Matrix Games Forums

That would be correct since the force structures of both sides are the same. One issue we are correcting with the scenario updates is a small shift in the NATO/WP VP costing modifiers to reduce the spread and boost the NATO outcomes on the victory table for the scenarios. That adjustment will go a long way to making the results of scenarios balanced better. We will see once these scenarios are ready. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

That would be correct since the force structures of both sides are the same.

Does 1% make any difference in the victory conditions? [&:]

What I've been also wondering is the VP cost of the destroyed units. By far the costliest are the NATO tanks while the artillery and HQ's are very cheap. Maybe it would be worth to increase their cost, since those units are in theory vital to each side, plus they are difficult to locate and destroy?

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

My confusion is what is balanced? The game already skews the results versus the victory levels based on VP deltas.

For the scenarios I originally released with the game balanced meant that - I personally had gotten at least a draw in that scenario for the intended side. Now, that takes into account that I don't get to actually play the game as much as the rest of you do, but it also takes into account that I know the mechanics of the scenario better than the normal player.

With each successive update things were changed to how the game played. At each of those updates the plan was to rebalance the scenarios. But of course being part of the development team I knew that there was another update that was being worked on. Until finally, we are here. The last update. So, now I don't have to try to rebalance the scenarios again next week, month, quarter. I can do it one time.

The act of rebalancing them, at the moment seems to me to be an act of simply tightening up the reinforcement schedules, setup zones and in some cases adjusting resources...read that as adding a bit more AD for NATO or reducing some Soviet air support.

I do not envision wholesale reconstruction of the scenarios. I am actually expecting to have to do very little because I think the combat engine was sound to begin with for the most part and wasn't moved all that far from center over the past months as a whole.

So, we'll see. I'll let you know how things go.

Good Hunting.

MR

IMO the scenario imbalance really shows when they are being played H vs H. I thought that it would be the main focus of rebalancing. The difference between HvsH and HvsAI version of the same scenario should be more significant than 1% of the VP calculations.

Not sure how the imbalance sets with them after all this time. That's why I'm looking at all of them. So that I don't miss any that need work.

Good Hunting.

MR

For those of you that held the defensive line with little to no problem in A Test of Wills, I think things have changed.

Good Hunting.

MR

how's the overall progress on the re-balance going?

Steve is working them and we are testing some of them as we go. Once we have a better idea on timing of things we'll let you all know. [8D]

There are several irons in our fire!!! You guys will have more scenarios to play than you can get to between now and Christmas!!!!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!!

Good Hunting.

MR

I have been one of the proponents that the Vulcan ADA system is a bit weaker than it needs to be.

Having taken that position in the past I must say there are times when it can more than hold it's own.

Good Hunting.

MR

I have to say that I love the Vulcans. While the Chaparrals or Rapiers absolutely suck against both aircraft and helicopters ( I'd say that the kill probability is about 5% or less, which I think is realistic ), a well placed Vulcan batteries with a good LOS and using terrain cover, are probably the most effective weapon against the helicopters. In one of my games, they shot down 10 Hinds during the opening turn of Dawns First Light scenario.

Based on few Mad Russian's posts I have an impression, that the rebalancing is focusing on the games against the AI, played by human player as NATO ( correct me if I'm wrong ). Basically it looks like the scenarios will be tougher for the NATO player. But what about playing as the WP against the AI or the human vs human games? So far in most of the cases, playing as the Soviets was to easy. Will there be some focus on rebalancing the scenarios also from the Soviet side, to make the three versions of the same scenario ( best played as NATO, WP, PBEM ) really different?

ORIGINAL: katukov

Based on few Mad Russian's posts I have an impression, that the rebalancing is focusing on the games against the AI, played by human player as NATO ( correct me if I'm wrong ).

Okay, you are wrong. All the scenarios/campaigns I've released will be rebalanced. As always, I intend to take this opportunity to release more content as well. I would expect it's time the British forces got some love.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: katukov

Based on few Mad Russian's posts I have an impression, that the rebalancing is focusing on the games against the AI, played by human player as NATO ( correct me if I'm wrong ).

Okay, you are wrong. All the scenarios/campaigns I've released will be rebalanced. As always, I intend to take this opportunity to release more content as well. I would expect it's time the British forces got some love.

Good Hunting.

MR

That's good news. I'm looking forward to the rebalanced PBEM and "played as WP" versions of the scenarios.

As I'm sure you are all aware, rebalancing the scenarios happens when the code changes and bug fixes stop being made. I have redone several of the scenarios but stopped for a bit to allow for the 10 update to be completed. With that having been done it's back full steam ahead to rebalancing the rest of them.

Good Hunting.

MR

Hi,

I apologise for doing this.. but quick editor feature request that I am very keen on that would make rebalancing of a certain type a quick fix.

Currently, last time I tried, in order to change the model of tank being used you have delete away the entire unit and start again.

If you could edit the model of tank or other equipment used without anything else changing you could very quickly rebalance and even more importantly shift the time fame say from late ‘80s to earlier ‘80s more easily.

I am very keen to do this with many scenarios..

Great engine, great game..
All the best,
Kip.

ORIGINAL: katukov
Chaparrals or Rapiers absolutely suck against both aircraft and helicopters ( I'd say that the kill probability is about 5% or less, which I think is realistic )

It is against rotary wing assets, at least. An Mi-24 could pop up, fire a Kokon (AT-6), then guide it to the Chaparral long before the Chaparral had a lock on the Hind. Even then, it could just pop back behind cover.

The poor effectiveness of the Vulcan/Chaparral combination was the whole cause for the Pentagon to develop a new generation of SHORAD systems, among which was the hilariously failed York and the at-the-time cutting edge ADATS (That never saw the light of day thanks to the end of the Cold War). Eventually, they settled with the Avenger.

No new features until Southern Storm is released. This change to the editor is on our list already.

Thanks.

Good Hunting.

MR

MR, hi,

“This change to the editor is on our list already.”

Thanks.. !

All the best,
Kip.

This seems to be the project that keeps on giving.

I started this back in late spring. Then issues arose where I was away from home for 6 weeks and we moved the rebalancing behind the release of the Reforged scenarios. In the past 2 weeks I've had a Granddaughter in the hospital and so have been on and off with that.

I am now hoping to get these finished in time for Christmas holidays. Of course that means new content when I do an update. There will be at least 1 new scenario on the the new larger map that will be released with these. Hopefully life can calm down enough for us to get these to you this year as well.

Good Hunting.

MR