Are these OOB balanced ?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Are these OOB balanced ?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Are these OOB balanced ?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/1/2021 4:01:29 PM

nukkxx5058

Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: France
Status: offline

Hi, I'm working on a PBEM-only scenario and I would like to have your opinion whether the OOB of my 2 playable sides are roughly balanced in terms of platforms (ie weapons aside).

It's set in 2024. It's Tunisia with some help from Algeria, France and Spain versus Libya with some help from Russia + China.

I will paste below the pictures of the OOB and would really appreciate if you could tell me if both sides are relatively balanced or if one side is clearly stronger. Or if there are some really stupid things in the OOB :-)

Remarks welcomed :-)
Thank you in advance.

Here below two pictures: aircrafts OOB and ships + subs OOB:

Attachment (2)

< Message edited by nukkxx5058 -- 12/1/2021 4:02:53 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/1/2021 5:08:56 PM

tylerblakebrandon

Posts: 173
Joined: 5/11/2020
Status: offline

I think those Foxgloves in the fighter category might be a little OP without a 5th gen counter for blue.

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 2

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/1/2021 5:13:04 PM

stww2

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/23/2017
Status: offline

I'll leave it to others to comment on the evenness of each side's force composition, but one comment I'll make is that "Balance" in a CMO scenario (whether singleplayer or PBEM) does not have to be achieved purely by having two equal forces-i.e "symmetric balancing" (although there is certainly nothing wrong with going that route if you want to). There are also plenty of ways to asymmetrically balance a scenario. Some examples may include:

-The scoring system. The weaker side (WEAKFOR) may get points for destroying any unit, while the stronger side (STRONGFOR) may only get points for completing objective. Or maybe WEAKFOR is not penalized for lost units, but STRONGFOR is penalized heavily. There are probably of dozens of possible permutations of this sort of thing at least.

-The objectives. One side may have overwhelming forces, but if they have to accomplish their objectives in an extremely tight time frame, the scenario might still be balanced (since WEAKFOR simply has to delay, not defeat their opponent). Operation Lighting Strike is probably a good example of this.

-Operational Limitations. Maybe STRONGFOR is not permitted overflight of key airspace, but WEAKFOR is given carte blanche to do so. Maybe STRONGFOR has to use Sustained operations but WEAKFOR uses Surge. Maybe STRONGFOR has to operate from far away bases and make use of extensive air to air refueling to bring a concentration of its forces to bear, or maybe it even lacks sufficient air to air refueling assets to employ more than a fraction of its force at any one time. Again, the possibilities here are numerous.

-Environmental Limitations. Maybe STRONGFOR has considerable and sophisticated ASW assets, but the high sea state prevents those assets from functioning at full effectiveness against WEAKFOR's older submarines. Maybe a low cloud layer prevents the stronger force from using their laser guided bombs against WEAKFOR forces, forcing STRONGFOR to bring their strike aircraft within the engagement envelopes of WEAKFOR's AAA and MANPADS.

-Weapons Availability. Maybe STRONGFOR has only a limited amount of their most sophisticated weapons. After all, stocks of weapons like Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, are limited and maybe the higher ups would prefer to limit the number of such weapons used in an engagement. Looking at the OOB you've provided here, for instance, how powerful those Rafale M's will be for balance considerations will vary greatly depending on whether or not they have access to Storm Shadows/SCALP EG's and the number of such weapons .

These are just a handful of example, I'm sure there are many others.

< Message edited by stww2 -- 12/1/2021 5:31:11 PM >

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 3

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/1/2021 6:02:39 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Personally, trying to balance an OOB is a forlorn hope if you expect it to translate into some kind of balanced scenario. Different ranges, weapon loadouts, airfield capacities, OODA loops, proficiency, etc. all can have a significant role.

I try to build more real-world OOBs and then use things like the above list and scoring to create the balanced scenario.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to stww2)

Post #: 4

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/1/2021 6:47:26 PM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

The only way to balance a scenario is to playtest it. And that can take a lot of time. There are too many operational factors that are outside the scope of the exact OOBs. Especially for large scenarios.

