Rebalanced Scenarios

[Mad Russian]

The scenarios are on the list to be rebalanced. As well as adding more content at the same time. We are working on getting to all this as soon as 2.09 is released and we make sure it's stable. Which it should be before we release it. You just never know.

I'm staying in Lawton, Oklahoma for a few weeks and will be working remotely. I don't have my normal machine but should still be able to get done what needs done. It may just take me a day or two longer to get there.

While I'm here at Ft. Sill I'll see if I can get any information about artillery for the game. I was stationed here in the 70's but I think some things have changed since then.

If you have any suggestions for the scenarios beyond them simply being rebalanced let me know.

The only issues that I want to look at specifically this time around are:

Scenario Length.
Reinforcement Arrival Times.
ADA assets for both sides.

And then of course how the scenarios are reacting overall.

Thanks for any comments/suggestions.

Good Hunting.

MR

[ivanov]

According to my experience with the scenarios, I think that the number of helicopters needs to be toned down. There have been already some discussions about the poor effectiveness of the AD assets and the invulnerability of the helos to them. I think that the helicopters should be particularly vulnerable in a urban environment ( Iraq experience ). In my opinion, the helos should be effective under some favorable circumstances but they should be also vulnerable to the ground fire ( especially if they hover over the enemy ground units ). I'll give you an example. Right now if you have the helos hovering over the tanks or infantry dug in a forrest or an urban terrain, protected by the AD, the exchange ratio would be about 3 destroyed tanks for each helicopter shot down. In reality the helos would probably avoid attacking such a positions, because it would be a too dangerous environment for them. Also, currently it seems to me, that the aircraft are more susceptible to be shot down by the AD than the choppers, which is not realistic IMO. You'll say that the helos fly low - well yes but that makes them vulnerable to the AAA and small arms fire. During the Cold War the A-10's were also supposed to operate low and approach the enemy columns along the pre planned routes using the terrain cover.

I know that this is not going to change anytime soon, but I am going to paraphrase Cato the Elder and his famous quote : "Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed" - "Furthermore, I consider that helos must be toned down".

Coming back to the subject of the scenarios. Discussions about the realism apart - having an asset like the helos, which are very effective and not very vulnerable to the countermeasures, is a fun buster from my perspective. The game should be based on a principle "rock-paper-scissors". There should be a viable countermeasure to each asset employed by your opponent. Currently the AD just doesn't work that way against the correctly employed helicopters.

So my suggestion in regards to the scenario balance - cut the number of helos in the scenarios by 30-50% and start rebalancing from there. If you don't want to do that, increase vastly the number of the AD for each scenario.

[CapnDarwin]

I'm going to have to hit the soapbox for a few items. So hold on to your hats.

There is no Rock-Paper-Lizard-scissors-Spock in war. You live or die by the tactics and planning of the fight. How and where to use what weapon systems. Things like that. Having a Vulcan in the trees does not stop the helo from killing units in the open just because the Vulcan is in range. If it can't see, it can't shoot.

If you are NATO, your AD in the local battlespace is sparse. The Soviets on the other hand practically stick an AD weapon on everything that moves and two on things that don't. They looked at their airforce to be busy keeping the NATO airforces on the ground or tied up in the air. NATO was looking to establish air superiority out of the gate and then have the ability to use fighters on helos and other targets. So it really kind of leave the ground forces twisting in the wind early in this type of war.

Now, we will, going forward into 2.1 look at a few changes and refinements to AD and air units. Most notably I'm already looking at a new and better formulation for determining PF values for aircraft and helos along with a change to the SA formulations (lost files in a CPU crash a while back so rebuilding from scratch). That should dial down helos some and also give a bit of a boost to missile SA values for lower end SAMs too. We are also expanding the unit and weapons specials to further refine some EW parameters and also weapon system uses. This will include moving SEAD aircraft to their own class type for better tracking and use in code. My hope is to get some pre-emptive ARM fires on SAM radars and also work in some better range and standoff code to allow for certain weapons to be released and minimize return fire based on ranges of engagement. We also plan to move helos into their own code modules so AI can be cleaner and directly focused on those type of units instead of being logic cases of ground unit AI. The will fix pathing issues, allow for better move/shoot/scoot, and better attack AI with some SOP integration thrown in for good measure. After all that, to be honest, they will probably end up even more dangerous when employed with better AI logic and target priorities.

