Rigging The Game (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message


vahauser -> Rigging The Game (6/10/2007 10:28:28 AM)

It has been suggested in another thread that there are ways to Rig the Game in a player’s favor.

Here are some ways to Rig the Game.

On a 1 to 10 scale (with 10 being an overwhelming advantage for the player):

Choosing to play a WW2 Long Campaign (10+, the most overwhelming advantage a player can rig for himself)
Choosing to employ mines and barbed wire and dragons teeth (10)
Choosing to play a Generated Campaign (9, almost as overwhelming as a WW2 Long Campaign)
Choosing the US Army or USMC (5, American artillery)
Choosing to employ airstrikes (4 or 5 depending on nation and year)
Choosing the Germans or Soviets or British ( 3 or 4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ on-board artillery larger than 82mm mortars (3 or 4 depending on size of artillery)
Choosing to employ commando special operations (2 or 3, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ airborne operations (2 or 3, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to play with C&C OFF (2)
Choosing to use reinforcements during play (1 or 2, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to play with Op-Fire Confirm ON (1)
Choosing Reduced Ammo ON (1, only if playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign)
Choosing Reduced Squads ON (1, only if playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign)

If you know of other ways to Rig the Game, then here is the thread to post in and discuss them.




sabrejack -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/10/2007 4:26:44 PM)

Playing against Goblin - you're bound to win... [:'(]




Alby -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/10/2007 5:02:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sabrejack

Playing against Goblin - you're bound to win... [:'(]


well not me....he kicked my butt once......
[:(]




Korpraali V -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/10/2007 6:24:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby


quote:

ORIGINAL: sabrejack

Playing against Goblin - you're bound to win... [:'(]


well not me....he kicked my butt once......
[:(]


I've heard rumors about it...




Alby -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/10/2007 6:25:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby


quote:

ORIGINAL: sabrejack

Playing against Goblin - you're bound to win... [:'(]


well not me....he kicked my butt once......
[:(]


I've heard rumors about it...

you want some of me??
[:D]




Riun T -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/10/2007 6:51:07 PM)

My personal favorite is the one vickyhauser always uses,never mentions,and completely abuses. RARITY,, surely being able to pick ANY unit to ANY unit concentration at ANY theatre anytime of the year could be considered an exploit,, How about you actually finish a whole campaign before you comment on the whats and whatnots,,, GOD I'm tired of hearing VA's fanfair,, how about u let one of US other forumers set up your core and preferences and u try and play it all the way threw,, I'm in the 6th battle of the long long road to victory camp playing as a majority of indian core,, with the same preferences as FLASHFYRE"S LONG, and am not scared to admit I'm getting slaughtered 5 draws in a row boys!! wanna see?




vahauser -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/10/2007 8:13:52 PM)

Rarity OFF is indeed an advantage for the human player.  In terms of how much an advantage, I'd say that depends on the kind of Campaign being played.  In a WW2 Long Campaign I'd rate it a 4, in a Generated Campaign I'd rate it a 3, and in a custom designed campaign like Long Long Road, I'd rate it a 1 or a 2 (probably a 2).

Here is a revised list including Rarity OFF:

Choosing to play a WW2 Long Campaign (10+, the most overwhelming advantage a player can rig for himself)
Choosing to employ mines and barbed wire and dragons teeth (10)
Choosing to play a Generated Campaign (9, almost as overwhelming as a WW2 Long Campaign)
Choosing the US Army or USMC (5, American artillery)
Choosing to employ airstrikes (4 or 5 depending on nation and year)
Choosing the Germans or Soviets or British (3 or 4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ on-board artillery larger than 82mm mortars (2-4, depending on size of artillery)
Choosing to employ Rarity OFF (2-4, depending on the kind of campaign being played)
Choosing to employ commando special operations (2-4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ airborne operations (2-4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to play with C&C OFF (2)
Choosing to use reinforcements during play (1 or 2, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to play with Op-Fire Confirm ON (1)
Choosing Reduced Ammo ON (1, only if playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign)
Choosing Reduced Squads ON (1, only if playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign)

[EDIT: Riun, my name is Victor. If you want to start another thread with a campaign proposal for me, then I'd be interested in seeing it. But please do it in another thread.]




Goblin -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/10/2007 8:45:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sabrejack

Playing against Goblin - you're bound to win... [:'(]


[:(]

[;)]




vahauser -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 2:09:26 AM)

After further reflection, I think that the advantage for playing with Rarity OFF in a custom designed campaign is more often a 1 instead of a 2.  Since players cannot accumulate build points in a custom designer campaign (like Long Long Road), and since the number of build points per battle is usually less than in a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign, then Rarity OFF is not that important because the human player cannot change/upgrade more than a few units per battle anyway.

Here is a revised list:

Choosing to play a WW2 Long Campaign (10+, the most overwhelming advantage a player can rig for himself)
Choosing to employ mines and barbed wire and dragons teeth (10)
Choosing to play a Generated Campaign (9, almost as overwhelming as a WW2 Long Campaign)
Choosing the US Army or USMC (5, American artillery)
Choosing to employ airstrikes (4 or 5 depending on nation and year)
Choosing the Germans or Soviets or British (3 or 4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ on-board artillery larger than 82mm mortars (2-4, depending on size of artillery)
Choosing to employ commando special operations (2-4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ airborne operations (2-4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ Rarity OFF (1-4, depending on the kind of campaign being played)
Choosing to play with C&C OFF (2)
Choosing to use reinforcements during play (1 or 2, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to play with Op-Fire Confirm ON (1)
Choosing Reduced Ammo ON (1, only if playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign)
Choosing Reduced Squads ON (1, only if playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign)




Riun T -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 3:01:06 AM)

Don't forget unloading crew's in a pivital point in the combat,! just so they won't draw fire and get destroyed!!
VA,,, whats your point, not once in this or any # of posts before have you done anything substantial or outstanding in any of the minimal examples you've shown,, AND always come up with an excuse as to why this campaign won't work for u,, or why these settings can't be factual,punctual,or practical for u,, TO COMPLETE A FULL series of battles. How can u even start to believe that ANY of us other forumers take u or your supposed knowledge of this game seriously?!  




Goblin -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 3:05:34 AM)

Polite, please? [:)]




vahauser -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 3:19:55 AM)

Riun,

Bailing out of vehicles is a perfectly sane and historical way to play. 

If I was your commander and I ordered you to take your jeep and drive that recon squad down the road into an expected enemy fire zone, I would not expect you to sit inside your jeep while the recon squad was doing its job.  I would expect you to get out of your jeep and take cover until the recon troops had done their job.

Riun, as you yourself just said, I have not done "anything substantial or outstanding in any of the minimal examples I've shown."  Since you yourself have said that my efforts are worthless, then why should I continue posting any more examples or DARs?  But if you want me to play a campaign according to your rules and guidelines, then start a thread and let's see what happens.

P.S. I ran a test this afternoon with Rarity ON and nothing that I did in my Group Anders Long Long Road thread would have been affected by Rarity ON.  But, just so you know, I have turned Rarity ON for any of my future campaign battles.




Riun T -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 3:36:58 AM)

Good man, now get u and your ailing liver to actually finish something.
Add a side note to your history,even if the crew bailed out in real life the enemy would still shoot the crap out of the abandoned vehicle once spotted. so your sliding that off as anything aside of a game quirk is rediculous! much like arguing with u about limited ammo when u ardently buy ammo crates anyway!?!




vahauser -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 3:59:52 AM)

Riun,

They would not shoot at an abandoned vehicle because it would give their position away.

And that is the reason why playing with Reduced Ammo ON does not favor the computer, playing with Reduced Ammo ON favors the human.  Note that I listed this as giving the human player an advantage.

EDIT: But if you want me to play a campaign according to your rules and guidelines, then start a thread and let's see what happens?




KG Erwin -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 6:00:36 AM)

This is my final attempt.

Victor, tell me exactly why my chosen preferences make the AI's task more difficult.

1) Reduced squads ON
2) Reduced ammo ON
3) Setting stacking limits for MY forces (no more than two AFV and/or two infantry squads per hex)
4) Turning mines OFF for both sides
5) Limiting my off-board arty support to one battalion (16 tubes max), and on-board support augmentation to 4 tubes (no larger than 75 mm), and/or two planes, a single battleship, a single cruiser, and a single destroyer (if available)
6) Keeping my core-force size to under 3000 points
7) No more than 20 AFVs in my core force
8) No glider/paratroop drops (unless, of course, the scenario/campaign features them)

Look, I can give you a suggested core force, if you want, using these conditions for a USMC long campaign. Yeah, you'll still win, but it's pretty tough in the early days. I set arty at 120%. The other preferences (within my guidelines) are up to you.

(Addendum : OK, here it is. The OOB is from my own customized set. 2101 buy points used. You are commanding a reinforced Marine Rifle Battalion, augmented with 15 M2A4 tanks from Company A of the 1st Tank Battalion, and also two M3 75mm SPAs and a couple of 37mm ATGs from the Regiment's Weapons Company. Your battalion's standard TOE includes three rifle companies, with the support of four 81mm mortars, nine 60mm mortars, and 18 .30-cal M1919A4 MMGs. Offboard support is provided by a battalion of 105s from the 11th Marines. It is August 1942, and you are tasked to conduct an advance against a Japanese force of unknown size. You are to disrupt and destroy the enemy before they complete their preparations to counterattack and recapture the airfield. Good luck, Colonel.

The save slot is number 7. Download here: http://www.sendspace.com/file/g240ac )

The opening campaign battle scene I offered up. This one's a classic. No roads at all. Broken jungle, ridges scattered here & there. A perfect nightmare. Limited visibility, and it's probably raining. If you guys wanna play in my shoes, this is where you start:


[image]local://upfiles/813/DBCAD24E2F9748388B1B00335A8F0E1F.jpg[/image]




vahauser -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 8:43:22 AM)

Glenn,

My initial thought after reading your post is that you enjoy playing a certain way. And after the events of this weekend, I’m more certain than ever that the ‘enjoyment factor’ is more important than any other consideration when playing SPWAW. What follows is not a critique, but rather some explanations and observations.

Let’s start with the items you mentioned in your post.

Reduced Ammo ON hurts the computer because in the final analysis it is enemy artillery that can cause the most damage to your core. Since the computer does not know how to employ ammo dumps, then the computer will suffer from Reduced Ammo ON because the one weapon system that is most dangerous to the human (the enemy artillery) the computer will have fewer rounds to fire, which means less damage to the human player. I recommend Limited Ammo ON because it gives the computer more artillery rounds to inflict damage on the human player. All other considerations are minor compared to giving the computer plenty of artillery rounds to hurt the human player. So choosing Limited Ammo ON helps the computer and choosing Reduced Ammo ON hurts the computer. EDIT: Note that I only gave the human advantage for Reduced Ammo ON a 1 out of 10 so it isn't really a big deal one way or the other (on the other hand, adding up a lot of little advantages can still make a big difference overall).

The Japanese squads you face have between 13-20 men each. The USMC squads you start with are 9 men each, and become 13 men each later in the war. The average reduction is 1 man per squad using Reduced Squads ON. This means that the average reduction for the USMC is around 11% per squad (early war) and the average reduction for the Japanese is around 6% per squad. On the surface this would seem to indicate that the Japanese benefit and you suffer from Reduced Squads ON. However, if you play with AI Advantage ON and Hard Battle (x2) like I do, then the computer will be purchasing twice or three times as many infantry units as you do. In this special case of early war in the Pacific Theater, the net effect of Reduced Squads ON is about even (with perhaps a very slight edge in overall points lost favoring the human). But it’s probably too close to call. However, as the campaign goes on, then the advantage becomes more and more in the human’s favor as the size of the USMC squads increase. Until, by 1944-45 the USMC will have a definite advantage over the Japanese using Reduced Squads ON. Bottom Line: In all situations where the size of opposing squads is roughly equal, then the computer suffers more than the human player using Reduced Squads ON. However, I realize that the ‘enjoyment factor’ is more important in some cases than what the numbers say. So even though the numbers say that Reduced Squads ON favors the human, the ‘enjoyment factor’ might be more important to some players. And since playing with Reduced Squads ON never favors the human player by very much (I only gave it a 1 on a 1-to-10 scale), then this is not a huge advantage for the human player, especially compared to some of the other ways the human player can rig the game.

We spent a whole thread discussing stacking. The photographic evidence is overwhelming that up to 6 units per hex in actual combat is absolutely historical. At least double that (12+ units) is historical in rear assembly areas. I have absolutely no problem with you choosing to handicap yourself by only allowing 4 units per hex. If you look at my Group Anders Long Long Road thread, you will note that I often operate with 2 units per hex, and rarely more than 3. So, I don’t have a problem with the way you choose to limit your stacking.

Turning Mines OFF is an enormous disadvantage for the computer. I leave Mines ON for the computer and I simply choose to never use mines (or barbed wire or dragons teeth) myself. Besides artillery, mines are one of the best killers the computer has. Depriving the computer of one of its best killers is a tremendous (possibly even overwhelming) advantage for the human player. [And on a related topic, I recommend always spending all your support points. You can deploy them in the rear and never use them, but when you spend all your support points it allows the computer to spend more points, too. This means that you can give the computer an advantage by spending, but not using, all your support points. And it means that you can call on those unused support points hiding in the rear if the situation ever gets desperate. Spend all your support points.]

American artillery is already overwhelming. Simply by choosing the US Army or USMC, the human player is giving himself a major advantage against the computer (or against another human for that matter). A single American battleship can wipe out an entire Japanese combat force all by itself. I personally try to limit myself to 81mm mortars or less on map (and 105mm howitzers, or 122mm if Soviet, off map). Since American artillery is so powerful, anything over 81mm is a tremendous advantage for the human player. Even American 81mm mortars are devastating enough.

I never use airstrikes. Never. Airstrikes are even more deadly than artillery. And American airstrikes are even deadlier than that. Further, airstrikes allow the human player to gain aerial reconnaissance over the enemy positions. Airstrikes are a tremendous advantage for the human player, especially when using strike elements that can make multiple attack runs.

A core size 3000 points or less is an excellent idea (I myself pretty much always choose a starting core between 2500 and 3000). However, even more important than the number of initial core points is the number of core units. If you divide your initial core points by the number of units in your core, and the result is 25 or less, then you are not giving yourself an advantage over the computer (indeed, a result of 20 or less is giving the computer a definite advantage). However, the larger your result is greater than 25 means the greater the advantage you are giving yourself over the computer. A result between 20 and 25 is fair and reasonable.

Against the Japanese, 20 AFVs is sufficient, especially given a starting core of 3000 points or less. Of all the ‘Big Six’ nations, the Japanese are by far the weakest. Indeed, I would rank the Japanese weaker than several ‘minor’ nations. The USMC against the Japanese is not a fair fight. I’m not saying this to anger you. I’m just pointing out that one of the reasons most players fight in the European Theater is because the level of competition is tougher and more balanced. Simply choosing to play the USMC against the Japanese is pretty much a guarantee that you will usually crush the computer. It’s practically built into the system. Once again, this is not meant as an insult, but rather it is just an observation. The ‘enjoyment factor’ is the bottom line. You enjoy playing the USMC against the Japanese. That is more important than pretty much any other consideration. One of my friends likes to come home from work and buy 20,000 points of ‘Experience 120’ Tiger tanks and then go overrun the Soviets. And while I think that’s ridiculous, it’s fun for him.

You and I have one thing in common at least. We are both in the minority on this forum. You are a Pacific Theater player on a predominately European Theater forum. And I’m a Cat2 player on a Cat1 forum (which makes me a minority of 1).

Before I make any decisions regarding what to do about your proposal concerning a possible USMC campaign (using your rules and core and guidelines), first I’m going to wait and see what Riun T is going to do about starting the thread I suggested.

--V






Nikademus -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 8:18:31 PM)

[sm=00000007.gif]




Korpraali V -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 8:35:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby


quote:

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby


quote:

ORIGINAL: sabrejack

Playing against Goblin - you're bound to win... [:'(]


well not me....he kicked my butt once......
[:(]


I've heard rumors about it...

you want some of me??
[:D]



Would that hurt me? [;)]

(Sorry for hijacking your thread)




Alby -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 8:37:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby


quote:

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby


quote:

ORIGINAL: sabrejack

Playing against Goblin - you're bound to win... [:'(]


well not me....he kicked my butt once......
[:(]


I've heard rumors about it...

you want some of me??
[:D]



Would that hurt me? [;)]

(Sorry for hijacking your thread)

scared huh??
[:D][:D][:D]




Korpraali V -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 8:41:45 PM)

[sm=innocent0001.gif]




Alby -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 9:29:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V

[sm=innocent0001.gif]

[sm=fighting0083.gif]




vahauser -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/12/2007 12:14:44 AM)

Nikademus,

Until now, I had expected better from you.  I'm not sure why you want to provoke me.  And I'm not sure why you want to ruin this thread.  Will you tell me why?