_____________________________

�The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.�
― Alfred Thayer Mahan

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 5

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/1/2021 7:18:53 PM

nukkxx5058

Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tylerblakebrandon

I think those Foxgloves in the fighter category might be a little OP without a 5th gen counter for blue.

Yeah, it was one concern. To compensate for these, the other side has more stuff in the multirole category, including Rafales from a CV.

< Message edited by nukkxx5058 -- 12/1/2021 7:19:10 PM >

(in reply to tylerblakebrandon)

Post #: 6

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/1/2021 7:47:32 PM

nukkxx5058

Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: France
Status: offline

Thanks for the comments. Yes, perfect equality is definitely not what I'm researching. And I agree that asymetrical scenarios are more fun but they also seem much more difficult to design. As it's my first scenario, I preferred to keep it roughly balanced (but with different platforms and without the perfect equality). Objectives will be similar for the two sides (6 land objectives for each side) as well as scoring (a zero-sum scoring with large penalty for shooting civilians or neutrals).

Also, as it's PBEM-only you can't have one side with plenty of units and the other side with for example just defensive stuff, as it could be boring to play for one side. Hence my decision to have roughly the same number of assets but different platforms, weapons and asymetrical geographical locations. One side will have cargo ops (a landing in Tunisia by Libya). Tunisia side has a CV but not Libya. Both sides should have comparable levels of logistics (AEW, tankers, drones). And there's also ground units around a frontline with objectives to take on both sides.

I agree that testing is he only way to know for sure but as I'm not an expert in weaponry, I wanted to know if you guys would detect something obviously wrong about the platforms:-)

In any case it's fun to develop :-) Having good time doing this. :-)

< Message edited by nukkxx5058 -- 12/1/2021 7:49:10 PM >

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 7

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/4/2021 3:54:11 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

It depends on what the mission is, but glancing at things my answer is no, it isn't.

With aircraft, the issue is how many weapons they can carry, not the number of planes themselves. Think about how many missiles it will take to achieve at least a 50% probability of killing another aircraft. Suppose it takes 1, then if you have as many missiles as there are defenders, you'll destroy about half of them. If it takes 2, then you need to have twice as many missiles as opposing aircraft to destroy half of them.

I'm also not a big fan of "balance." I think it's at best an abstraction and at worst meaningless. What do you mean by balance? That you have even odds of achieving your objective? If I'm going to choose to go on the offence, even odds is horrible! I wouldn't do it! I want it to be highly likely for me to achieve my objective because I don't like to waste forces achieving uncertain goals. I want to accomplish a specifically defined task that has some larger meaning. To do that, I might choose to isolate or ignore certain forces. Depending on how important that task is to me, I might be willing to lose more or less in the course of doing it.

Example #1: The Doolittle Raid on Japan. Retaliation for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was considered so important that they were willing to send 16 tactical bombers with their crews and no escorts versus an unknown number of fighters and AAA. They lost 100% of the aircraft, and yet the raid was considered a victory. They never expected to get back any! Doolittle expected to be court martialed for the loss of almost all his aircraft but instead was given the Medal of Honor and promoted.

Example #2: Package Q Airstrike. The goal was to strike the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad. They flew a total of 78 aircraft versus ~55 Iraqi aircraft. The US lost two aircraft and yet the mission was considered a failure.

See how this works? The number of aircraft in the battles aren't equal, and the number you're willing to lose before throwing in the towel is different. What's considered losing the battle depends on what you're willing to lose and how much you have to show for it in the end. You might be willing to lose everything, but if you get weapons on target you win. You might be willing to lose only a little bit, before giving up with nothing to show for it. Having a well defined goal, and well defined level of risk to go with that goal is what makes a good scenario. The odds of achieving that goal might make it more or less difficult, but "balance" isn't something one is going for. In the first example, they went up against impossible odds, but were willing to lose everything. In the second example, it was balanced numerically in the US's favor, and yet they were willing to lose very little.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 12/4/2021 3:59:45 PM >

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 8

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/4/2021 6:34:17 PM

nukkxx5058

Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

What do you mean by balance?