One thing folks overlook in the game is the fact aircraft readiness plays a major part in crews staying alive. If you cycle an aircraft into the fray with out a rest and refuel the odds of making a mistake and getting shot down goes up. Same could be said of any unit on the map. Tired units do not fight as well as rested units. This is another factor where RPLSS fails in this type of game design.

Ok, I'll step of the box and say in closing we know there are aspects of the game that need some tweaking and we have plans (many good plans in fact) to address a number of them as we work now on Southern Storm. Plus MR will now get a chance to go in and adjust scenarios to take into account all of the code changes and bug fixes.

Definitely state opinions and ideas. I'm just looking to provide insight as to why and how we did or will do this the game.

Thanks for posting! [&o]

[batteran]

Thanks for your work, I will be pleasured by "rebalanced" scenarios, and give it a try when released.

[ivanov]

Thanks for your comments Capn Darwin. I'm looking forward to the news features and improvements you've mentioned, especial the SEAD missions

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

There is no Rock-Paper-Lizard-scissors-Spock in war. You live or die by the tactics and planning of the fight. How and where to use what weapon systems. Things like that. Having a Vulcan in the trees does not stop the helo from killing units in the open just because the Vulcan is in range. If it can't see, it can't shoot.

Look at Kosovo in 1999. They had a battalion of Apaches there, but decided not to use it, because it was considered too dangerous. Not because of highly advanced SAMs, but because of triple A and MANPADS threat. And of course the terrain, which could negate the Apache capability of attacking from beyond the range of those weapon systems. In Germany the situation could be similar. The countryside is heavily urbanised and there are a lot of forests. This would be a completely different environment, than a dessert full of demoralized, retreating Iraqi divisions. You're correct, that the right tactics are essential. When employed they should guarantee some degree off a success. For example dispersing your units in a difficult terrain, should protect them from being spotted, while well placed AD should be able to at least chase off the attack helicopters. I'm actually experimenting with various tactics and have found out for example, that the 155mm artillery has more less the same chances of shooting down a helicopter, as a dedicated AD launcher... So here you go - rock-paper-scissors, but I guess not exactly what one would expect

[Tazak]

Kosovo was a peace keeping mission (been there, done that, have the tee-shirt and mental scars to prove it) where the risk taking appetite was far lower than what would've been seen in a symmetrical war in central Europe, so like the 1991 gulf war or the 2003 invasion of Iraq and other recent conflicts should not be used as citations referring to actions that would've been seen in WW3.

Scenario balance isn't just a case of dropping 30%-50% of soviet helo's, sometimes the scenarios are about fighting on the underdog side and either keeping your force alive or achieving some other objective such as delaying the enemy, sometimes its about knowing when to fight and when to act like a Sheppard and getting the flock out of there.

Out of curiosity what's the RPSLS counter to a barrage of nerve agent or a tactical nuke, trust me if the AI learns how to use NBC weapons in 2.1 there will be some nasty scenarios incoming

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
There is no Rock-Paper-Lizard-scissors-Spock in war.

Quote of the Day. LOL [&o]

Alrighty, looking forward to the 2.09 release and MR's rebalancing act.

[CapnDarwin]

Out of curiosity what's the RPSLS counter to a barrage of nerve agent or a tactical nuke, trust me if the AI learns how to use NBC weapons in 2.1 there will be some nasty scenarios incoming

Tazak, funny you should mention that...

[Mad Russian]

First and foremost you all need to remember that balanced is my opinion. I consider a scenario balanced when I play it hard and get a draw or close to a draw. There are various reasons for that.

Second, I consider that Murphy is alive and well in every war, battle, campaign. And absolutely in every scenario/campaign in the game. Which means quite literally Sh!t Happens. You will rarely have all the tools, equipment, troops YOU think you need to complete the mission. Deal with the missing parts and get on with it. That to me is reality. I understand that's not everyone's reality but it's mine and unfortunately if you are playing the scenarios/campaigns I create you get to live with mine. If you make your own or play other people's you can get away from how I think combat looks.

Third, there will be new content added when we rebalance them. Not sure how much but there will be some. My commitment to all of you was that I would provide FREE content whenever possible and this is another of those times when it's possible.

Good Hunting.

MR

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Kosovo was a peace keeping mission (been there, done that, have the tee-shirt and mental scars to prove it) where the risk taking appetite was far lower than what would've been seen in a symmetrical war in central Europe, so like the 1991 gulf war or the 2003 invasion of Iraq and other recent conflicts should not be used as citations referring to actions that would've been seen in WW3.

