AAR Hellraiser (Allies) vs Terif (Axis)

[jon_j_rambo]

@Yoda --- Where do you want to go with the "Standard" game? Maybe we can suggest some things to HC with a possible solution? No surprise people are testing Turkish gambits...and the Axis can exploit them. The "must take Suez" rule is "a must". In a game against Liam, he is bombing the crap out of the area, not capturing the objectives, but has already destoryed my units. Thus, he gets free training & it's killing my MMPs. Too powerful.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Blashy --- When you say,"I'll never play with House rules", you lose your crediblity. Think. Why are you calling us lazy? You tested this, not us. I told you to hire Yodl for testing, because this is no surprise. I want to play a game, not test your software. Think. You're talking with some big names here, cheap sales tactics won't work!

[hellraiser]

Blashy, bugtesting and stability testing is one issue, finding a balance for H2H is a different one. If the opinion of the designer will be that balancing for h2h is not necessary, we will have to find a way to balance it to suit competitive play - call it bidding system, editor adjustments, whatever. The game ATM is unbalanced for H2H, that's 100% granted. We're not trying to split hairs here, just trying to improve.

[Terif]

Yep, ATM it is not possible to play without certain house rules if you want at least a fair game and better: a balanced one .

I guess the first patches will bring a lot of changes and until then it really makes no sense changing the scenario by oneself.

Every player would have to look through a new player made scenario if it suits his preferences and to test which strategies work in this special scenario - not practible for competition games.

Here you simply need an official scenario and then you can use house rules or a bidding system where you only adjust one parameter if possible. So every player knows what to expect and has the same chances.

Worked in SC 1 this way and will most likely also in SC 2. In SC 1 there were several tries to implement player made balanced scenarios...didn´t work cause of the mentioned reasons and players always returned after a short period to the standard Fall Weiss with bidding system .

[jon_j_rambo]

@Blashy --- Do you understand what Yoda is saying? He needs to know what the standard game is so he can go back to his Swamp and plan for his next battle! Blashy, I know you mean will & you have a good spirit, but remember the movie Flight of the Phoenix (either original or new one), it was the German dude that got the plane to work...the Yank flew it out!

[Blashy]

1) Its not my software.

2) No matter who gets in on the game, flaws would be found, why? Manpower, 1 developer, a few beta testers vs. the community, forget it, no way all the flaws can be covered.

3) You might think or it might seem we have no found anything, but as you said, you were not in beta testing. We did not expect to find them all (3 full time beta testers by my account, we're not perfect) but I think you have a playable product.

4) Yes I do think it is lazy to make house rules instead of taking the time to edit the flaws accordingly when the tools are in place.

5) Hubert is surely working on some of these issues, but I would bet the issues that can NOT be fixed with the editor are his priority (guessing here) and then issues that can be fixed with the editor are next (again, I'm guessing). If he should happen to miss a few balancing fixes and we have the ability to do it ourselves, why not use the tools in hand to improve the game?

You're Suez Rule for example, edit the script so USA join % goes up once Axis is within 4 tiles of Cairo, you get next to Alexandria, boom USA % goes up. No house rule needed.

If you're asking for the perfectly balanced game, forget it, companies with 50 guys on one game do not manage that.

[Hubert Cater]

Not to worry guys, I'm reading and listening and working to iron out the balance issues as we speak

[Blashy]

Originally posted by hellraiser:

Blashy, bugtesting and stability testing is one issue, finding a balance for H2H is a different one. If the opinion of the designer will be that balancing for h2h is not necessary, we will have to find a way to balance it to suit competitive play - call it bidding system, editor adjustments, whatever. The game ATM is unbalanced for H2H, that's 100% granted. We're not trying to split hairs here, just trying to improve.

I agree with what you are saying, and I know balancing H2H is on Huberts list, balancing his WHOLE game is on his list.

What I'm saying is that some of the house rules (all of them actually) in place now can be fixed via editor or scripts and that makes the game much simpler and more realistic. Why not do it?

It is fine to wait for the first patch, I can understand that as some stuff will get fixed by Hubert, but eventually we'll have to get our hands dirty ourselves .

[jon_j_rambo]

@Blashy --- Son, quit taking everything so personal. You did a good job, the game is good.

"We're going up North and going to set things right"....."Reckon' I'm goin' with ya" --- Clint Eastwood responding to a request in the movie classic, The Outlaw Josey Wales.

@Hubert --- Thanks brother, you did me right in SC1, I love that game. You also did me right with the timer in SC2, so you have a seat at the dinner table with Camp Rambo.

[Blashy]

I'm not taking it personal, I'm just stating we know we are not perfect and even though I am not making money out of it, I'm proud of the product and what I've done to help out.

And I have no problems admiting it needs to be balanced, I'm just saying don't be lazy with house rules .

