(Full Version)

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



Message

AmmoSgt -> (3/7/2001 2:09:00 PM)

Maybe thats where i am so out of tune with things ..I don't think of this as a "tank" game ..I thought of SP1 as a "tank" game, SPWAW I think of as somewhat more comprehensive than that.. anyway bear in mind that i am not asking that anything be added to the OOB's so slots shouldn't be a problem....,,,,, I am saying units that are in the game are either dated to put them out of reach of PBEM players or not inculded in formations so the can't be bought for PBEM play ....&& <---new punctuation [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] anyway i think lotta folks have a lotta ideas as to what makes or breaks a good game .....choice has always been an SP series strongpoint... but with the strictures of PBEM ... making stuff already in the OOB available for use in other than scenario/campaign mode where you can upgrade to neat stuff you can't buy , like the 4.5" MRL's I don't see the problem.....folks can negotiate amounts of arty if they want ...



Pack Rat -> (3/7/2001 2:27:00 PM)

Yeah, I think there was a time when I too thought of SP as a tank game. I've a pbem game going where I have 4 Tigers sitting all with in 10 hexes of the last victory hexes. I've bombarded the hexes for at least two turns, but no way am I going in there until the slow ass infantry gets there. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] I've learned the hard way. ------------------ PR http://electricwar.tripod.com/ Now of course I've said I won't take them (the Tigers) in alone, but I would also like fellow readers to recall a thread call "Newbie mistakes I still make" by yours truly. Wonder if I'll actually wait for the infantry to get there? [This message has been edited by Pack Rat (edited March 07, 2001).]



Colonel von Blitz -> (3/7/2001 5:08:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: There are plenty of outlets for those who disagree and want to do their own OOB...and we encourage folks to do so!
Yes there are possibilities to do your own OOBs but like AmmoSgt, I too tend to play ONLY PBEM games so modified OOBs are out of question. I don't think I'm asking moon and stars from the sky, just the tools to make the battle I wish to do. There are limits in amount of units, I know that, but sounds like that some units are being removed because they tend to 'unbalance' the game. Well, maybe WWII as a whole wasn't that 'balanced'...I think there was quite a lot of japanese soldiers who thought that americans use way too much naval guns, or maybe there was a lot of russian tankers who thought that finnish infantry is too effective against their tanks [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] If people can't agree themselves the rules of their battles and decide which piece of equipment is valid for battle in question. Then it's them to blame, not the OOBs. And finally, don't get me wrong: I do love this game and I really thank you guys for it!! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Colonel von Blitz



frank1970 -> (3/7/2001 6:45:00 PM)

Captain Brian: I have heard that about 10 Serbian tanks were destroyed while the whole bombing-campagne [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img].



Paul Vebber -> (3/7/2001 8:59:00 PM)

By "tank game" I meant the origianl SP roots of the game and its inherant design. Artillery, Air and to a lessor extent infantry are "added in" so short of designing a whole new system (which really needs a whole new game). We are stuck working in the architecture of what is basically a tank game, despite teh fact that we have gone to extensive lengths to epand it beyond that, we are still stuck with some oversimplifications where the game gets beyond tanks shooting at each other. That was all I meant [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] As to "turst us, we'll do right" just look at all the threads complaining abou this unit or that unit...THere is a line we have to walk, and since we can't put everything anyway, we tend to be conservative about what gets put in. If its a strange varient tank, then odds are it will find away in becasue teh guys who do the OOBs tend to be more vehicle -centric, and within the limits of the game, there frnakly isn;t that much difference between "big boom things" a Level bomber attack and a rail gun bombardment are not going to be that much different to the guys on the reciving end, its just a matter of how many and for how long..



CaptainBrian -> (3/8/2001 12:06:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Frank: Captain Brian: I have heard that about 10 Serbian tanks were destroyed while the whole bombing-campagne [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img].
That sounds about right, also I heard where post strike photos showed track trails where many of the "destroyed" tanks were actually dragged off by tank retrievers.



AmmoSgt -> (3/8/2001 12:19:00 AM)

Most of the threads i see complain about either German heavy Tanks... Tigers and such or wulfraums .. or american arty/air ..well theres the rifle gernade thingy .. ok lets take out all the stuff that folks complain about then ... the Tigers and King Tigers and wulfraums too... not just the american arty .. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] ... and Panzerfausts those too ... Oh wait ..i think i see a pattern Would it be possible to have an offical list of what "adjustments" in the game have been made to avoid complaints and imbalance ?... just so we all know.. Paul if i am reading you right..you are offically saying that the Allied OOB's are Offically dumbed down and Offically handicapped by denying the Allies equipment explictedly so that the Axis player has a better chance of winning ?? tell me it ain't so ... I'm not asking that you increase arty leathality ..I'm not asking that you add a single unit to the OOB.. and i really don't care if you make the Allied Units in the OOB accessible to Allied PBEM players ...but the next German player that whines and complains about the Allies is sure as heck going to get refered to this thread ..unless the previous posts get edited ....And for the record ..German Players.. you are getting your butt kicked by a Handicapped Allied Units so I'm not even sure you should be all that proud of what wins you do get ....ROFL [This message has been edited by AmmoSgt (edited March 07, 2001).]



Paul Vebber -> (3/8/2001 1:37:00 AM)

If someone wants to search the forum, all the "adjustments" have been discussed around about till folks are blue in the face. We emphasize ground combat, so ground units get priority, Heavy artillery (over 155) has been left out, not becasue of "dumbing down the Allies" ... but because the game portrays only "direct support" artillery called in by a spotter (in a process that leaves much to be desired, but is what the game architecture allows). Read up on how heavy artillery was predominantly used (even by the US). It was used en masse, not portioned out in penny packets to Company Commanders to use like mortars. If you want "saturation fires by heavy guns" then use Level Bombers as a surrogate in v5 - the mechanics and effects are essentially the same. IF you consider not including weapons in the game that the game was not designed to portray, so they do not cause unplayable situations, "dumbing the game down" .. then guilty as charged. Part of the responsibility of a game developer (me) is to match what a game does well and doesn't do well, with what the game allows you do. Putting things in the game "just to have them" without considering the context in which players use them, is very dangerous and leads to exacerbating problems between "game player" and "history recreaters". [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited March 07, 2001).]



AmmoSgt -> (3/8/2001 8:37:00 AM)

Paul yes these adjustments have been talk about till we are blue in the face. Thats the point... German players say Shermans are invincible ya'll say it needs to be looked at .. Folks thing Germans should do as well against the Americans in 43 and 44 as they did aginst the Russians in 41 and 42 thats credibile needs to be looked at .. American Players say hey wait a minute ..we ain't even getting stuff thats already in the OOB's and we get told it a slot problem ( that didn't work ) then a reality problem ( that didn't work ) ..the one i like best was the shortage of American 8" ammo ..i would love to see the reference on that one LOL ..so it comes down to play balance ..i got nothing against play balance ..all for it ... but when these German players come whining with complaints like the one that started this thread ..why even act like it is credibile when you have already made the decsion that anything like a fair representation of the Americans would render the game so one sided it wouldn't be worth playing...just say that the Germans have been given every advantage that ya'll can think of , and tell the whiners to learn some tactics ...ya'll sure aren't shy about blowin off the American players when they come to ya with facts ..Just admit the game is tweaked for play balance , that the German master race has enough afirmative action, and it's time for folks to learn tactics, and be done with it ..i certainly don't have any trouble winning ..even with the advantages you have allowed the germans ..and with the reliance on complaining and excuse that many german players have ..they have all the excuses they need when they lose . already .. But i fear folks are still going to complain instead of learning to win with what they have, and the Allied OOB's will be further cut in future versions , until all it takes to win is a Tiger and a swastiza I'm still paying taxes to defend Germany because they still can't fend for themselves



AmmoSgt -> (3/8/2001 8:40:00 AM)

I hope ya'll noticed that now they are talking about pumping up Stug's on this thread ...I don't see anybody getting told that will "unbalance the game" Shortage of Stug ammo or it might be abused ..nope ...sounds like a right good idea to the OOB folks ... yep yep can do easy [This message has been edited by AmmoSgt (edited March 07, 2001).]



