much stronger vs the Allies than in the real WW2. If, on the other hand, the bidding was to UK, USA and Russia bids would be lower right? I DO mean that a 300 MPP bid should be just ONE bid i.e USA get 300, Russia get 300 and UK get 300. So, for example, if you bid 300 MPP, the USA would start the war with 180+300=480 MPP instead and that is an HQ or extra air fleet early on! Also, Russia would have the luxury to buy another HQ early on and be much stronger on the defensive. UK would also probably buy an HQ or 1 army extra early on and perhaps being able to avoid a disaster in France. I do not want the bonus to be just a fence that as soon as the Axis climbs over it they are clear and move on. [ January 08, 2003, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by zappsweden: Heuristic. Making a balanced game is not so hard if you have options. Really? How many have you written? In fact, we already have options (Free french, partisans, Siberian wars) but they are simply not enough to level out the axis advantage. I am not nor have argued that point. The problem is that the game is not even close to balance i.e all the options are already set on maximum allied advantage and still axis have the upper hand. That is a fairly true statement which i have not disagreed with. Although I do think it's Closer than You/And others Make it out to be. As your game with Terif is proving. If the game was just NEAR balance you could easily change some options to level out. You get the point?I thought I got the point to start with? Weird read back over my previous posts. My Statements in this thread Are to be taken as Game Design in general and As a whole But not specific to nor limited to "SC". That stated (I thought it was self explanitory but i guess maybe not to Non-english individuals) I Still Feel the Bidding system is an exellent method by which to "Help" even the playing field but I do not think it should be a bulk "Gift" at the beginning. As a few others have stated the reasoning for this i won't repeat them. I believe the bidding should be applied to a pool that can be used for any purchaseing from any Major power of the recieving side. And that pool should be incremented by the bid every turn. E.I. I can beat u with allies +5 means the axis "Pool" would increase every turn by five and any Major AXIS power left in the game can dip into that pool to purchase. Damn better preview this, English is MY first language and i still can't spell [ January 08, 2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Hueristic ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by zappsweden: If this game is a balanced description of WW2 then how on earth did Allies hold on to Egypt in the real war??Whoever said it was? I see it as just a great strategy game set in a Awesome setting(theatre if u will). If it was perfectly "Historical" Then there wouldn't be so many people trying to make Historical Mods. Ever play those? Talk about unbalanced lol. Not to say they don't Serve a purpose I've had alot of fun with them so far and i've no desire to shift focus of this worthy thread. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by zappsweden: Rambo, if the cash was only given to the UK it would produce a "once in a lifetime opportunity" for allies to hold or SEVERELY delay the Axis invasion of France. If the Allies can capitalize on their (say 500 MPP) advantage the Axis are doomed. BUT, if the Allies fails, the game goes almost as before because the 500 MPP wont do much difference in 1942 when Axis have conquered Vichy, Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar, Norway, Sweden, Egypt and Iraque. I do not want the bonus to be just a fence that as soon as the Axis climbs over it they are clear and move on.[/QB]I couldn't Agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by Hueristic: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by zappsweden: Heuristic. Making a balanced game is not so hard if you have options. Really? How many have you written? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Originally posted by zappsweden: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hueristic: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by zappsweden: Heuristic. Making a balanced game is not so hard if you have options. Really? How many have you written? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts