Huzzar! HTH balance

[JonS]

I am actually pretty reticent about suggesting you tweak it. Balance being such a difficult item to define

+1

a much higher level of awareness of what I need to achieve.

Yup. I went into this blind. Playing again, knowing what I know now, would probably (hopefully!) lead to a different result.

[George MC]

I'm away from the game for the next week so I'll hang of making any major chnages till I get some more feedback. How does that sound?

[GreenAsJade]

From my POV I’m not all that interested in designing ‘balanced’ scenarios for H2H play.

Man, this seems like an awful cop-out.

I guess everyone is entitled to their choices, and you should do what you think is right, but I think you have a messed up idea of what is "balanced".

"Balanced" doesn't mean "have the same forces".

"Balanced" means "has the same chance to win". In CMBN, why on earth can't you strive for this every time? If you give one side overwhelming odds, then give them a very hard victory condition. That is balanced...

GaJ

[George MC]

Man, this seems like an awful cop-out.

I guess everyone is entitled to their choices, and you should do what you think is right, but I think you have a messed up idea of what is "balanced".

"Balanced" doesn't mean "have the same forces".

"Balanced" means "has the same chance to win". In CMBN, why on earth can't you strive for this every time? If you give one side overwhelming odds, then give them a very hard victory condition. That is balanced...

GaJ

Everyone has differant views of what 'balanced' means dude.

Yup your right you can balance it out by applying victory conditions that give either side a chance to 'win'. To be fair I had thought I'd done that with this the victory conditions but the forces are not 'balanced'.

So to be more specific I am not all that interested from a design POV if the FORCES are 'balanced' but given I pretty much deisgn from a playing agianst the AI (either side) then I would hope the victory conditions are balanced so that the AI has a chance of winning.

[GreenAsJade]

Everyone has differant views of what 'balanced' means dude.

I've been in many, and witnessed many other, "balanced" discussions.

I think I stated the most useful "working definition" - the definition that most people will agree with most of the time.

I totally agree that there are people out there with other views on what it means. But how helpful is that? If a person thinks that "balanced" means "have identical forces" ... they're entitiled their opinion,

much as people who think that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer are entitiled to their opinion.

Yup your right you can balance it out by applying victory conditions that give either side a chance to 'win'. To be fair I had thought I'd done that with this the victory conditions but the forces are not 'balanced'.

If this is what you have set out to do, then I withdraw any reservations about your scenario.

What you have stated is all that I would ask for: that the victory conditions give each side an even chance to win. Why didn't you say so :)

I also agree that if you want "equal forces" then "go play a QB" would be a good answer, except that the CMBN QB systm is so broken (due to the maps).

So to be more specific I am not all that interested from a design POV if the FORCES are 'balanced' but given I pretty much deisgn from a playing agianst the AI (either side) then I would hope the victory conditions are balanced so that the AI has a chance of winning.

I think this is a pretty good test: can the AI win from either side.

But note that this thread was about is the scenario balanced for H2H play.

At the moment, the only data I can find on this question tells me that we don't have enough data yet:

... but the suspicion that the Allies have it easy is backed up...

GaJ

[Tarquelne]

I am more interested in just trying it again with a much higher level of awareness of what I need to achieve.

Yup. I went into this blind. Playing again, knowing what I know now, would probably (hopefully!) lead to a different result.

Maybe all that's really needed is some additional guidance from the briefing? Or is it more of a general experience thing? Everybody probably gets it in the neck from a bocage scenario or two.

Re: recon forces balance - George, assuming you do want to beef up the Americans in the early game: Rather than adding to the U.S. force, perhaps remove a Puma or two from the Germans, or down-grade them to a couple of 20mm armed ACs? That preserve the rather distinct nature of the two forces while still giving the Americans a relative boost.

[George MC]

Hi GaJ

From my POV having a scenario tested H2H is helluva time consuming. Players playing PBEM can take ages to finish a scenario. In this case Huzzar was being designed for the CD therefore I was working to a deadline. So in this case it was easier to seek a balance when playing against the AI then using a bit of judgement see if that balance would work H2H.

Even when designing my own stuff (generally I like large maps and combined arms forces in a 'historical' setting/background - so you are looking at several hours playtime) seeking to get it balanced H2H is an uphill task. I'm not that keen on sitting on a project for months whilst two players play it out or as has happened in the past abandon the test part way through due to RL stuff.

I think I'll continue designing for play against the AI, apply a bit of judgement as to how it could play out H2H then just take note of any feedback (like here) about a scenario's balance for H2H and amend if need be.