Pack Rat -> (3/8/2001 11:36:00 AM)

It was never an endeavor to whine about any part of the game that prompted me to bring up what I thought might be looked at. At present the German oob's are what I'm becoming familer with. I compare to what I remember, it's how I base judgements. I see things that make me wonder if all is right and ask. No crime. If it's looked at and decided that it's ok that's cool. I'll work with it. I can't really imagine all that must go into balancing (for lack of a better word) this game. Matrix has answered at least to my satisfaction (for example) why the American and German infantry are modeled the way they are. They haven't answered why the elite PSW-233's bail. The Stugs worked fine in a brief AI battle last night, with a little help from a couple of Tigers. I lost one Stug to 35 assorted Soviet tanks. I would only expect such a thing against a new player, so bottom line I'm unsure if it's me or the game. Rockets I've suggested every thing from bring them all on board to getting the German off. Suggested new routines for the ammo trucks/dumps. I'll suggest another, get rid of the petrol rocket. I like the damn things because of their shotgun effect as much as the fact that they are on board and not subject to counterbattery. I don't care what artillery the Americans have and I'm not going to ask for the Gustove (sp) railroad guns. But I'll sure as hell defend your right to do so. Blind faith, I don't have and only hope that things I point out have the time to get looked at in an unbiased way, it's all I can ask for and is more than most companys give. ------------------ PR http://electricwar.tripod.com/



Charles22 -> (3/8/2001 9:21:00 PM)

AmmoSgt: The problem with your comparison, as far as I'm able to discern, is that you, yourself, are making the mistake, so that it doesn't make sense to you. The problem, is, that German players from what I can gather, are looking at recreating realism as much as possible, therefore, they wonder, if it's true, why the Tiger/Panther isn't coming out anything close to the 5-to-1 kill ratio against the Shermans (that would be ALL Shermans, any Gerry player expects to not do as well against the Jumbo). A player wanting this approach is looking at realistic battles 'results', not play balance. Play balance is a completely different issue. They are making a tactical statement, one common to the purpose of the game. It's not about reflecting the strategic situation in a tactical battle, so that Gerry is also outnumbered against Shermans, though that sort of battle has it's desireable elements as well. Basically, the premise to the game, is if a full strength force of one country, met the full strength force of another, what would happen? Of course, when the weaker nations are assaulting, say Belgium against Germany, Germany suffers as well, because the strategic massive size of the German force to the Belgiums isn't taken into consideration, and the Belgians will assault with just as large a force as anyone else. Look at the decisions. It looks to me as though what I call the premise, predominates every single decision that's been made; they are sticking to the flavor of the game and not trying to make it into something else. The Germans don't have the Dora gun because it would be ridiculous here, and I'm surprised the B-17 was even contemplated, though it at least wasn't an extremely rare machine like the Dora (though it's tactical use against troops was practically non-existent). You can't have historical type results for battles, and what people refer to as 'play balance' both. One last thing, although I don't know what lousy way the Shermans might've have been used in RL, the fact of the matter is that with the premise of the game in hand, the MINIMUM damage the Tiger/Panthers should be doing is the 5-to-1 ratio, because in this simulation the Germans "aren't" at a numerical disadvantage, though I would say that the Germans probably used their disadvantage with more result than the typical player might. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited March 08, 2001).]



AmmoSgt -> (3/8/2001 9:42:00 PM)

Charles maybe thats it perhaps .. maybe it is my Idea of "full strength" means letting both sides have as near as possible all their weapons ... Would a Panzer Battalion be at full strength be at full strength without Stuka support ..maybe depends on how you look at it ...could you recreate Blitzkreg ..without Stukas ...no.. close but no...would it ever be that the Germans would have to do without a key weapons system that was intregal to fully developing such tactics?? nope ...but somehow this doesn't translate to other nations and their national assets and Tactics ... such niceities as having the full panoply needed by Allies to exploit their tactics , annoys German players , so they complain , and Allied units get deleted , whole allied capabilites get removed from the game so they don't interfer with German players enjoyment ... Just look at this thread .. Starts with Bizzare claims of invincibility.. folks go "no way check settings " settind checked "oh yeah default " oh ok no test no data no questioning after that of the assertion of no Suppersion Allied posters with facts data and history get flamed get BS'ed about 8" ammo shortgaes ( I just got to see that reference ) and then the German players think just as an aside that Stugs need beefing up "sure no prob take care of it right way" then Command Decsion to screw the Allies anyway ...