As my scen is PBEM-only it just means that it can be won by both sides with 2 players of similar level. If you play it 100 times with the same pal (of similar level), 50 times from each side, the final score shouldn't be "too far" from 50% and more important, wins won't always be when playing the same side. A perfectly balanced game (same oob, same objectives, symetrical terrain) would be similar to a chess game (can be fun too in PBEM).

But more important, as it's PBEM-only, it must be fun to be played from both side. And fun is even more important than balanced imo. There are glorious defeats !

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 9

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/4/2021 7:11:52 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Why wouldn't you just mirror both OOBs?

_____________________________

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 10

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/4/2021 9:01:22 PM

musurca

Posts: 128
Joined: 7/16/2020
Status: offline

quote:

Why wouldn't you just mirror both OOBs?

We do this for some PBEM scenarios, like the one we're currently running in the COMPLEX tournament, which is a more chess-like match up between two US carrier battle groups. In the context of a competitive tournament, I think, it's more important to be scrupulously symmetrical and "balanced."

However, I also very much enjoying playing more life-like asymmetrical scenarios in a multiplayer context, where the two sides are in no way balanced, but the operational challenges for both sides are difficult enough that no one feels that they�re at a significant disadvantage. In that case stww2 has mentioned many of the interesting knobs to dial in different directions--and then of course playtesting becomes crucial as also mentioned above.

Our PBEM conversion of Miguel Molina's �Canary�s Cage� works really well given those criteria, in which the OOBs are quite significantly different (matching the different procurement "realities" of the two sides) but the objectives are nearly identical: protect your own convoy, destroy the enemy�s, and land troops on the Canary Islands.

nukkx mentioned that he�s going for something similar, so it would probably be useful to know more about those land-based objectives specifically in order to evaluate whether these OOBs are can be matched against one another.

(As an aside, as we try to expand the PBEM scenario offerings, it would be great to collect a repository of asymmetrical concepts suitable for 2+-player matchups from which scenario designers can freely pull. Historical examples are always great, like the ones mentioned above by SeaQueen.)

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 11

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/4/2021 10:55:27 PM

nukkxx5058

Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Why wouldn't you just mirror both OOBs?

Because I was really impressed by Canary's Cage in PBEM and I'm trying to do something somehow similar. CG is a source of inspiration. But in my scenario, the two OOB won't be that different (unlike CG). CG is totally asymetrical. Not easy to design such a scen, especially for a ScenEdit beginner like me.

I also had good fun in PBEM with "Sakhalin or Karafuto" playing Japan - I lost after 18 turns but it was really cool game. Damn SS-N-19 !! :-) (S or K is also part of the IKE package).

The tournament scenario looks VERY interesting ! Plenty of loadouts to pick. It's 100% symetrical and I'm very eager to start my game !!

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 12

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/4/2021 11:40:52 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nukkxx5058
As my scen is PBEM-only it just means that it can be won by both sides with 2 players of similar level. If you play it 100 times with the same pal (of similar level), 50 times from each side, the final score shouldn't be "too far" from 50% and more important, wins won't always be when playing the same side. A perfectly balanced game (same oob, same objectives, symetrical terrain) would be similar to a chess game (can be fun too in PBEM).

But more important, as it's PBEM-only, it must be fun to be played from both side. And fun is even more important than balanced imo. There are glorious defeats !

So... it's what I thought? Even odds of winning all things being equal? Okay let's set aside the fact that this is completely unrealistic. If I thought I was only going to have even odds of success when I choose go on the offense, I'd be an idiot. That's just not how war is fought.

