Game Balance

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Game Balance

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The War Room >> Game Balance

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Game Balance - 5/31/2003 6:15:44 PM

estaban

Posts: 235
Joined: 9/20/2002
Status: offline

I have seen a lot of AARs and such with settings that I think are unusual. Like 140-160% commitment for the Japanese.

I want to get opinions on what scenarios/setting people think are "balanced". Tell me a scenario and a setting that you would would be willing to take either side on a flip of a coin or something similar.

If you want to break it down by scenario, that is good too.

Post #: 1

- 6/1/2003 12:10:29 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Over the last year, many things have been patched and changed that affected overall balance between the two sides.

Now we have come pretty much full circle where the original scenario 17 is fairly balanced (from a reality standpoint).

Since PBEM games last a fairly long time, large numbers of the ones you are seeing AARs for started long before this latest 2.30 patch came along.

Increasing Naval Commitment to Japan was one of the simpler player options to give Japan a better chance. Playing Scenario 19 instead of 17 was Matrix's attempt to offer up a more challenging game to the Allied player.

As we sit now, scenario 17 is pretty close to balanced (assuming folks fly land based bombers at their standard height of 6000 feet). By increasing naval commitment levels, you are basically adding more ships into play and a quicker rate. How dramatically this actually affects balance is a function of what ships enter play. If it is a CV being released, it becomes a fairly large shift, if a few extra light cruisers show up instead, it is a minor shift.

Now, when I say balanced, I do not mean Japan is going to win. I mean the game should play out realistically to where Japan has the chance to make serious inroads and hurt the Allies deeply enough that it takes a long time for the Allies to push them back and eventually win. Japan can win if the Allies play poorly, but equally matched players should play a balanced game out where Japan looses, but it takes the Allies a long time to make this a certain fact.

None of the scenarios are *balanced* from a standpoint of both sides having a equal chance of winning, as this is a wargame. Japan has to play agressively to stand a chance, the Allies have to play defensively until later in the game. Either side not playing with the right strategy can result in a complete disaster.

(in reply to estaban)

Post #: 2

- 6/1/2003 12:41:11 AM

estaban

Posts: 235
Joined: 9/20/2002
Status: offline

Frag:

Thanks for the reply.

The issue of balance from a 50/50 chance of either side winning, given relatively equal opponents and luck, is more of what I am thinking.

However, I appreciate your point on UV as trying to faithfully recreate Japan's historical problems with the Allies' superior industrial capacity and innovation in terms of aircraft. However, I am looking at this as a game as well, and I would like some comments on what it takes to make for a good game between two evenly matched opponents.

(in reply to estaban)

Post #: 3