Re your histogram - am I correct in reading that as an axis win? The results posted by players in this thread would suggest that the US player has it tough, although several have said the reverse. Could iit be it's balanced?

[George MC]

Maybe all that's really needed is some additional guidance from the briefing? Or is it more of a general experience thing? Everybody probably gets it in the neck from a bocage scenario or two.

Re: recon forces balance - George, assuming you do want to beef up the Americans in the early game: Rather than adding to the U.S. force, perhaps remove a Puma or two from the Germans, or down-grade them to a couple of 20mm armed ACs? That preserve the rather distinct nature of the two forces while still giving the Americans a relative boost.

Good points mate

I'm away from the game right now so when I get back I can have a reread of the brief. I think the points for both sides could be tweaked a bit. I like the armoured car deal. I'll put that on the list

[slysniper]

Hi GaJ

From my POV having a scenario tested H2H is helluva time consuming. Players playing PBEM can take ages to finish a scenario. In this case Huzzar was being designed for the CD therefore I was working to a deadline. So in this case it was easier to seek a balance when playing against the AI then using a bit of judgement see if that balance would work H2H.

Even when designing my own stuff (generally I like large maps and combined arms forces in a 'historical' setting/background - so you are looking at several hours playtime) seeking to get it balanced H2H is an uphill task. I'm not that keen on sitting on a project for months whilst two players play it out or as has happened in the past abandon the test part way through due to RL stuff.

I think I'll continue designing for play against the AI, apply a bit of judgement as to how it could play out H2H then just take note of any feedback (like here) about a scenario's balance for H2H and amend if need be.

Re your histogram - am I correct in reading that as an axis win? The results posted by players in this thread would suggest that the US player has it tough, although several have said the reverse. Could iit be it's balanced?

WHAT I DO IS PLAY IT HOT SEAT, PLAYING BOTH SIDES, I try to govern myself not to play to the unknowns that I know since I designed it and know what is happening on both sides. but then I am at least playing it more like it is going to be played Head to head, so I run through it a few times get the results try some different tactics, when I see similar finishes. I base that as the normal finish. set the scoring to balence at that result and then give scores that will swing to a victory if given other results for both sides. This has worked pretty well for me, but still I would not say more than 60 - 70 percent of the time do I get a balenced scenario.

[GreenAsJade]

Whoa, I totally misread the histogram

It does say that the Allies achieved a great win.

But it's only two results. Interesting though! George can take heart It probably won't be long before there are more results on this one...

GaJ

[George MC]

WHAT I DO IS PLAY IT HOT SEAT, PLAYING BOTH SIDES, I try to govern myself not to play to the unknowns that I know since I designed it and know what is happening on both sides. but then I am at least playing it more like it is going to be played Head to head, so I run through it a few times get the results try some different tactics, when I see similar finishes. I base that as the normal finish. set the scoring to balence at that result and then give scores that will swing to a victory if given other results for both sides. This has worked pretty well for me, but still I would not say more than 60 - 70 percent of the time do I get a balenced scenario.

Aye I used this method when playtesting smaller scenarios but playing both sides on any large map just does my head in! I use the AI Plans to try differant tactics. So I set-up a placeholder AI plan for one side. Play the other side against the AI and check out approaches etc. Then create an AI Plan for the side I have just played using a similar COA. Then switch sides then play that against my newly created AI Plan. I do this sevral times. It a/ means I build several AI Plans and b/ I get a good feel for how the game could play out.

Depending on how well the AI does will give me a feel for how a human player may do (FWIW I play a lot H2H in PBEM games to I'm used to playing humans as well as the AI).

@GaJ - ah that makes sense. So on that score it's a 50/50 so far. I wonder if that score sheet is the results from chaps who have already posted here? Sounds like you know several others who are playing this one through?

Cheery!

George

[Holien]

Right finally I get to read this thread as it was verbotten when I was playing the scenario vs Jim and me as German.

Jim was complaining about how bad a set up he had and in the end he surrendered which was fine as he was on a very sticky wicket and no point if not enjoying the scenario.

It ended with him having 4 running Shermans and I had lost one Panther and one stug had thrown a track.

I did not have control of the bridgeheads but it was a matter of time and there was plenty of that left on the clock.

I can see how Jim got swept along by the design to try and rush and get across the bridges to secure the two zones across the river. This lead him to lead with his tanks in a mad rush for which my three stugs sat in Ambush position behind the bocage had a field day and he could not ID where the shots were coming from.

George while I think of it I guess you were under pressure but if you do make any changes give the village / town a name!!!!