I meant the Operation Allied Force from 1999. Granted, this was only an air war, but as such it was pretty conventional. As to the asymmetrical conflicts, if anything, they should be less dangerous to the helicopters than a full scale war. To put it in another words - what poses a bigger threat to the helicopters: a poorly trained guerrilla with an RPG or an advanced AD system?

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Second, I consider that Murphy is alive and well in every war, battle, campaign. And absolutely in every scenario/campaign in the game. Which means quite literally Sh!t Happens. You will rarely have all the tools, equipment, troops YOU think you need to complete the mission. Deal with the missing parts and get on with it. That to me is reality. I understand that's not everyone's reality but it's mine and unfortunately if you are playing the scenarios/campaigns I create you get to live with mine. If you make your own or play other people's you can get away from how I think combat looks.

MR

But this game in not only designed to be played as NATO and it should be competitive for both sides, right? Currently in most of the cases, especially played against the AI, the WP forces roll over the NATO without much effort.

[pzgndr]

I do have a couple of questions about what we as players can do to further tweak the scenarios after v2.09 and MR's rebalanced scenarios are released. I get it that the AI will not play by limited orders and that's how the scenarios are balanced, but from cbelva's comments in the other discussion about limited orders something we could maybe look at are the unit training and readiness values, and perhaps other parameters such as morale. Perhaps we could adjust these as necessary to produce more orders delays on the Soviet side than on the NATO side? Hopefully to produce an effect where Soviet C2 is qualitatively challenged enough to noticeably offset their quantitative advantages. Just a thought, until we see how things go with the updates.

So, from 4.9.5 in Modding Guide 2 for Edit Unit Parameters, are these parameters assumed to be maximum values for the scenario, or just initial values that can increase as units resupply/rest/refit/etc.? It would be interesting to experiment along these lines, but if units can simply recover their readiness and such up to higher values then it's probably not worth it.

Also, from 9.3 in the manual about unit orders delay factors, it states: "These are base delays and will vary based on training level of the forces,
readiness of the forces and command and control losses." Could you clarify how the training and readiness values affect delays and how the initial scenario parameters are factored in?

[CapnDarwin]

I can hit a couple of these questions now and would need time to check out the others.

Readiness has a default at scenario build and can be adjusted from 1 (mostly dead) to 100(alive and kicking). During the course of a game readiness is lost doing various actions (moving, shooting, get shot at) and recovered sitting still or getting a rest and refit. Readiness impacts a unit's combat, spotting, and Command functions.

Morale is similar, goes down with losses, up slowly with recovery and will settle back to its starting value. Morale has a default value when units are placed in the editor and can be adjusted by the scenario designer.

Training value does not change during a scenario. Set by the designer and has a default value when units are placed.

These values get used in many places both alone and together depending on game action.

I'll see if I can get you more details later.

[Tazak]

ORIGINAL: katukov

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Kosovo was a peace keeping mission (been there, done that, have the tee-shirt and mental scars to prove it) where the risk taking appetite was far lower than what would've been seen in a symmetrical war in central Europe, so like the 1991 gulf war or the 2003 invasion of Iraq and other recent conflicts should not be used as citations referring to actions that would've been seen in WW3.

I meant the Operation Allied Force from 1999. Granted, this was only an air war, but as such it was pretty conventional. As to the asymmetrical conflicts, if anything, they should be less dangerous to the helicopters than a full scale war. To put it in another words - what poses a bigger threat to the helicopters: a poorly trained guerrilla with an RPG or an advanced AD system?

Understand that however its not just the size or nature of the threat but limiting losses that was key aspect of UN operations in the Balkans, bear in mind that public opinion was critical and no one wanted to see a frequent line of body bags being flown back to their home nation, but how many shot down apache helos would it have taken to turn US public opinion (the US were the largest contributor of troops and without them NATO forces would've struggled), look at it is from these 2 different views:

1. All out war - no one in the west wanted to see the USSR control the entire European continent so helo's would be ordered to fly in nearly all threat environments because public opinion would have been ready to accept losses on a large scale

2. Peace keeping mission - again down to public opinion but with a lot more emphasis on limiting own losses therefore helo's are ordered not to fly in medium or high threat environments.

Its worth noting that the US didn't want to get drawn into a European 'Vietnam' and it wasn't until the horrific events of 9/11 that changed public opinion about combat losses.

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Out of curiosity what's the RPSLS counter to a barrage of nerve agent or a tactical nuke, trust me if the AI learns how to use NBC weapons in 2.1 there will be some nasty scenarios incoming

Tazak, funny you should mention that...

