Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

MT has mastered the logistical engine of the game, and furthermore, has a near foolproof plan for preempting the iron wall that nobody else to date has duplicated.

I've explained what he does elsewhere, but so far nobody else has done it.

I'm trying something new as the Soviet in our present game, we'll see if it works. For me, the main problem is the silly siege guns. Those things need to be toned down. The game is coming down to denying those guns access to the 3 victory sites.

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Clearly explained Flavius...

What I expect to become a problem with your first real defense near Moscow is that he can simply take the losses and punch through to get to Moscow....

With regard to the tactical situation the best places to fight are around terrain features. Perhaps you can sacrifice a couple of armies fighting in clear terrain at the end of his logistical rubber band... That in combination with armies skirmishing (25% retreat) to allow you to use forts on a couple of key points might buy you some time... to form your final stand around Moscow...

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
3 hexside assaults can be repulsed by a stack of 4 regulars fully entrenched in woods, to the tune 10k+ losses for the German. It's a real grind. But he's also got lots of time. My bet is the Wehrmacht is too fragile to maintain this level of attrition for very long. Moreover, I've reduced the number of combats in the center to a bare handful a turn, 1-2. There's nothing easy there anymore for the enemy and no real maneuvering opportunities.

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

We are currently looking at PBEM balance but it's a difficult thing to pin down as there is both a paucity of data and two humans unknowns involved...

Cheers,
Cameron

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

We are currently looking at PBEM balance but it's a difficult thing to pin down as there is both a paucity of data and two humans unknowns involved.

It's a lot easier to figure out balance vs. the AI as it's a relatively constant opponent that can be measured.

Humans can cover a wide spectrum of abilities and heavily skew perceptions of balance by virtue of differing skill levels.

We will probably introduce changes specific to these games (they won't affect AI games) but whatever we do is unlikely to resolve every bodies concerns because the issue is a combination of both balance & player skill. It's difficult to isolate one from the other.

However a very straightforward way around this is for a PBEM match to encompass two games, with each player taking turns at playing either side. Tally each player's score as the Germans and Soviets. Highest wins.

Done this way, perceived balance becomes irrelevant.

Cheers,
Cameron

ORIGINAL: Tweedledumb

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

We are currently looking at PBEM balance but it's a difficult thing to pin down as there is both a paucity of data and two humans unknowns involved.

It's a lot easier to figure out balance vs. the AI as it's a relatively constant opponent that can be measured.

Humans can cover a wide spectrum of abilities and heavily skew perceptions of balance by virtue of differing skill levels.

We will probably introduce changes specific to these games (they won't affect AI games) but whatever we do is unlikely to resolve every bodies concerns because the issue is a combination of both balance & player skill. It's difficult to isolate one from the other.

However a very straightforward way around this is for a PBEM match to encompass two games, with each player taking turns at playing either side. Tally each player's score as the Germans and Soviets. Highest wins.

Done this way, perceived balance becomes irrelevant.

Cheers,
Cameron

Howdy Cameron,

On the issue of play balance, I would like to re-iterate my suggestion that you make the arrival of Soviet reinforcements a set of options NOT a fixed schedule. My original post from January 7th (in part):

"The other thing I noted in the forums, particularly Vic's posts, is that 95% of the people are playing against the AI only, and most of those are playing the German side. This makes sense to me. Then the light bulb popped on...

Why not provide the players with several Soviet reinforcement options?

Here's my logic for this:

Human (PBEM) players will be able to defend MUCH more competently and use the Soviet decsions far more effectively than any AI - agree? To "balance" the game and make it challenging for the majority of players (playing Germans against the AI) will not necessarily produced a "balanced" game between two expert human players - agree? So why not provide a series of reinforcement options for the Soviets as a "balancing" feature?

I throw out for discussion five possible reinforcement schedules:

1. Rapid Soviet mobilization (the hardest - for players who can beat the 1.01 AI easily)
2. Improved Soviet mobilization (harder - a challenge for players who have beat the 1.01 AI))
3. Standard Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.01)
4. Slower Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.02f - to avoid the wall syndrome above)
5. Poor Soviet mobilization (the ultimate challenge for the expert human Soviet player!)

Of course there could be a million variants on this and I would love to see more than 5, but you get the idea, I hope. The amount of programming to make these variants I presume would be minimal.

My suggestion, basically, is that rather than trying to "lock in" a one-size-fits-all Soviet reinforcement schedule, that you investigate using this mechanic as a play balance tool. My assertion is that a Soviet reinforcement schedule which works to balance an AI game will NOT be the same as one which balances a PBEM game. "

There could be VP/PP/other costs associated with the Soviets choosing these various options.

As others have suggested, I doubt that there is a single Soviet reinforcement schedule which balances both the AI and PBEM games.

Thanks for designing a brilliant game!