Kharan -> (3/8/2001 9:48:00 PM)

This thread could use the ole' lock-down... nothing but blind patriotism, conspiracy theories and repeated rants.



Charles22 -> (3/8/2001 10:16:00 PM)

AmmoSgt: I don't think you've put the idea of the premise into your thinking very well yet. Try to look at it from that point of view, instead of trying to reinforce that everyone loves to play Gerry so they must be beefed up and the Allies down. I love to play all sides, and what I want is as close to the premise of the game as I can get. If I'm playing Gerry and the T34s are weaker than they were, then I want them stronger, because I want to sit in the shoes of being a German commander adn not some silly idea of 'play balance' or what have you. Frankly, I 'think' I would prefer the tactical forces fighting, reflecting the strategic (amounts - but certainly not strategic bombers and huge artillery pieces doing things they didn't do to small formations. Think of it this way, as bad as some of us might want the tactical to reflect the strategic, just how realistic is it for all the B-17s to get credit for wreaking German production, thus numerical advantage in forces, and then al;so to be able to slaughter them tactically? Sure, they could've been used that way, but in essence that's making them be in two places at once. It would be just as absurd if you had Stukas strategically bombing alongside the tactical. In essence, when one does such things, they are "doubling" the destruction of WWII, something very non-historic.), but for the times when forces met 1-to-1 those questions must be simulated too, and indeed this game is based on that.



BA Evans -> (3/8/2001 10:22:00 PM)

You are going so far out of your way to misconstrue what other people are saying. I see the other people on this threat patiently responding to each of your outbursts, trying to give you well reasoned explanations for each of your rants. If only you could do the same…. Your below post isn't constructive or helpful in the least. You are just trying to hurt people. BA Evans
quote:

Originally posted by AmmoSgt: Paul yes these adjustments have been talk about till we are blue in the face. Thats the point... German players say Shermans are invincible ya'll say it needs to be looked at .. Folks thing Germans should do as well against the Americans in 43 and 44 as they did aginst the Russians in 41 and 42 thats credibile needs to be looked at .. American Players say hey wait a minute ..we ain't even getting stuff thats already in the OOB's and we get told it a slot problem ( that didn't work ) then a reality problem ( that didn't work ) ..the one i like best was the shortage of American 8" ammo ..i would love to see the reference on that one LOL ..so it comes down to play balance ..i got nothing against play balance ..all for it ... but when these German players come whining with complaints like the one that started this thread ..why even act like it is credibile when you have already made the decsion that anything like a fair representation of the Americans would render the game so one sided it wouldn't be worth playing...just say that the Germans have been given every advantage that ya'll can think of , and tell the whiners to learn some tactics ...ya'll sure aren't shy about blowin off the American players when they come to ya with facts ..Just admit the game is tweaked for play balance , that the German master race has enough afirmative action, and it's time for folks to learn tactics, and be done with it ..i certainly don't have any trouble winning ..even with the advantages you have allowed the germans ..and with the reliance on complaining and excuse that many german players have ..they have all the excuses they need when they lose . already .. But i fear folks are still going to complain instead of learning to win with what they have, and the Allied OOB's will be further cut in future versions , until all it takes to win is a Tiger and a swastiza I'm still paying taxes to defend Germany because they still can't fend for themselves



Hunpecked -> (3/9/2001 10:48:00 AM)

I've been trying to decipher AmmoSgt's extensive posts to this thread, and I think I've finally succeeded. All the worries about "Long Toms" and StuGs are apparently just specific instances of a more general anxiety that the SPWaW OoB's are increasingly giving the Germans more "bang for the buck" than the Allies. In a "balanced" game, of course, a unit that gives one side a marked tactical advantage is offset by a purchase price that more or less negates that advantage. Ideally, national OoB's provide enough variety to make the game interesting, but are priced such that the simulated military units are taken out of the equation and the game is decided only by the relative skills of the opponents. If I read AmmoSgt correctly, she's saying that the OoB's are already biased against the Allies, and will be even more so with the release of the v5.0 game. Am I even close here?



krull -> (3/9/2001 11:10:00 AM)

