Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2001 10:33 pm
No restart needed. I don't think that was the idea. These are good battles but they need to be played and critiqued. I don't think we can make any really educated decisions until several players have run through at least the first 7-10 battles.
The previous discussions would be interesting and might help new designers better understand the approach. If you have time, definitely post them.
Let's wait for at least a couple players to make it through battle 10 before considering any major or minor course corrections. There's nothing wrong with the initial approach - my hunch is that it will work out nicely.
Besides, Wild Bill has shown us the way in this area as in so many others: his VICTORS campaign game came in two flavors: HARD and EASY - the player just picked his preferred level of pain!
GPW 2.0 could be the same way - RUSSIAN-style and REGULAR! But I think we'll all have to grind through some battles to know for sure.
I think the guidance I have been providing the new designers is still correct: balance the battle against a Soviet battalion-sized battlegroup and try and limit expected core losses to about 33% in any one battle.
Thus, by battle 16 (June 1942), the core force, at full-strength, is probably 30-40 tanks, 30-40 infantry squads, 8 x ATG, 8 x AA, 8 x mortar and various transport and support units. Experience levels will tend to run about 33% elite and the rest mostly veteran with some good (plus whatever replacements have shown up). This does not reflect a lot of upgraded trucks which is a pet peeve for many folks. We might consider eliminating trucks from the core force completely and providing them as AUX just like the Stalingrad scenario does...upgrading trucks to T-34s will definitely skew the playbalance but is easily done and impossible to prevent.
I'm pretty sure the force above is a very likely core from what I have seen so far.
So, unless the battle is designated an "easy" one, the core force ought to lose 10+ tanks each battle so that by the end of the operation, there are a handful of operational tanks left...
I think this is valid advice for now and the battles can be easily modified based upon lessons learned after players play the first 10 battles.
I do think, A_B, that to achieve your vision, a second round of design will be needed - but perhaps only one or two designers. What I mean is that after the first 10 battles have been played by several players, a designer will go and open up each scenario in the editor and fix bugs, correct errors, and then make subtle changes to make the battle conform to the GPW vision (i.e. tweak each battle to get the right level of destruction of core force). Then GPW Version 2.0 can be released - minimal bugs and balanced to provide the kind of challenge you're looking for.
Cheers
The previous discussions would be interesting and might help new designers better understand the approach. If you have time, definitely post them.
Let's wait for at least a couple players to make it through battle 10 before considering any major or minor course corrections. There's nothing wrong with the initial approach - my hunch is that it will work out nicely.
Besides, Wild Bill has shown us the way in this area as in so many others: his VICTORS campaign game came in two flavors: HARD and EASY - the player just picked his preferred level of pain!
GPW 2.0 could be the same way - RUSSIAN-style and REGULAR! But I think we'll all have to grind through some battles to know for sure.
I think the guidance I have been providing the new designers is still correct: balance the battle against a Soviet battalion-sized battlegroup and try and limit expected core losses to about 33% in any one battle.
Thus, by battle 16 (June 1942), the core force, at full-strength, is probably 30-40 tanks, 30-40 infantry squads, 8 x ATG, 8 x AA, 8 x mortar and various transport and support units. Experience levels will tend to run about 33% elite and the rest mostly veteran with some good (plus whatever replacements have shown up). This does not reflect a lot of upgraded trucks which is a pet peeve for many folks. We might consider eliminating trucks from the core force completely and providing them as AUX just like the Stalingrad scenario does...upgrading trucks to T-34s will definitely skew the playbalance but is easily done and impossible to prevent.
I'm pretty sure the force above is a very likely core from what I have seen so far.
So, unless the battle is designated an "easy" one, the core force ought to lose 10+ tanks each battle so that by the end of the operation, there are a handful of operational tanks left...
I think this is valid advice for now and the battles can be easily modified based upon lessons learned after players play the first 10 battles.
I do think, A_B, that to achieve your vision, a second round of design will be needed - but perhaps only one or two designers. What I mean is that after the first 10 battles have been played by several players, a designer will go and open up each scenario in the editor and fix bugs, correct errors, and then make subtle changes to make the battle conform to the GPW vision (i.e. tweak each battle to get the right level of destruction of core force). Then GPW Version 2.0 can be released - minimal bugs and balanced to provide the kind of challenge you're looking for.
Cheers