The recon battle was the key for my success as I managed to get my forces across the river and destroy 2 of the Stus and the 2 M8's for the loss of some halftracks and a 20mm A/C. (Also gave me great info on what and where his reinforcements arrived as I placed an Inf Squad in key positions to spot his forces arriving).

I was able to take the ford on the left side (as Americans look at map) and this was a key avenue of attack for my forces when I would take the main bridge head. I did not put any recon into either of the main bridgeheads as I assumed these would have American's in situ and did not want to waste any of my force to find that out. The main attacks would do this in a slow manner supported by tanks....

The Ford on the right side was another key approach and I managed to get my half tracks across and AT teams up to the ridge line. The Shermans tried to stop this but the Panthers had great LOS from the hills on the opposite side.

All in all the map really favours the Germans if you look at it they have best lines of approach where the Americans can not see and where they can they have to face of the Panthers at long range front on.... Not going to go well.

Jim did make a few mistakes by having a group of four Shermans rush down the road not knowing if the Germans had arrived. A brave and foolish move that cost him 5 tanks (1 was in open fields to left of road and again easy prey for the hidden Stugs) and 3 halftracks for nothing taken off the German force.

I did play some nice moves on him by keeping the Puma's hidden in the woods on the American base line top right near where they arrived. I sent a HQ unit to hide and watch the road and waited until his infantry arrived. I did not know that the Tanks would arrive first and then shortly after his half tracks. The tanks I let pass but once I saw half tracks I sent a Puma down to play and stopped the whole force taking out two halftracks and forcing him to unload well away from the bridge heads. This just added to the downward spiral.....

Anyway I could go on and might do later but bottom line I can see why Jim has reason to dislike the scenario and if it was to be tweaked I would maybe beef up American recon with some troops in a couple of half tracks and some Zooka's...

Apart from that I would maybe not try and get the Americans across the river and give them more points to just hold to obtain a draw? This way you might make it more even? i.e. change the Victory locations / zones. As it stands you are encouraging Americans to cross river and attack yet the Germans should easily be able to hold this off as limited crossings...

George it is great to be back and see your designs again and I hope business is good up with the snow if you are still up North?

I hope to play plenty more of your designs, great map (bar missing French name!!!).

Many thanks for the enjoyment you gave me, if not Jim....

[LemuelG]

Apart from that I would maybe not try and get the Americans across the river and give them more points to just hold to obtain a draw? This way you might make it more even? i.e. change the Victory locations / zones. As it stands you are encouraging Americans to cross river and attack yet the Germans should easily be able to hold this off as limited crossings...

Good idea, if you look at the context the US has no need to assault across that river in the middle of the night - they could happily take up blocking positions on exits and send up a Piper Cub at dawn. The Germans have every reason to break out across that river before daylight.

Germans - capture crossings; exit recon elements in direction x,y; hold village/farm; destroy x% of enemy.

Americans - capture crossings; prevent enemy exiting (possible? I'm not sure suddenly...); hold roadblocks x,y/farm; preserve x% of forces.

Points should be fairly even, and enemy objectives known so there is an incentive to disrupt the enemy plans and break any potential deadlock. Americans have same forces, but more tubes.

[noob]

As regards balance in a H2H game, it's irrelevant if it's a friendly game, as once both players get to see what the other player had to play with (assuming it was played double blind) the relative skills of the players will be manifest.

If however its a ladder game or tournament game it becomes more important that both sides have an equal chance of winning irrespective of force type balance, so my suggestion would be, for anyone playing games for points or knockouts, to play the scenario silmutaneoulsy as each side with full knowledge of both OOB's or play one game double blind from one side and then swap sides and play eyes open so to speak, then one could either add the scores for one result or go with the individual results of each battle.

[Holien]

As regards balance in a H2H game, it's irrelevant if it's a friendly game, .

Sorry I disagree it takes a great deal of time and effort to play some of the larger scenarios and if either side feel they have no chance then that can seriously dent their enjoyment. So anything we can do to help designers tweak the design to enhance play is a must for me.

Playing double blind forces you to be more cautious and is far more realistic play. By playing from both sides the game becomes a different creature. This of course makes the game designers job an impossible one.

1. Design for vs AI.

2. Design for double blind

3. Design for known scenario.

All of which play differently and perhaps need a different design to accommodate?

[Holien]

Good idea, if you look at the context the US has no need to assault across that river in the middle of the night - they could happily take up blocking positions on exits and send up a Piper Cub at dawn. The Germans have every reason to break out across that river before daylight.

Germans - capture crossings; exit recon elements in direction x,y; hold village/farm; destroy x% of enemy.

Americans - capture crossings; prevent enemy exiting (possible? I'm not sure suddenly...); hold roadblocks x,y/farm; preserve x% of forces.

Points should be fairly even, and enemy objectives known so there is an incentive to disrupt the enemy plans and break any potential deadlock. Americans have same forces, but more tubes.

+1 I agree this will help the scenario and should be fairly easy to tweak.

[noob]

Sorry I disagree it takes a great deal of time and effort to play some of the larger scenarios and if either side feel they have no chance then that can seriously dent their enjoyment. So anything we can do to help designers tweak the design to enhance play is a must for me.

I'm just speaking from experience, i've never played a H2H that was so one sided it ruined the game, i can always see where my mistakes impacted on the game more than any percieved imbalance, and as for larger scenarios, the effects of any imbalances get reduced as there are more options and a greater margin for error for the player with the weaker force which negates to an extent any disadvantages, CMSF taught me that, if i played the Syrians it would be on the biggest map i could choose to give me enough room to manouver in an attempt to get my opponent to drop arty on lesser or no targets and shoot and scoot with relative impunity.

Playing double blind forces you to be more cautious and is far more realistic play. By playing from both sides the game becomes a different creature.

I agree, and thats why i never play like that unless its a tournament, if i play a double blind ladder game and i think that i or my opponent may have been at a disadvantage as regards balance i always offer to or ask to play the scenario again but as i'm not really bothered about points and the disparity is never that bad it's a rarity, unless i'm curious to try and improve on my opponents performance.

1. Design for vs AI, 2. Design for double blind, 3. Design for known scenario.

I agree with this point for the reason that sometimes designers restrict the defenders set up zones so they work with the AI but deny a human player the chance to set up their own defences where they want in the section of the map they are assumed to control, so i usually ask my opponent if i can change the defensive set up zones to give me more flexiblity and offer him the same courtesy if he wishes, however two versions of the same scenario with the difference being the set up zones would save me the trouble.

[JonS]

Playing double blind forces you to be more cautious and is far more realistic play. By playing from both sides the game becomes a different creature.

This.

I played Huzzar! as US without any prior knowledge, same for my opponent. Had I known much about the scen I would have played it VERY differently.

I enjoyed the recon phase (and I don't think that needs changing at all), and mostly enjoyed the main phase, but with about 20-30 minutes to go I realised I was playing negatively. By that I mean I was just trying to deny points to the German, rather than trying to gain points for myself. Also our positions had degenerated into a stalemate, and with an absolute deficit in force ratio plus a much worse geographic position - needing to attack across the river while overwatched by impregnable Panthers on high ground - that wasn't going to change unless the German did something really really dumb. That abysmal position was as a result of finding the briefing misleading which in turn led me to develop a faulty plan, and then a futile and costly attempt to reinforce that plan when it started falling apart. If I had known ahead of time what, where, and when the German forces were, I would have approached the recon phase a little differently, and the main phase very differently.

[JonS]

Incidentally, I think 'double blind' is being used in this thread to mean two very different things.

To me double blind means that neither player has played the scenario, or investigated it in the editor. Both players go into the scenario blind.

I think noob is using it to mean that two players play the scenario as both sides against each other simultaneously. That, to me, is a mirrored game.

[Holien]

JonS do you think the design needs tweaking for the Americans? I think your comments support the view that the Americans have an uphill struggle with the Germans having better defensive terrain and the scenario design / briefing lures the American player to attack too early?

BTW what was the result of your game? Draw or did you lose? I guess a loss...

Also I think the recon phase was the best bit of the game for both sides and having the different locations to check out one of the superb features of the new engine. Having the designers able to give different victory objectives to each side allows for some wonderful scenarios!!!

[JonS]

JonS do you think the design needs tweaking for the Americans? I think your comments support the view that the Americans have an uphill struggle with the Germans having better defensive terrain and the scenario design / briefing lures the American player to attack too early?

Yeah, I attacked too early, and was repeatedly caught out by German forces in unlikely locations. The briefing and map indicate the Germans are to the SW, but they're actually everywhere. That makes sense for the recon, sort of, but not so much for the heavy armour.

I don't think the forces should to change much, if at all. Altering the objectives would, I think, lead to a scen that is more interesting to both sides for longer.

BTW what was the result of your game? Draw or did you lose? I guess a loss...

