Random Battle Balance

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

Since you asked for it:

Try this:

Polish Poison Challenge
by Ravindau

Poland assaults Gernany, Sept 1939
2.000 : XXX (about 740)

All preferences on except AI tank-heavy.
Everything at 100%/XXX.

Poland computer, but with Human Buy.
You get to play the poor, hapless Germans.

For Poland, buy the following:

5x Infantry Company
4x Armoured Car Platoon (3)
1x Hvy. Arty Batty 105mm (4) Edit: Clarification: Off-map guns.
1x Hvy. Arty Batty 120mm (4)

If you have some points left, buy a Sniper.

I think 30x30 is most realistic, but play it on a 60x60 if you like. Shouldn´t make much of a difference.

You may well pull a win out of your hat, but I´d say it will keep you busy for a while.

And I can´t really see anybody wanting to play this Human vs. Human as the defending side, so it´s an example of what I´m meaning when I say the pts balance is somewhat skewed.

I bought the Polish force exactly as described, Map was 30x30. Turns set to 30.

This was what the Germans defended with. I deliberatly did not use arty "gold spots" even though I was allowed 5



This is the result after 19 turns when the game ended






........which is exaclty what everyones been telling you. You found a way to overwhelm the AI with your human wave.......congratulations..... you beat the AI.

Now make adjustments to your preferences to make it more difficult for you DO NOT expect us to alter the game code because there is no need to..... HARDLY "poor, hapless Germans".... It was "interesting" for about 8 turns and then it was a case of simply going through the motions . The Poles never breached the defensive line and only took one V hex and only becasue I didn't defend it but I took it back turn 18 and I could have easily done without the arty observer and just used the HQ and that would have given me even more mortars or MG's

The "infinite Rifles " you refered to in post #34 did not even come close to overwhelming my defences and all the AC's did was give my AT guns something to practice gunnery on.

Don

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by DRG

........which is exaclty what everyones been telling you. You found a way to overwhelm the AI with your human wave.......congratulations..... you beat the AI.

...

The "infinite Rifles " you refered to in post #34 did not even come close to overwhelming my defences and all the AC's did was give my AT guns something to practice gunnery on.

Don

I am inclined to think this is a strawman argument.

I have never had any doubt whatsoever, that you, as a developer, or the most expert players, can beat the odds.

The 3 words most important in my argument are everything else equal.

AI vs. AI, Poles win. Human vs. Human, if comparable players, Poles win. If I play the Poles against a tactically mediocre defender (like myself ), I win.

If you can beat the odds, this doesn´t prove the odds are 50:50.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

The 3 words most important in my argument are everything else equal.

In your initial post you were talking about human vs AI play?

As for PBEM it's basically the same story - some players are good, some are veterans and some are demons..., set your own battle points to compensate. Seems to me this is a very simple solution for your gaming balance problems?

(I have actually never seen anybody using XXX battle points in a PBEM game anyway.)

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by wulfir

In your initial post you were talking about human vs AI play?

As for PBEM it's basically the same story - some players are good, some are veterans and some are demons..., set your own battle points to compensate. Seems to me this is a very simple solution for your gaming balance problems?

(I have actually never seen anybody using XXX battle points in a PBEM game anyway.)

And that´s the problem. This is because they know intuitively it´s not equally balanced.

I used play against the AI as an example. Near 3:1 for the attacker is not balanced, period, no matter if playing against Humans, AI, the Cylons,...

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

And that´s the problem. This is because they know intuitively it´s not equally balanced.

Never encountered anyone who gave this much thought - I haven't. My experience has been that in PBEM meeting engagements with equal battle points for both sides are the most popular games played.

Originally Posted by Ravindau

I used play against the AI as an example. Near 3:1 for the attacker is not balanced, period, no matter if playing against Humans, AI, the Cylons,...

3:1 seems fine to me? It's what they say you need to ensure success in an attack, isn't it...

If you think it is too easy for the attacker adjust the points yourself - there is no way you will find any "universal balance" that fits all players anyway.

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by wulfir

3:1 seems fine to me? It's what they say you need to ensure success in an attack, isn't it?

I do hope I got this right and you are joking.

Yes, 3:1 should ensure success. Actually the game guide quotes historic Brit sources to that effect. But to ensure attacker success hardly makes for great balance.

Yes, perfect balance isn´t possible. Even in Chess, White has a slight advantage +0.3 Pawn Values, to be precise.

But you can try to get as close to balance as possible, rather than give White 44 pieces, SPWW2 style...

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

I do hope I got this right...

Yup, you got it right! - - > The game lets you adjust the points for both sides in random battles making it possible for you to achive whatever you think is your personal "great balance". As you play more and gain experience you will be able to modify the ratios you are using.

You can even build your own maps and adjust the terrain to balance out any unfairness. Maybe give each side identical terrain - a sort of chessboard map.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

I am inclined to think this is a strawman argument.

I have never had any doubt whatsoever, that you, as a developer, or the most expert players, can beat the odds.

The 3 words most important in my argument are everything else equal.

AI vs. AI, Poles win. Human vs. Human, if comparable players, Poles win. If I play the Poles against a tactically mediocre defender (like myself ), I win.

If you can beat the odds, this doesn´t prove the odds are 50:50.

Seriously, seems no mater what is said or proved you wont listen so why are we entertaining you.
I have not played Don but there will be a lot of better players out there than him I would guess as he does not get that much time to play because hes testing & developing.

Truth is if you want to play a game with squads & virtually no supporting units you are going to lose often.
Play the game learn some tactics, look at what real life armies do because RL tactics &formations do work in this game.

Apologies for being blunt but you will actually enjoy the game far more by expanding your options tactically.

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by Imp

Seriously, seems no mater what is said or proved you wont listen so why are we entertaining you.

Play the game learn some tactics, look at what real life armies do because RL tactics &formations do work in this game.

Real life armies always win if they have an advantage like SPWW2 attackers.

Seriously, if everybody evades my argument *that the attacking side is OP*, why am I entertaining you?