Instead, let's look at the 50% number. Are you saying that chess (which you're saying is a balanced game) between two equally rated players is equivalent to a coin flip? Well... it's not true. While chess isn't a solved game, statistically, white has the first move advantage. They win somewhere between 52% and 56% of the time, all things being equal. How do you know you've achieved even odds of victory for both sides? This speaks to what I said about how "balance" is at best an abstraction, and at worst meaningless. If you don't know that there's even odds, then it's a purely aspirational abstraction.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 12/4/2021 11:53:22 PM >

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 13

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/5/2021 8:27:05 AM

nukkxx5058

Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: France
Status: offline

This is exactly why I said "shouldn't be too far from 50% ". And not 80/20.
In chess blacks are perfectly winnable even if whites have the slight advantage of playing first. If it wasn't the case nobody would play chess.
And my experience with CMO-PBEM is that it's important that both sides are winnable. Otherwise it leads to frustration.
For example, in the scenario "Duelists" Russia is by far too powerful and the poor brits have no chance. As soon as they are detected, they lie on the bottom of the sea the next turn (maybe a great CMO player could win it with Brits ?). This is fun but not for the Brittish player.
Hence the need for the scenario to be "somehow" balanced.

And back to my OOB, I can't decide (particularly regarding naval OOBs). As suggested, the best will be to first test-play against myself and then to try against another player. Still have some fine tuning to do. There's also a ground combat aspect in my scen. For ground combat I have +/- balanced forces along a front line with generic infantry, motorized inf. armors and arty.
I also need to add SSMs along the coastline but I don't want them to have a crazy range or to be too deadly. A max 40 to 70nm range would be OK IMO. Any suggestions ?
For AD, one side had S-200 the other have some equivalent range patriots. Might add a few short range Crotale on Tunisia/France side.
So despite the scen being in 2024 I might have to pick in the old rusty soviet stock :-) Afteral it's Tunisa vs Libya so why not ? And yes, it's a fantasy scenario where modern stuff from allies (FR and RU) will co-exist with some older platforms from these north African countries ...

The land objectives are roughly symetrical. One palace in both capital cities and 2 other land objectives spread in the countryside (both sides). Plus 3 land objectives on each side of ground battle frontline. And a zero-sum scoring for enemy planes/facility/ships killed. + huge penalty (equivalent to losing a ship) for shooting at civilians or neutral military units (aircraft, sub, ship).

And naval units position is randomized at game start.

Will see if it's playable ... :-)

< Message edited by nukkxx5058 -- 12/5/2021 8:28:47 AM >

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 14

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/5/2021 10:49:50 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nukkxx5058

This is exactly why I said "shouldn't be too far from 50% ". And not 80/20.
In chess blacks are perfectly winnable even if whites have the slight advantage of playing first. If it wasn't the case nobody would play chess.
And my experience with CMO-PBEM is that it's important that both sides are winnable. Otherwise it leads to frustration.
For example, in the scenario "Duelists" Russia is by far too powerful and the poor brits have no chance. As soon as they are detected, they lie on the bottom of the sea the next turn (maybe a great CMO player could win it with Brits ?). This is fun but not for the Brittish player.

It is winnable as the British player. Have you considered that you haven't worked out a strategy to win it yet?

quote:

Hence the need for the scenario to be "somehow" balanced.

And back to my OOB, I can't decide (particularly regarding naval OOBs). As suggested, the best will be to first test-play against myself and then to try against another player. Still have some fine tuning to do. There's also a ground combat aspect in my scen. For ground combat I have +/- balanced forces along a front line with generic infantry, motorized inf. armors and arty.
I also need to add SSMs along the coastline but I don't want them to have a crazy range or to be too deadly. A max 40 to 70nm range would be OK IMO. Any suggestions ?
For AD, one side had S-200 the other have some equivalent range patriots. Might add a few short range Crotale on Tunisia/France side.
So despite the scen being in 2024 I might have to pick in the old rusty soviet stock :-) Afteral it's Tunisa vs Libya so why not ? And yes, it's a fantasy scenario where modern stuff from allies (FR and RU) will co-exist with some older platforms from these north African countries ...

The land objectives are roughly symetrical. One palace in both capital cities and 2 other land objectives spread in the countryside (both sides). Plus 3 land objectives on each side of ground battle frontline. And a zero-sum scoring for enemy planes/facility/ships killed. + huge penalty (equivalent to losing a ship) for shooting at civilians or neutral military units (aircraft, sub, ship).

And naval units position is randomized at game start.

Will see if it's playable ... :-)

I think you're on the right track with playtesting. It's more efficient and where the rubber meets the road. Good luck!

Mike

_____________________________

Don't call it a comeback...