I'm glad you guys are being critical and not bashing, I'll give you all that. I've yet to see bashing here and I give you all credit for that, I have never seen this in any game that was released. Tons of "WTF? How could that NOT have been found" instead you guys are simply indicating flaws and ideas on how to correct them.

So kudos to the community as a whole.

[Terif]

@Blashy:

Yes, we could fix most things covered by house rules with the editor by writing a dozen scripts or so, changing landscape (to avoid supply via Turkey) or give additional ressources to Russia etc...

But this will work only for ONE single person ! That´s the problem. But if we play competition games, then an official standard is needed where everyone can agree to and knows what´s in.

Probably there will be no balanced scenario even after the first patch(es), but with house rules it is much easier to balance it when we have a common basis as with the editor and a lot of isolated individual solutions and more important: it is for everyone comprehensible.

So I simply hope forum input will help to improve the game and also make a more balanced official scenario possible - individual solutions are no solution here.

P.S.:

Yep, I am a bit lazy and prefer to simply agree to certain houserules with an opponent - needs perhaps a minute or two - than to change the scenario before each game in consensus with the opponent and we have to look it through/test it what will take several hours...guess not much players would be willing to do it this way anyway

Edit:

And Hubert is already working on it, so I have the positive feeling that not too far in the future we will have an improved scenario at our disposal

[ April 27, 2006, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Blashy]

@Terif,

I still do not get your logic.

House rule: No DoW on Majors and landings first turn.

Why? Because Rome is easily taken.

So, in the editor, Italian Army is put on Rome at maximum entrenchement.

House rule has been fixed. Panzerliga adopts this fix as the officila campaign. No house rule created.

The difference?

1) The ability for the Axis player to take a chance and move that unit somewhere else or play it safe.

2) The ability for the Allied player to take a chance and plan a rome invasion, hoping for a first turn knock out (highly unlikely).

3) But if that Axis player moved that Army and you had a Carrier watching out for that the whole time, Axis player pays the price on his gamble to move that unit.

Suez is another example, say you have a script instead of a house rule to force a player to take Cairo to provoke +% in USA. That player could STILL choose not to take Cairo in even though USA % went up, he might use it for target practice for his bombers, cruel on the cities citizens, but great training in a danger free zone. At the same time that bomber and possibly HQ are there instead of somewhere else (bombing Russian occupied cities). Same rule is fixed, but you still have possible varieties on how it is played out.

See how the SAME effect as the house rule does more in opening up the gameplay?

What I'm saying is that if you all have say 5 house rules to cover certain exploit and I go ahead and cover those exploits with the editor, ONLY those exploits. Is that not better?

A league can easily adopt a balanced campaign instead of the standard one. SC was different, some stuff just could not be fixed (could happen in SC2, I doubt it).

[Desert Dave]

Yer sayin' better than I EVER could

Blash Man,

And so I'll merely kick in this little bit,

As a possible end result, in sequence:

1) Patches are done... for awhile, as will be mentioned, probably.

2) Best game is... pretty doggone CLOSE.

3) Imaginative folks come up with a scenario, finally, that covers EVERY SINGLE difficulty. I do mean, ALL of them. BECAUSE it can be done. With "minor adjustments."

4) Rating system for each & every scenario, at the preferred site... is consulted, just to be sure.

5) Final decision made. Commonly agreed to.

6) IDEAL HvsH and Major Leagues game established.

7) Everyone is notified that THIS game is the one to be used hereafter. Maybe even, INTO the hereafter.

8) Competitors are on even ground, have their very favorite ball-park to play hard ball in.

9) And so, with NO "house rules" necessary... they do. :cool:

[Terif]

@Blashy:

Sorry, but the "No DoW on Majors and landings first turn" is a rule from SC 1 and I not from SC 2 - just read it carefully, rule is (see first post):

"1. No allied DoW to USA allowed. Rome gambit forbidden (i.e. no attack at Rome in the first turn of DoW)"

USA can´t be fixed in the editor, but will be in the patch. To allow taking Rome will simply ruin a lot of good games since this means an early game over for one side or the other if Allies try it - sorry but this has nothing to do with a strategy game, it is simply roulette.

Second rule - the movement of neutral units can also not be changed via editor, but Patch will change it.

And Cairo rule - simple and easy to use this rule. So it works how it should be and you don´t need a lot of time to explain the scenario changes to every (new) player you want to play with and the other one doesn´t need to look into the scripts before playing.

Turkey can also not be changed via editor (at least not without a lot of effort) and so will need a rule till it is patched.

In short why it is better to use house rules than the editor:

The main problems ATM can´t be solved via editor (see above). For the small problems/unbalances every player will have a different solution if we start editing the scenario and this will simply mean too much time lost and troubles to reach an agreement before a game. House rules in contrary are simple, easy to use and nobody needs to have a look into the different scripts or learn how to use them before he can start a game.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Terif:

For the small problems/unbalances every player will have a different solution...

You couldn't AGREE on an ideal scenario?