It was one of the features requested for 2.1 and I am hoping it gets included, would love to see peoples reactions when their perfectly planned defensive positions get plastered in VX gas minutes before a column of soviet tanks appears, I already have a outline of a campaign where the soviet forces have liberal use of chemical weapons [8D]

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Tazak


Understand that however its not just the size or nature of the threat but limiting losses that was key aspect of UN operations in the Balkans, bear in mind that public opinion was critical and no one wanted to see a frequent line of body bags being flown back to their home nation, but how many shot down apache helos would it have taken to turn US public opinion (the US were the largest contributor of troops and without them NATO forces would've struggled), look at it is from these 2 different views:

1. All out war - no one in the west wanted to see the USSR control the entire European continent so helo's would be ordered to fly in nearly all threat environments because public opinion would have been ready to accept losses on a large scale

2. Peace keeping mission - again down to public opinion but with a lot more emphasis on limiting own losses therefore helo's are ordered not to fly in medium or high threat environments.

Its worth noting that the US didn't want to get drawn into a European 'Vietnam' and it wasn't until the horrific events of 9/11 that changed public opinion about combat losses.

You are certainly right about the perception of loses in a "peace keeping" war versus an all out, conventional war. But the bottom line that I want to stress stays the same - the helicopters are very vulnerable, especially in a conventional conflict.

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: katukov

But this game in not only designed to be played as NATO and it should be competitive for both sides, right? Currently in most of the cases, especially played against the AI, the WP forces roll over the NATO without much effort.

The main reason for this is that the AI does not know how to defend properly. That was a big grip of mine during testing and you can check this with both Rob and Capn D, but they got an earful from me regarding that during testing and still do. Red Storm is the first edition of this engine. There are tons of other features that Rob and Capn D wanted in the game, but it would have taken years to add them and the game probably would never have seen the light of day. They made the decision to release the engine in phases with Red Storm being the first edition. It was explained to me (on more than one occasion) that the current condition of the code would not allow the AI to defend any better. However, plans were made to correct this in future editions. That is one of the main AI features for the next edition that Capn D keeps referring to as 2.1. (If Rob is able to pull off what is on the drawing board--all I can say is WATCH OUT.) That should make it easier to create scenarios that 1) can be planned from the WP side against the AI and 2) can be planned by either side.

[budd]

So wrap this 2.09 sh*t up and get to it[:D].....kinda backwards that the AI can't defend, ain't it.

[ivanov]

To be honest the AI sucks when attacking too . This is the case with EACH computer game I know. Actually RS has one of the best AI's I know, but it's still not good enough. I doubt that we will see a really competitive AI anytime soon, this is just the reality. You can live with that when you play as NATO against a massively superior WP AI. But the things get really unbalanced in human vs human games and playing WP against the NATO AI.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Readiness has a default at scenario build... During the course of a game readiness is lost... and recovered...
Morale is similar, goes down with losses, up slowly with recovery and will settle back to its starting value. Morale has a default value when units are placed in the editor and can be adjusted by the scenario designer.

OK so readiness and morale can recover up to the defaults set in the scenario but not higher, yes? Then we should be able to experiment with incrementally lower values and see an effect. This may work for the time being, until we see what happens with 2.1.

ORIGINAL: katukov
I doubt that we will see a really competitive AI anytime soon, this is just the reality. You can live with that when you play as NATO against a massively superior WP AI. But the things get really unbalanced in human vs human games and playing WP against the NATO AI.

NATO Bn TF vs Soviet reinforced MRR should be fairly well balanced for human vs human games? Getting a Soviet AI doctrinal attack to be competitive should be doable, depending on how the objectives are set. Getting a "doctrinal" NATO defense to work well is a lot more challenging, considering the counter-recon fight and withdrawals to alternate battle positions and counter-attacks really need to be orchestrated as part of a plan. So I don't expect a challenging NATO AI unless the Soviet side is handicapped with readiness/morale reductions for the human player to deal with.

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Readiness has a default at scenario build... During the course of a game readiness is lost... and recovered...
Morale is similar, goes down with losses, up slowly with recovery and will settle back to its starting value. Morale has a default value when units are placed in the editor and can be adjusted by the scenario designer.

OK so readiness and morale can recover up to the defaults set in the scenario but not higher, yes? Then we should be able to experiment with incrementally lower values and see an effect. This may work for the time being, until we see what happens with 2.1.

This is not exactly true. Morale is limited by the default value set in the scenario where readiness can be recovered up past what was set in the editor if the unit is allowed to rest.