Random Battle Balance

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

How? You have *690 pts* (740 - HQ). Have you actually tried it?

Sure, weak German tank company with dismounted Kradschutzen platoon in support beefed up with two MG34 sections and two mortar sections. Storch spotter plane overhead.

The result is a massacre of Polish infantry.

[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.)

[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 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,...

[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?

[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]

Wow will give it one last go & cover a few points.
PBEM I nearly always use XXX rating, adjust it only if decide one player needs an advantage.

This game is about battles & war is NEVER balanced it cant be because there are so many factors involved even if you did say Germany vs Germany with identical forces it would not be equal.
You have taken troop quality & equipment (technology) out of the equation but there is still terrain, tactics & plain old luck.

As its about battles & its generally accepted you need a 3:1 ratio when attacking prepared units that's what the game uses.
Why because its the norm.
If you want to use a different ratio from 1:1 to 10:1 that's fine they have happened.

As an example as you like Squad heavy sides Korean War so 1950s, sorry cant remember name of the battle or a WWII with high odds.
China attacks British in a river crossing with odds of around 10:1.
They won but at horrendous cost, the British withdrew leaving a company & their artillery to cover the withdrawal.
The artillery was no use to them as most were malfunctioning due to the severe use, they used virtually their entire stock of ammo in the battle (cant remember was supposed to last 4-6weeks)

The Chinese commander said he had won the battle but lost the war because the Chinese losses were so huge.

The reason I mention this is the game would list this as a draw or victory if you can replicate it, I have tried & I can never do as well as they did.

My point play what you want 3:1 is just the norm & with a bit of experience you will win most of the time. Many people will play with worse odds because it makes it more challenging.

Its all about developing or using RL tactics & rising to the challenge.
You can adjust the challenge as you so fit either with points balance, beneficial terrain, vision settings, playing the underdogs or superior side.
It will never be balanced though because this is war & you can out think the AI.

Said my piece keep playing & you will find you start winning this type of battle & perhaps even making it harder further down the road.

As a side note if you want unbalanced try using MBT so modern battles a major power vs a 3rd world one. I don't do it to often because it fries your brain but its amazing what you can pull of sometimes.

[jivemi]

Originally Posted by Imp

Wow will give it one last go & cover a few points.

Better save your breath. This guy isn't listening. Personally don't play generated battles but after hundreds of scenarios it's patently obvious that assaults are more challenging than defending. Basically our pompously presumptive tyro is telling us that pigs can fly, based simply on what he says. No saves have been provided so it's non-falsifiable. Talk about stubborn ignorance!