PrezCartman Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Ok so clearly asymmetric warfare makes things a bit more of a challenge in terms of balancing scores. I'm working on creating a scenario right now where basically a Stryker company is attacking an irregular Syrian force. The US has only terrain objectives and maximum casualty levels because these would be the main goals of a US attack in the situation. The Syrians have as minimum casualty goal to inflict on the US as well as unit objectives for knocking out the various units. I.e. 150pts for a regular infantry platoon Stryker, 250pts for knocking out a command Stryker, etc. Right now the scenario is only playable as the US because the AI is not skilled enough on the offensive. So I played through it once, lost more forces than I would consider acceptable, got to the score screen. Total US Victory. The point totals were only about 50 pts apart. However the US came a lot closer to achieving their maximum points allowed than the Syrians because in order to get the max points possible the Syrians would literally have to wipe out the US force. So my actual question, is there any way to balance this or do I basically have to put a caveat in the scenario that as far as the game's scoring system is concerned the US will almost always score a total victory, even if the actual point totals are very close? I guess I could try giving the Syrians a bonus in the parameters section but then I'm afraid of unbalancing it the other way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z1812 Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Hi Prez, I have had the same concerns. They can be resolved by playing with the different options for victory points and it does take a lot of time. I don't know a lot about it but can share the solution I used. I changed from using victory location objectives to only using unit objectives and that made my scenario work the way I intended. Even so I had to spend quite a bit of time focusing on the balancing as, like you, I did not find red particularly aggressive. In fact in the briefing notes I suggest, played as blue for the firt time, that blue does not aquire javelins. Regards John [ August 30, 2007, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: z1812 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrezCartman Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share Posted August 30, 2007 John that's actually not as much of an issue, lol because most of my buildings have preserve set on them for the blue force, so if they go crazy with the Javs they're going to lose points. I will look at it some more, my red is largely defensive and ambush setup so they don't need to be particularly aggressive, just not give away positions needlessly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.