Scenario Design - VP Balance discussion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Scenario Design - VP Balance discussion

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] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Scenario Design - VP Balance discussion

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Scenario Design - VP Balance discussion - 12/8/2001 9:23:00 PM

generalrichmond

Posts: 178
Joined: 10/15/2001
From: richmond, va
Status: offline

There was a thread on this a while back, but I wanted to start it up again and start speaking particulars for suggestions on VP balance and considerations when constructing scenarios. I am fairly new to SPWaW scenario design and am concerned with creating proper balances within scenarios in regards to VPs, since in campaigns this is crucial. It is obvious, then, that one must consider just *what* would be required to consider a victory for the player as a decisive victory. Given that, I consider the TOTAL VALUE POINT of the enemy (AI) force and consider the loss of a certain percentage of it as necessary. This generates a certain number of points. Then I consider the balance needed in VP objective occupation and work that in. Of course, that goes for a general battle. If it was a quick advance where the player was to occupy ground and just sweep aside any resistance, then VP hexes would get the brunt of the consideration for balance. Conversely the type of scenario where a player needs to essentially crush the enemy and VP objectives are few. A real mauling is necessary. Those are the three types of battles I know of and each has slightly different impacts on how you use VPs. I know the button to alter the value of either force is quite important. I am speaking of the one that can drop a force's value up or down in percentages (available in the editor). The main thing that I find hard to account for in balancing is objective hexes that score point PER TURN. These are kinda difficult at times. I am thinking you have to consider it from this angle - well, if the player wants a decisive victory, then he needs to start occupying this hex by such and such a turn. Any comments on my thoughts here are welcome. I'd like to know what theories or practices people use in designing good scenarios.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 12/10/2001 1:13:00 PM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

It is very difficult to offer concrete advice on objective values here, General. It is really more of learn as you go kind of thing. I can mention a few things to consider in setting objective values. Make it always possible to achieve a major victory, even if you must limit the player to taking one side or the other. I'm against, very much against, making objective values so low that no matter what the player does he cannot achieve a decisive victory. Now, there are exceptions to that rule. It could be a situation in a campaign where you just don't want the player to get a decisive to force him down another path. Remember, there are many different types of scenarios that can be done with five different types of victory objectives. This includes the normal meeting engagements, attack-defend and now raids (one time capture objectives), retreats (using exit hexes), Also consider in testing what possible losses to the player versus losses to the AI will be and use those figures to calculate into what the final scores should be. Doing those two things alone will help you come to some balanced play and the possiblity of the wide range of outcomes included in the game. Wild Bill

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to generalrichmond)

Post #: 2

- 12/10/2001 7:50:00 PM

richmonder

Posts: 158
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: Richmond, VA USA
Status: offline

Thanks, WBW - I thought I was gonna have to bump the post but thought if I was going to hear from anyone it would be you. I am getting better as to balancing the VPs and it's everything you've said. You *do* have to take into account the point value of each force and expected (or desired) losses to each for point totals on each side. Regarding the strategic VP objective (the one used for 'raids' as you put it), I have a concern: it seems to me that the only thing you can do is set it to an initial neutral status and then the first side to it gets it - correct? I'd really have loved it if I could set it to one side and it could only change ONCE. Like start Soviet and then only be occupied and owned by Germans once, if at all. Oh well - can't have the moon. Five objective types is already a 500% increase! haha

_____________________________

Respectfully,
Richmonder
(formerly Gen. Richmond)

(in reply to generalrichmond)

Post #: 3

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Scenario Design - VP Balance discussion

Page: [1]