History VS Game Balance #2

[herbieh]

Id like something like UV, where I have a choice of historical outcomes, or scenerios like 17, 15, more game like

Im also keen to know that if I play as Japan with all the Historical assets, that even though 43 onwards will be painful, that if I play well, I have a even chance of winning the game, even if the war is lost

If I cant do that, I cant see myself committing to a year or so of PBEM.

Im confident though that Matrix will get it right, and Ill be looking for my long term opponent soon!

[Point Luck]

Sure, I love to watch the History channel too, but I don’t want to play it out for months on end and feel like my hands are tied if I try to go beyond history. I know it is a balance issue but I would hope the developers would lean heavily toward playability since the purpose of game is entertainment

Posted By Yamamoto

But the key here is to have a very user-friendly scenario editor. Allow us to tweak/change everything in the game, including units, attributes, base names, start times, etc, etc

Posted By Von Rom

That’s all that needs to be said.

A game that is playable and the end results are not based on past histories is what I want from a game.

I want the weapons of a by gone time, while being able to use my own tactics. Knowing how my opponent and myself play the game will determine the winner and not the winner being based solely on the allies MUST win because that’s what happened in history is what's important for my $70


IT’S ONLY A GAME It’s suppose to be fun

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Point Luck
Sure, I love to watch the History channel too, but I don’t want to play it out for months on end and feel like my hands are tied if I try to go beyond history. I know it is a balance issue but I would hope the developers would lean heavily toward playability since the purpose of game is entertainment

Posted By Yamamoto

But the key here is to have a very user-friendly scenario editor. Allow us to tweak/change everything in the game, including units, attributes, base names, start times, etc, etc

Posted By Von Rom

That’s all that needs to be said.

A game that is playable and the end results are not based on past histories is what I want from a game.

I want the weapons of a by gone time, while being able to use my own tactics. Knowing how my opponent and myself play the game will determine the winner and not the winner being based solely on the allies MUST win because that’s what happened in history is what's important for my $70


IT’S ONLY A GAME It’s suppose to be fun

It wont be fun if the Japs lose every time because they cant shoot down B-17

[madflava13]

Chiteng, please stop bringing that up in every thread. We've got 2-3 threads going on that topic in 2 different forums, I think thats enough.

[Aussie]

Originally posted by Chiteng
It wont be fun if the Japs lose every time because they cant shoot down B-17

You haven't seen anything yet - wait until the B-29 comes on the scene. I'm sure you are exaggerating things somewhat. You can't base B-17s from every possible airbase in the Pacific, nor base 'em off carriers. B-17s cannot land on atolls and eliminate enemy land forces, nor could they taxi along the Kakoda trail and drive the Japanese back to Buna. Need I go on? :rolleyes:

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Aussie
You haven't seen anything yet - wait until the B-29 comes on the scene. I'm sure you are exaggerating things somewhat. You can't base B-17s from every possible airbase in the Pacific, nor base 'em off carriers. B-17s cannot land on atolls and eliminate enemy land forces, nor could they taxi along the Kakoda trail and drive the Japanese back to Buna. Need I go on? :rolleyes:

I am well aware of the effects of the B-29
However its operational loss rate was quite high, as was the cost of the weapon system.

You want to use the to chase DD, well go ahead.

[byron13]

Jeez, guys, you all pretty much ignored Pasternatski's post. This is not an either/or debate. You can have both as Pasternatski says.

You can have a historical game - meaning having historical capabilities without being tied to historical tactics and strategies - and still allow each side a 50:50 chance of winning. In general, the U.S. wins only if they do better than historically. How you define "better" is a trick, but it probably involves time, casualties ratios, equipment ratios, and maybe objectives. There was a thread, which I can't find now, that went into this. Since the game balance will probably shift as particular tactics or strategies become well-known that "game" the system, players can select different level of difficulties that will force the Allies to "win" the game in shorter or longer periods of time to adjust the game balance back to close to 50:50. The Allies may kick the living you-know-what out of the Japanese, but if they don't do it quicker and better than some established standard, they still lose.

Hence, the Japanese player can get waxed, but if he isn't waxed quite as bad as some standard, he wins. The Japanese player doesn't have to hold Los Angeles to win; he can win even as the Allies march into Tokyo by attriting or delaying the Allies sufficiently.

I don't believe that sacrifices reality for gameplay. Does it?

Alternatively, changing the difficulty level could alter the capabilities of the B17. On a historical setting, the B17 can average one hit on a sampan or DE size vessel per attack and suffers one point of damage for each fifty zeros that attack it. Carriers attacked by B17s are automatically sunk. Adjusting the difficulty all the way to favor the Japanese results in the B17 only hitting a sampan once for every two missions and one plane is destroyed for each fifty zeros that attack it. Carriers attacked by B17s have a one-in-three chance of not being sunk immediately.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by byron13
Jeez, guys, you all pretty much ignored Pasternatski's post. This is not an either/or debate. You can have both as Pasternatski says.

You can have a historical game - meaning having historical capabilities without being tied to historical tactics and strategies - and still allow each side a 50:50 chance of winning. In general, the U.S. wins only if they do better than historically. How you define "better" is a trick, but it probably involves time, casualties ratios, equipment ratios, and maybe objectives. There was a thread, which I can't find now, that went into this. Since the game balance will probably shift as particular tactics or strategies become well-known that "game" the system, players can select different level of difficulties that will force the Allies to "win" the game in shorter or longer periods of time to adjust the game balance back to close to 50:50. The Allies may kick the living you-know-what out of the Japanese, but if they don't do it quicker and better than some established standard, they still lose.

Hence, the Japanese player can get waxed, but if he isn't waxed quite as bad as some standard, he wins. The Japanese player doesn't have to hold Los Angeles to win; he can win even as the Allies march into Tokyo by attriting or delaying the Allies sufficiently.

I don't believe that sacrifices reality for gameplay. Does it?

For one, I dont agree the current B-17 modeling matches its
historical capabilities. We can start the argument there.
Therefore I have no chance of having a 'historical game' as you put it.

[byron13]

It was a joke. I was taking a horse long since kicked to death and merely grinding it to dust.

[Luskan]

Originally posted by Drongo


Why do I keep thinking of Marvin the Robot in "The Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy"???

"I despise oceans!"

Originally posted by Chiteng

We can start the argument there.

No Chiteng, you can't. You see, I started this thread as a poll about user preferences - whether they see History or Gameplay as more important. I was hoping that each concerned poster would front up, vote, and then post the reason why they voted as they did.

Maybe some informed ORIGINAL discussion would ensue.

I did not start this thread to be a vessel to provide you with yet another thread to nag, bitch, whine, cry, whimper, throw a tantrum, stamp your foot, wave your arms in the air to try and get even more attention for your particular crusade(s) (whether I agree with them or not), followed by a hundred other posters either flaming you or disagreeing with you (or plain turned off the entire thread by such persistant nagging), followed by your ever stoic and predictable respone "I disagree" (which you then have to begin every subsequent post with as the argument continues).

Originally posted by me

It depends upon the victory conditions - but I'm interested in discovering how MANY people feel one way or the other - rather than just having certain posters try to "out-post" each other with the number and size of their posts!

I am certain that Matrix is WELL aware what you want - you've spammed it all many times before. However you don't add any weight to your arguments by repeated them over and over and over again. The irritation factor detracts from whatever attention the arguments deserve.

Please take this as a friendly reminder that now that you've had your vote, and your say, let some of the other children have a turn hmm? :rolleyes:

[Drongo]

I voted to play "Smack the Raver" but what Raver and I do when alone is our business.

As to the game -

My preference for a game is a balance of both historical realism (realistic historical capabilities of forces) and gameplay (the freedom to use those capabilites in various ways). Both are equally important to me. If I'd voted intelligently, I'd have picked historical.

I don't wan't to be able to use my forces to do things that were historically impossible but I do want to do everything that you possibly could've done with them.

Rather than toning down (or up) certain historical realities for balance, I'd prefer to have a well thought out set of victory conditions in which both sides compete against their historical achievements and the winner (if any) is the side which does the best in their circumstances.

But unfortunately, we're going to get WitP.
(Um..that was a joke and in no way is an indication of what I've seen in testing...well, except for....:p )

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by byron13
Jeez, guys, you all pretty much ignored Pasternatski's post. This is not an either/or debate. You can have both as Pasternatski says.

You can have a historical game - meaning having historical capabilities without being tied to historical tactics and strategies - and still allow each side a 50:50 chance of winning. In general, the U.S. wins only if they do better than historically. How you define "better" is a trick, but it probably involves time, casualties ratios, equipment ratios, and maybe objectives. There was a thread, which I can't find now, that went into this.