Well Ammosgt does have long posts. But I do agree about people playing Germans whining. Im not a very good player but i try. I SEE tigers getting better than 5 to 1 kill ratios and every thing my amercian troops throws at them doesnt owrk. Close assaults and multiple bazooka teams yes even thru I KNOW im gona lose half of the force VS that 1 tigher or panther that leaves the other 6 to 20 depending on size. I have yet to see any super american troops. only thing thast kept people liek packrat and others from comletely just over running in pbem is 155 arty. Other iwse theres no way to play them. I bout reached point of not pbem anymore becasue even when ya set buying limits etc. all it takes is 4 tigers to destroy my whole armorered force so i usualy end up useing artillary and infantry and lose half the infantry on those 4 tigers. AND I will repeat Im not the best player but I know of some. Who went to axis only because its to hard to try play as american Or british troops in pbem play. After about 50 defeats in a row because unstoppable tanks and rockets why play allies?



mogami -> (3/9/2001 11:33:00 AM)

Hi, In one sentence I think she is saying "Give germans their 5-1 kill ratios but also make sure americans have their 5-1 tank number ratio" It is ok to increase german units but when you do not make a corresponding adjustment to the enemy armies unbalance results. Germans after 1943 have to face the fact they are losing. Something must be the reason. This something should find a home in the game, if it is to be realistic. My self I have seen it get harder to win as germans after 43 (but I still get draws most of the time, and never use "super" units) This said would any one question the realism of a tactical game where germans never lost battles? I think germans have a much better chance in SPWAW then they did in real war. ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!



Pack Rat -> (3/9/2001 2:59:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mogami: Germans after 1943 have to face the fact they are losing. Something must be the reason. This something should find a home in the game, if it is to be realistic. My self I have seen it get harder to win as germans after 43 (but I still get draws most of the time, and never use "super" units) This said would any one question the realism of a tactical game where germans never lost battles? I think germans have a much better chance in SPWAW then they did in real war.
Mogami this isn't pointed srtaight at you, I've been thinking along these lines for a few days. Everything is there, the game is fine. I think the thing that is being over looked is the Germans were out numbered in most cases. Shear weight of numbers can make a huge difference. I would propose that a meeting engagement late in the war that consideration of allowing the Allies more battle points then the Axis might go along way to making things more historicaly correct. I'd be interested to hear ideas on what type of point advantage the Allies should have. I'll stir it up even more and go so far as to say Grant would have done as well on both fronts in Europe. His over all tactic of wearing them down is well known. German weapons got better because they couldn't afford the man lose, the Allies could. I don't want to give up my Tigers just to dumb it down. A Tiger only has so many shots, if the targets out number the shots you've got to change tatics or be destroyed. In any given large map game I've usaully got 8 Tigers, at the end of any given game if I have more then 2 with their main guns working I've done very well. My record for the 43 league at the moment is 3 wins 2 loses hardly a roll over the Allies. My 44 league record was far more loses then wins or draws. But I would still rather allow the Allies more battle points than to have to not pick certain weapon systems. ------------------ PR http://electricwar.tripod.com/



frank1970 -> (3/9/2001 3:25:00 PM)

Yes, I think you ot the point pack rat. The Germans were better soldiers (because of their kind of ordering) and had better material. The Allies had the airsuperiority and larger numbers of men, tanks and artillery. But now we come to the same point we reached in sooooo many other topics: Some persons want a historical realistic battle (the Allies should get more points or cheaper equipment or more artillery or what ever). These persons are annoyed because the Allies donīt do so good as they historical did.. The other persons want equal rights for every player and want to play battles with the same points and same size of forces. Those persons can use SPWAW like it is. Modifications that could be done to satisfy the historians would be: - limit the number of units for the Germans in 1944/45 - reduce the number of men in the German squads - give the possibility that German forces are not at the battlefield but reach it as reinforcements (some might not come) - give the possibility to the Allied player to spend points on a prebattle interdiction, so German units are destroyed before they reach the battle area - [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] give us more szenarios which could be played by two human opponents [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Ammosgt: Germany has in the moment abolutely no enemy that would endanger our nation. None of our neighbors has the military power to get a victory. Germany could have 3 million soldiers in a few days, full equipped and all trained. The US forces are in Germany because the USA are in the Nato and want to show her muscles. The US Forces are mainly in Germany because the US captured a lot of German bases in 1945 and did not return them to Germany in 1990 (as the French,British or Russians did), so they could use them for free. But if you feel better pay your tax dollars for submarines, sinking the awsome enemy Japanese boat, so that the whole world could see how the USA defend everyone against whomever. [This message has been edited by Frank (edited March 09, 2001).]



