How about a "Balanced" scenario?
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:09 pm
Let's face it, war is very seldom fair and balanced. Usually one side has big advantages over the other, so a historical scenario (the kind prefer) will be unbalanced and unfair for one player or the other.
I see people getting annoyed in player-vs-player if the game rules or data are unfair/unbalanced to them, but there are a few ways of avoiding that.
One is this: add to the game a version of selected scenarios (say GC 41-45) that is tweaked for better balance through the war: make the soviets stronger at the beginning and weaker at the end. That can be done without change in the code or the rules - just edit the units to make them stronger/weaker, and perhaps cut a T-34 factory here, perhaps add a Panther factory there. Then keep doing that until the players report having a 50-50% of winning the game.
Non-historical, but probably more fun for competitive play.
I see people getting annoyed in player-vs-player if the game rules or data are unfair/unbalanced to them, but there are a few ways of avoiding that.
One is this: add to the game a version of selected scenarios (say GC 41-45) that is tweaked for better balance through the war: make the soviets stronger at the beginning and weaker at the end. That can be done without change in the code or the rules - just edit the units to make them stronger/weaker, and perhaps cut a T-34 factory here, perhaps add a Panther factory there. Then keep doing that until the players report having a 50-50% of winning the game.
Non-historical, but probably more fun for competitive play.