With MERELY... VERY minor adjustments?

[... by the time all is said and done, minor adjustments may not even be necessary, IMHO]

That's kinda odd. :confused:

[Blashy]

USA is being patched so it is a non issue.

1) I can fix Rome gambit. A LOT of stuff in War is roulette, but this Rome gambit is far less than roulette, no way you take out a level 6 entrenched army unit at 100% readiness in one turn or even 2 turns. If the Italian player plays stupid, the chance to pay the price should be there. Keep an AF to spot and you'll be fine. Keep a cors next to Rome and it is suicide for the Allies to contemplate the gambit, but the stupid move is still a possibility.

Cairo can be fixed, and there is no need to explain ANYTHING. If people don't read the scripts, they will never learn all the rules of the game.

Turkey can be changed NOW by the editor, easily.

So I can fix them all excep the two that are being fixed by Hubert himself.

You don't need to edit EVERYtime, you edit, rename it and you have your scenario there ALL the time.

The league adopts it and no agreement needs to be reached, that is the campaign, take it or leave, just like your current house rules, you play with them or you do not.

NOTE: No DoW majors and landing first turn is not needed IMHO, so what if you do it in Russia, it is a valid tactic, it will cost you in MPPs and landing casualties and then low supply. Try it on USA, with the next patch I doubt you will .

[Qyusson]

@terif: i tend to agree with blashy. It should not be a problem to remake a scenario and make it balanced through the editor, and then make that scenario known to the tcp community as being the 'standard one' (on the PL and elsewhere). I am sure some of the top guys would be able to make such a scenario with the tools available if they committed some time in it instead of headcracking all the time

Houserules r another point. Some houserules give an effect you cannot recreate with the editor, well then you have your houserules on the 'modified' standard campaign. Houserules do not always serve the balance of the game, but rather to make some 'roulette' moves impossible. The two do not exclude each other

[Terif]

Ideal scenario ?

Sorry, this will never exist - same as a perfect world - every human is different and has different opinions and preferences.

For the mod community or to play fun scenarios the editor is perfect to create lots of different scenarios. But for competition games I prefer to have an official scenario (by Hubert ).

P.S. we already agree that after the next patches most of the current house rules will already be abandoned - they are made for version 1.0 and nothing more . In 1.1 we will have to see which rules are necessary or if perhaps we can even play with no rules at all. Time and the next patch will tell .

[Blashy]

I intend to do my very best to make a "standard campaign" AFTER I let Hubert do all the hard work, :eek: .

So don't worry Terif, you'll have your balanced without HR (I don't mean without HellRaiser, LOL) within a few months and you'll love it and adopt it and so will Panzerliga...

So say we all!!! (I've been itching to say that for months now!)

[Blashy]

So because someone is not "named" Hubert and comes out with a scenario that has no requirement for house rule you would not accept it?

Or

Hubert releases a "patch" and all it has are editor / script enhancements, you would then accept it?

And then if he says Blashy/Dave or whoever did all the work... you would not accept it?

[Desert Dave]

Terif, bantering:

Ideal scenario ?

Sorry, this will never exist

I did NOT say perfect!

'39 Grand Campaign,

I said... "ideal."

Subtle difference, but,

Significant difference.

OK,

I've said all I want to say,

You are going to have WHATEVER

Game you wish for.

Maybe, even, the one that is - finally,

Hubert's "default game."

I actually think that is quite possible, anyway. :cool:

[Terif]

Yep, first we need some work from Hubert for the basic conditions and then we can make a standard campaign - if it gets accepted by the community, why not the scenario you will create .

I guess we came a bit away from what it was all about, cause in the end we don´t have a real disagreement it seems to me:

- Version 1.0 is not balanced and needs some things to be fixed. I would say here we can agree ?

- so you say we fix it via editor till the next patch, I say it is better to use house rules till the next patch. Here we have a time restricted difference.

- with the next patch most of the major quirks will be patched and I also hope we don´t need house rules any more and as far as I can read what is planed for the next patch it seems this could already be the case.

When the situation is stable and the general conditions are clear, then I am also for creating a balanced scenario via editor if it should still be necessary, cause then it is worth the time and effort to create and establish a new standard scenario.

Nevertheless I hope this will not be necessary cause hopefully the 1939 campaign delivered and patched by Hubert will already be balanced - if not after the first patch, then after the second or third .

[Blashy]

I agree I do not see the use in using the editor NOW, better wait and see if Hubert patches it himself.

But eventually Terif... eventually

So say we all! (Woot, did it again).

[jon_j_rambo]

Blashy, you recanted rather quickly. In the future just agree with the big named players.

[Blashy]

There is no recant, I just agree that doing NOW is not necessarry, but to play with HR in the futur is taking away parts of the game.

FYI, I consider Edwin one the big name player and he does not do HvH, why? Because of what he is doing for the community. Its not just about HvH, its about what people do for the game itself. That is how I rate big name .