Korpraali V,

See my comments to Nikademus above.  I consider thread hijacking to be pretty despicable.


EDIT: I expect this sort of behavior from some posters on this forum, but until now I'd not expected it from Korpraali or Nikademus.




Goblin -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/12/2007 1:23:53 AM)

quote:

Turning Mines OFF is an enormous disadvantage for the computer. I leave Mines ON for the computer and I simply choose to never use mines (or barbed wire or dragons teeth) myself.


I have to agree with this. I am a bit confused on why anyone would think this is a good thing for the AI.




Goblin




Nikademus -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/12/2007 4:59:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Nikademus,

Until now, I had expected better from you. I'm not sure why you want to provoke me. And I'm not sure why you want to ruin this thread. Will you tell me why?


Korpraali V,

See my comments to Nikademus above. I consider thread hijacking to be pretty despicable.


EDIT: I expect this sort of behavior from some posters on this forum, but until now I'd not expected it from Korpraali or Nikademus.


My apologies....but your last response to a simple [sm=00000007.gif] was just too hilarious. I wanted an encore. [;)]

P.S. you need to lighten up. [:)]




Korpraali V -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/12/2007 5:17:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Nikademus,

Until now, I had expected better from you. I'm not sure why you want to provoke me. And I'm not sure why you want to ruin this thread. Will you tell me why?


Korpraali V,

See my comments to Nikademus above. I consider thread hijacking to be pretty despicable.


EDIT: I expect this sort of behavior from some posters on this forum, but until now I'd not expected it from Korpraali or Nikademus.



My apologies. As you can see from the first posts, all started with harmless jokes between me and Alby. I guess that wasn't intented to continue this long from either of us.

Truth be said, I'm not against you or what you say. But I'd sometimes hope that you'd say it little more polite way. Naturally, that is what I hope with some others in here too. Not all comments are in need to be commented at all or handled as an personal attack - even if it's one, that's mostly the attacker's personal problem.

This is only a game (although an excellent one), and we all have real life which is way more important. SPWAW or discussing about it is something we do not need to take death serious. That'll only lead to heartattack [;)]

This as a general reminder, not directed to anyone especially.




vahauser -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/12/2007 5:41:54 AM)

Okay.  I agree.  Let's move on.

You're gonna keep the thread open, Goblin?




Goblin -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/13/2007 1:57:21 AM)

Yes.




vahauser -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/13/2007 3:14:02 AM)

Good.

Just waiting to hear from Riun T and/or Glenn.





FlashfyreSP -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/14/2007 7:13:17 AM)

I notice you haven't listed AutoRally ON as an advantage...personally, I rank that as a 7.




Riun T -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/14/2007 7:59:13 AM)

So VA why don't u try finishing taskforce anders?? or try out what I'm getting my butt punted around the battlefield with right now,, I'm on turn 5 of the 7th battle in the long long road campaign. so far my almost exclusively indian core has fought 6 very hard draws,[&:] and I'm used to winning alot more than this as u could easily calculate by the example of the flash campaign,, I guess that has been my problem with U and the way u come across,since u started posting months ago on your "extreme challenge campaign"
U claim this game is from what I gather by the tone of your posts,"is almost boreing for the ease in which u can dominate the AI with your "POWER GAMING". but yet threw whatever life issues come around and as time goes by in the forum more of us are noticing that your failing to provide the "meat and potatoes" tangible pictorial evidence of someone who claims to be able to beat this game on a whim! I don't think u've tried every scenario,, I don't think U've tried all the mini campaigns,, I really don't think U've got the staying power or mental fortitude to actually convince any of us that U've actually completed a FULL campaign but yet you continue to spout off with the kind of reteric that would leed junior members or new attendees to believe your some kind of GURU with this game,, so if I sound a little brash or cynical, Its all because I guess I didn't catch your name or avitar on the credits for this great game..




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125