I got smashed. I won the fighting part of the recon battle handily, but didn't secure myself any good terrain. After that it was down hill. Rapidly. And I didn't find a way to use my artillery at all, which didn't help

[Tarquelne]

(minor Spoilers)

The briefing and map indicate the Germans are to the SW, but they're actually everywhere. That makes sense for the recon, sort of, but not so much for the heavy armour.

I just looked at the briefings. The German briefing does seem more definite: It's clear the bridges/fords need to be held. Nothing else seems to matter. It says the Americans may show up anywhere, but probably along the NS roads. And it looks like that's where they do show up.

The American briefing struck me as less clear. Or perhaps it just gives the impression that it's the German heavies that'll attempt to take the victory locations. Feeds into my main balance concern below.

OTOH, I don't think it says the Germans are to the SW - just heading for the river. (And, unless I"m turned around, the pic. shows them to the SE.) The heavy armor does show up int the south - though not always where the briefing implies. OTOH, the recon forces that show up N of the river make it easy to beleive other German units might show up in unexpected places.

Both briefings say they enemy will probably use the NS roads. I took that to mean the major NS roads toward the middle of the map. I don't know if the Americans use those roads, but the German armor doesn't - they enter more or less at the SW and SE corners, along the S edge. The Panthers seem a bit out of luck, showing up in among some trees without a nice road to follow. But they don't have far to go before they reach positions giving good LOS to American approaches.

but didn't secure myself any good terrain.

That's my main balance concern. I think that leads directly to the German heavy armor in place to defend against an American attack rather than contest the victory locations on an even footing. And I think securing the terrain is much easier with the German dismounts.

I'll really have to try things from the American side, though.

Hmm... it'd be interesting to compare the amount of time it takes a Quick-moving German Stug to reach a position with sheltered LOS to the bridge compared to an American tank. If each is unopposed should one always arrive well before the other?

The Germans get, what, 6 Stugs? When I played 2 went Greyhound hunting and the rest races toward the river as Quickly as possible. I'm not sure if they "won" the race because simply because they had a shorter course, because I knew the route was clear (thanks to those dismounts) or for some other reason.

I'm trying to remember why I wasn't worried about Americans already being in place. It may have been not so much that I had a clear route to the river, but a couple of units stranded to the NW acting as spotters, and a LMG up on the second floor of the building on the N side of the river with a good view. Either way: It was the dismounts.

[JonS]

OTOH, I don't think it says the Germans are to the SW - just heading for the river. (And, unless I"m turned around, the pic. shows them to the SE.)

No, I was turned around - SE it is. I'm considering the pic to be part of the briefing.

[George MC]

Many thnaks for all the comments. I'm just back from being away. I'll work my way through all the feedback so far then get back to you all with chnages. My first impression is make the briefing for the US clearer (I'll double check both anyways), amend the victory conditions for both sides to balance out points and looks like the force OOB could stay the same (although I'm inclined to give the US some more arty support).

Thanks again guys for the discussion - very useful stuff indeed

[James Crowley]

Well, I was US to Holien's Germans and I got well and truly pasted.

I am basing my comments here on that single play, together with having examined the German briefing and available assets.

My first impression was that, as it stood, the scenario was the perfect blueprint for a no-win US battle.

The US 'touch' objectives are a long way from the setup positions and some distance from their capture ones; the German objectives are the same as their 'capture' ones to a large extent and they can all be reached by German units within two turns of the start.

The German player has a huge choice of setup zones and can essentially surround the US forces from the get-go. And the US player has no notion that he is potentially starting with the enemy behind him!

The German 'recon' mix of 5x Pumas, 2x 20mm HTs and 2x mobile AT teams is more than enough to counter the US mix of 2x Greyhounds and 4x Stuarts, especially when you take the setup options available to the German player.

When the US player gets his 15 Shermans, he has a major job to move them considerable distances through extremely difficult terrain to get on his objectives. And no infantry to help counter the mobile AT threat until much later when, certainly in my case, it is too late.

The overall force balance, IMHO, is probably equal but for the fact that the US player is basically the attacker, in effect, trying to beat an equal force that is already on or near their objectives - and then finds that he is ambushed by units that have been lurking in the rear from the beginning!

Against a competant German player the US has scant chance - against a good German player, as I was, the situation was hopeless.

However, although I haven't tried it, I think the scenario is probably very good vs the AI and this highlights a problem for scenario designers.

Apart from having a very labour intensive job of creating a decent map, then trying to pick out the units in complex OB, they also have to design The AI!

Trying to design an AI that fits for both AI play and HTH must be mind boggling. Perhaps the only effective way to do it - more work - is to have separate versions for each, so as to play to the strengths and weakenesses of each type of play.