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 15

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/5/2021 11:02:25 PM

musurca

Posts: 128
Joined: 7/16/2020
Status: offline

quote:

It is winnable as the British player. Have you considered that you haven't worked out a strategy to win it yet?

Keep in mind that nukkxx is talking about the scenario in a PBEM multiplayer context. The British side may be winnable in a solo game, but in practice with two competent human players who are familiar with the situation, I've also found that the Soviet side usually wins handily.

But that's largely my fault, as "Duelists" was one of the first existing solo scenarios that I converted for PBEM play, and so I did very little to adapt and balance it, other than some initial randomization of the starting positions. If you were ever interested in doing a multiplayer remaster, we'd love to have it in the PBEM scenario pack! :)

< Message edited by musurca -- 12/5/2021 11:30:39 PM >

(in reply to BDukes)

Post #: 16

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/6/2021 12:17:02 AM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: musurca

quote:

It is winnable as the British player. Have you considered that you haven't worked out a strategy to win it yet?

Keep in mind that nukkxx is talking about the scenario in a PBEM multiplayer context. The British side may be winnable in a solo game, but in practice with two competent human players who are familiar with the situation, I've also found that the Soviet side usually wins handily.

Sounds like you've done work and are working toward a solution. That's great

quote:

But that's largely my fault, as "Duelists" was one of the first existing solo scenarios that I converted for PBEM play, and so I did very little to adapt and balance it, other than some initial randomization of the starting positions. If you were ever interested in doing a multiplayer remaster, we'd love to have it in the PBEM scenario pack! :)

I'm glad my work helped you but not interested at this point. Climbing a new mountain these days and just building CMO stuff for me nowadays and not for anybody else's project, stream, career, or opinion. A lot of lessons learned during CMANO

Mike

< Message edited by BDukes -- 12/6/2021 12:47:11 AM >

_____________________________

Don't call it a comeback...

(in reply to musurca)

Post #: 17

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/6/2021 1:03:37 AM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

quote:

ORIGINAL: nukkxx5058
As my scen is PBEM-only it just means that it can be won by both sides with 2 players of similar level. If you play it 100 times with the same pal (of similar level), 50 times from each side, the final score shouldn't be "too far" from 50% and more important, wins won't always be when playing the same side. A perfectly balanced game (same oob, same objectives, symetrical terrain) would be similar to a chess game (can be fun too in PBEM).

But more important, as it's PBEM-only, it must be fun to be played from both side. And fun is even more important than balanced imo. There are glorious defeats !

So... it's what I thought? Even odds of winning all things being equal? Okay let's set aside the fact that this is completely unrealistic. If I thought I was only going to have even odds of success when I choose go on the offense, I'd be an idiot. That's just not how war is fought.

Instead, let's look at the 50% number. Are you saying that chess (which you're saying is a balanced game) between two equally rated players is equivalent to a coin flip? Well... it's not true. While chess isn't a solved game, statistically, white has the first move advantage. They win somewhere between 52% and 56% of the time, all things being equal. How do you know you've achieved even odds of victory for both sides? This speaks to what I said about how "balance" is at best an abstraction, and at worst meaningless. If you don't know that there's even odds, then it's a purely aspirational abstraction.

Their objective seems to be more e-sporty which is totally fine.

Playtest is probably the most efficient way forward unless they want to endlessly debate the value of the SA-6a vs. SA-6b

If they want to pursue some statistical methods I think James Dunnigan's How to Make War Book had ratings based on some older military stuff. Some of the salvo stuff in Fleet Tactics might be useful too when looking at salvo vs. def. I'm not confident this would really yield a better result than playtesting.

Mike

_____________________________

Don't call it a comeback...

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 18

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/6/2021 6:57:49 PM

BobTank63

Posts: 52
Joined: 9/23/2021
Status: offline

If you do plan on redoing duelists for a PBEM context, I recommend dropping the Oscar. That sub is pretty much an instant win button, especially since it starts in range of the British fleet.

(in reply to musurca)

Post #: 19

RE: Are these OOB balanced ? - 12/7/2021 1:33:27 AM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline