AAR: The Curse of the Delay

[DRG]

The range of experience and skill level of players is far too wide to arbitrarily make changes to make one segment happy...and annoy others

The delaying side barely gets a company to defend 1.5 km of frontage. All you have done is set up a game to prove a point but the point is ridiculous..... what did you expect from 17 or so units covering 1500 m of close terrain?

You think you have found a flaw that needs " official settings be balanced"......but we allow the player to do that based on HIS level of skill......now you know what YOURS is you can adjust the defenders higher or adjust the number of game turns lower. Game turns are variable they are not fixed at the 39 you were given but they can be changed to anything you like....as can the number of points each side gets........which they would be in any tournament-----do you expect us to automagically KNOW exactly what skill level each player is at how each player thinks and constructs his forces?

You are the first person I am aware of that has complained that advances are lopsided in favour of the advancing side and I've been doing this for 20 years.........does anyone else agree ??

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by DRG

...do you expect us to automagically KNOW exactly how each player thinks and constructs his forces?

What I was trying to show is that Advance/Delay as it stands is not balanced between two players of equal skill. This is not subjective.

To repeat the decisive empirical question: Would you want to be the defending side in a generated Advance/Delay battle in a tournament?

[jivemi]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

What I was trying to show is that Advance/Delay as it stands is not balanced between two players of equal skill. This is not subjective.

To repeat the decisive empirical question: Would you want to be the defending side in a generated Advance/Delay battle in a tournament?

Actually all you've done is show that you're better than the AI (unless you're suggesting that you and the AI are of equal skill, which seems improbable). So are most experienced players. That at least is not subjective!

As for anyone being interested to play as the delayer in a generated battle, why not challenge somebody to PBEM and see? The SP community awaits with bated breath the outcome of this epic struggle to "prove" or "disprove" that advance/delay battles are imbalanced in favor of the attacker. (My personal experience in SPMBT generated campaigns has been exactly the opposite, but never mind.)

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by jivemi

As for anyone being interested to play as the delayer in a generated battle, why not challenge somebody to PBEM and see? The SP community awaits with bated breath the outcome of this epic struggle to "prove" or "disprove" that advance/delay battles are imbalanced in favor of the attacker. (My personal experience in SPMBT generated campaigns has been exactly the opposite, but never mind.)

You are a brave man!

Only reason I didn´t propose a PBEM Advance/Delay with standard settings is because I thought no one would volunteer for that suicide mission.

So let´s say October 1942, Stalingrad. Doesn´t get more prototypically WW2.

German Advance vs. Russian Delay or Russian Advance vs. German Delay, 1.000pts vs. XXX. Your choice if you want to delay as Germany or Russia.

Any special house rules you want? My only ones are these:
1. No Allies; only native troops of your OOB.
2. 2 Sharpshooters maximum (2 individuals or a team of 2). (They are super specialists, more of them in a small action is ridiculous.)

Is a map 20 wide, 40 deep ok? I would suggest 30 turns, which is a bit LESS than you usually get from the RMG.