That's exactly what I was going to write after I had read Pasternakski's post. Japan shouldn't be able to win the 'war' (they never had a chance - US industrial might, 'Revenge for PH' motivation and unconditional surrender demand - how can you win against that?) - but Japan should be able to win the 'game' (by delaying the Allied advance long enough - although this won't be enough to win the 'war').
I can't find the thread either, but someone suggested that for each turn a base is held, permanent victory points should be accumulated. This would also motivate Allied players to conduct counteroffensives early on, not just waiting for second-generation planes, new ships and ground forces to launch a short-cut offensive in the Central Pacific in 1944. Maybe the victory points can be linked to base size and fortification level - no points for beach dots, 27 points per day for the biggest base possible (if the size limit will still be 9).
You could also set fixed victory points for each location (the more important a base strategically and the closer at Japan respectively CONUS/Australia/India, the more points the base would be worth) and then compare the historical score at the scenario ending date with the score achieved by the players and then simply tell them 'You did better than history' or 'You did worse than history'.

Just a few Euro-Cents...

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Luskan
"I despise oceans!"



No Chiteng, you can't. You see, I started this thread as a poll about user preferences - whether they see History or Gameplay as more important. I was hoping that each concerned poster would front up, vote, and then post the reason why they voted as they did.

Maybe some informed ORIGINAL discussion would ensue.

I did not start this thread to be a vessel to provide you with yet another thread to nag, bitch, whine, cry, whimper, throw a tantrum, stamp your foot, wave your arms in the air to try and get even more attention for your particular crusade(s) (whether I agree with them or not), followed by a hundred other posters either flaming you or disagreeing with you (or plain turned off the entire thread by such persistant nagging), followed by your ever stoic and predictable respone "I disagree" (which you then have to begin every subsequent post with as the argument continues).



I am certain that Matrix is WELL aware what you want - you've spammed it all many times before. However you don't add any weight to your arguments by repeated them over and over and over again. The irritation factor detracts from whatever attention the arguments deserve.

Please take this as a friendly reminder that now that you've had your vote, and your say, let some of the other children have a turn hmm? :rolleyes:

Whatever I do, it will be 'MY' decision.
Since I have not hear from Matrix, I cant say what they know, or dont know. I doubt you can either.

[Raverdave]

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Drongo
.............................

Rather than toning down (or up) certain historical realities for balance, I'd prefer to have a well thought out set of victory conditions in which both sides compete against their historical achievements and the winner (if any) is the side which does the best in their circumstances.

.........................

That's the tough part. However if the game is designed with that in mind it may be easily tweaked to plug the loopholes which inevitably arise through months of playing by hundreds (thousands?) of players. It would be a terrible feeling knowing that, after 10 months of PBEM, that your opponent only has to capture one more insignificant island to win the game. Of course, as I suspect, WitP will seldom come down to that, because UV has never (in the game I have played) been that close a decision. And WitP is more likely to get out of hand before the full game is completed than UV.

[Drongo]

Posted by Sonny

That's the tough part. However if the game is designed with that in mind it may be easily tweaked to plug the loopholes which inevitably arise through months of playing by hundreds (thousands?) of players. It would be a terrible feeling knowing that, after 10 months of PBEM, that your opponent only has to capture one more insignificant island to win the game. Of course, as I suspect, WitP will seldom come down to that, because UV has never (in the game I have played) been that close a decision. And WitP is more likely to get out of hand before the full game is completed than UV.

Agreed there would be a lot of work in designing a way of establishing "who won and when" that was enjoyable (for both players), historically realistic and avoided the loopholes.

But thats what the bastards are paid for.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Drongo
.................
But thats what the bastards are paid for.

Yes, but that part is often overlooked in games where there is not a balance historically. Although I must admit, I am pleased with the system UV uses for the most part. If there were a table of VPs which could be modded by the user it might help - but there might be other circumstances (like auto victory) which would not be easily modified.

But most likely the war will be decided long before a VP count is necessary. It is nice however to use VPs to gauge your progress.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Raverdave
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Well whatever else I may be, I can make a point and be civil,
and NOT use personal attacks.

[mdiehl]

I can't find the thread either, but someone suggested that for each turn a base is held, permanent victory points should be accumulated. This would also motivate Allied players to conduct counteroffensives early on, not just waiting for second-generation planes, new ships and ground forces to launch a short-cut offensive in the Central Pacific in 1944.

I think several of us have posted that idea. It's a variant on the PACWAR version where bases gave victory points but these were not permanently accumulated. The way I imagine this standard to work, the VP are neutral. That is, if each player captures the identical bases on the same dates as they historically did, the sum of each player's VPs results in a "tie."

I'm with Pasternaski on this one. It is possible to have a game that is highly realistic but that as a GAME has balanced VP conditions.

[madflava13]

I'd read that earlier post as well mdiehl, and I agree whole-heartedly. I like your suggestion of the tie from exact historical performance. Seems like a workable way to give the IJN player a fighting chance