Equal Stats in Random Games?

[Philistine2]

Maybe this should go in the mods forum, but I'm contemplating doing a mod --looking for mainly random battles.

My question is, would it be better to make the units "mirror images" of each other stat wise, or have slightly different values for SF's and try to balance through cost?

To be concrete, what I want to do is have two (at least) sets-- NATO and Warsaw Pact.

Different symbols and pictures for similar units from different regimes: e.g. M1 and T-80 Tank; F15 and Su-27 Fighters.

So, should I just use same stats for an M1 and T-80 or try to come up with different ones? (I'm leaning towards the different). What do you all think?

--Philistine

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Philistine

Maybe this should go in the mods forum, but I'm contemplating doing a mod --looking for mainly random battles.

My question is, would it be better to make the units "mirror images" of each other stat wise, or have slightly different values for SF's and try to balance through cost?

To be concrete, what I want to do is have two (at least) sets-- NATO and Warsaw Pact.

Different symbols and pictures for similar units from different regimes: e.g. M1 and T-80 Tank; F15 and Su-27 Fighters.

So, should I just use same stats for an M1 and T-80 or try to come up with different ones? (I'm leaning towards the different). What do you all think?

--Philistine

Different definitely. Any good game is about having at least subtle differences in units, map position, etc. and using your strengths and your opponents weaknesses to your advantage.

For similar reasons Ive decided Mirrormap is just not good. Sure you get the occasional wacky somewhat unfair map without it but its a lot more realistic and fun that way. Better that than it just being a simple race for who can grab the most capitals the fastest.

Anyone that argues that either of the above makes the game "unfair" clearly has never played the Russia '41 scenario

Where possible it is good to still maintain "game balance" though. So offset any advantages with other disadvantages and/or balance out the other side with advantages of thier own, greater unit numbers/position or whatever....

Most of all have fun creating it!

[ShadowB]

As Veldor said, different is definitely better, but it poses a challenge. Equal stats on both sides means balance is perfect, but when stats differ, you need to balance both similar units (T-80 and M1A1, as you said) so they're both equal on average. For example, the T-80 might be cheaper (basically everything Soviet is cheaper) and deal a little bit more damage, but it'd have less armour (HP) than the M1A1.

I'm just speculating here: no idea how it'd work in practice.

[ravinhood]

Checkers and Chess need to be balanced, but, not all wargames need to be or should be "balanced". Balanced is a word I'm beginning to loathe since I see too many who don't want to play handicapped or at a disadvantage and QQ everytime they are. When you look back in history how many battles and campaigns were BALANCED? Even in a random generated map there should be imbalance. Part of playing wargames is taking the underdog, the disadvantaged and trying to beat overwhelming odds with superior tactics and strategy, not with BALANCE. When emphasis is placed on balance you make the game too much like chess or checkers instead of a real war where balance does not play a significant part. Were Alexander's armies BALANCED against the Persian King? Was Hannibals armies balanced vs the Romans? Did Napoleon fight a balanced fight vs Wellington at the battle of Waterloo? No! You fight with what you have and your tactics and strategy determine the outcome, not whether it was a fair balanced battle or not.

[seille]

@Veldor
 
You really don´t like the mirrored maps ?
So when i start a new random maps with me starting in a Major Capital and the next is only 3 hexes away and you starting in a village (next city 10 hexes away) it is fun for you ? You don´t think this game would be over already before it started ?
In a PBEM between two players on the same level it would be over.
Could such a game really be fun for you ?
 
But i see your point. Without mirror it is sometimes more interesting and more strategy than a race, but for real competition
you need definitely the mirror feature.
 
Russia 1941 is fair because it was set by a game designer and not by the random game engine.
Fun to play and to win for both Germany and Russia, so here the situation is different to
a random game.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: seille

@Veldor

You really don´t like the mirrored maps ?
So when i start a new random maps with me starting in a Major Capital and the next is only 3 hexes away and you starting in a village (next city 10 hexes away) it is fun for you ? You don´t think this game would be over already before it started ?
In a PBEM between two players on the same level it would be over.
Could such a game really be fun for you ?

But i see your point. Without mirror it is sometimes more interesting and more strategy than a race, but for real competition
you need definitely the mirror feature.

Russia 1941 is fair because it was set by a game designer and not by the random game engine.
Fun to play and to win for both Germany and Russia, so here the situation is different to
a random game.

Perhaps it is the random generator that needs a little work then.. To not ever place you initially like that. The situation you describe doesnt happen all the time either. Im tending not to play any random games as much anymore. It really seems like it just always goes to who nabs the most initial cities, mirrormap or not. So even in mirrormap you can call the game should one person be more nibble at that. Other skills tend to not matter as much as long as you have less than a relatively average idea of what your doing.

Thus I've moved more to the fixed scenarios which appear to be far more fair and, more importantly, skill oriented...than the average random game.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Checkers and Chess need to be balanced, but, not all wargames need to be or should be "balanced". Balanced is a word I'm beginning to loathe since I see too many who don't want to play handicapped or at a disadvantage and QQ everytime they are. When you look back in history how many battles and campaigns were BALANCED? Even in a random generated map there should be imbalance. Part of playing wargames is taking the underdog, the disadvantaged and trying to beat overwhelming odds with superior tactics and strategy, not with BALANCE. When emphasis is placed on balance you make the game too much like chess or checkers instead of a real war where balance does not play a significant part. Were Alexander's armies BALANCED against the Persian King? Was Hannibals armies balanced vs the Romans? Did Napoleon fight a balanced fight vs Wellington at the battle of Waterloo? No! You fight with what you have and your tactics and strategy determine the outcome, not whether it was a fair balanced battle or not.

Well there is also "Game Balance". It doesn't have to mean forces or even force stats are balanced just that the GAME is. Meaning I can have a thousand troops and you can have just one. But the scenario/game rules say that if you kill 2 guys before you die you win.. If you don't I win. Thats still "balanced".