mogami -> (3/9/2001 5:59:00 PM)

Hi, I don't want to change to the civil war here but where does poor US Grant get this rep for attrition? If you look at his war record he was one of the most mobile generals of either side. The Virgina campaign was him always trying to find the flank. The army of the Potomac was the smallest it had ever been while Grant was with it. He made no more silly failed frontal assaults during the war then Lee did. He made excellent choices when picking sub-ordinates. I think he would have made an excellent mobile/armour war commander in WWII he was prehaps the best stratagist of the Civil War (I admit he was weak in battle field tactics but he made up for this by picking Generals who were not) In SPWAW balance does not mean equal points it should mean equal chance to win. 5000 points of Trucks vrs 5000 points of Tigers Ok a Sherman is stronger then a truck..... ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction! [This message has been edited by Mogami (edited March 09, 2001).]



Pack Rat -> (3/9/2001 7:25:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mogami: Ok a Sherman is stronger then a truck.....
Only a little, if the truck is German [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] Naw I don't want to go into the civil war either, but you did catch my point, attrition. If you can come closer to the actual ratio of Tiger vs Sherman for example I'm saying you can field the Tiger and have a better battle instead of a one sided battle. That the German forces can feel free to use the systems available for the time and the Allies can use their numbers to even up the differences. It's just an idea. It's also an idea that has me wondering if I could pull it off. The thoughts of 5 Shermans to 1 Tiger has its moments of doubt. ------------------ PR http://electricwar.tripod.com/



Kharan -> (3/9/2001 8:15:00 PM)

This thread has gone beyond bizarre, but
quote:

Originally posted by Hunpecked: I've been trying to decipher AmmoSgt's extensive posts to this thread, and I think I've finally succeeded. All the worries about "Long Toms" and StuGs are apparently just specific instances of a more general anxiety that the SPWaW OoB's are increasingly giving the Germans more "bang for the buck" than the Allies.
All the unit costs are calculated by the same function which uses factors like armor, gun penetration and speed as a base.



Hunpecked -> (3/10/2001 1:03:00 AM)

Kharan wrote: "All the unit costs are calculated by the same function which uses factors like armor, gun penetration and speed as a base." That's a good start, but it would be a miracle for the formula alone to balance the game to the satisfaction of competitive players. To even approximate parity would require extensive playtesting and formula adjustment, with players alternating sides to factor out individual skill. BTW, I gather that's what AmmoSgt and Pack Rat are doing now in their PBEM gaming. And perhaps that's the ultimate answer to the question of balance: Play each map twice with the same force levels, but switch sides for the second game. Winner is the one with the higher combined score.



Hunpecked -> (3/10/2001 1:25:00 AM)

Mogami wrote: "In SPWAW balance does not mean equal points it should mean equal chance to win." Actually, equal points *should* mean equal chance to win, i.e. in a "balanced" game, player skill is the only variable. Note that "player skill" includes pre-game unit purchases, so if a player chooses all trucks, it's not the system's fault.



Larry Holt -> (3/10/2001 2:54:00 AM)

Hey packrat, where is your page at? When I click on the link in your sig, I get a not found page. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



Pack Rat -> (3/10/2001 4:00:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: Hey packrat, where is your page at? When I click on the link in your sig, I get a not found page.
I don't know. I believe I looked in yesterday, certainly the day before and all was well. As you'll notice it's a Tripod site and we're all too familer what happens with popular sites, they get booted. I can't imagine this is the case, but don't know because I've been unsucsseful in getting up a counter (This is/was my first site). I made no attempt to hack proof it because I figured who would bother. Could be just a hickup at Tripod. Thanks for letting me know, I'll see what I can see. Pack Rat the siteless [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Pack Rat -> (3/10/2001 4:27:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Hunpecked: Kharan wrote: And perhaps that's the ultimate answer to the question of balance: Play each map twice with the same force levels, but switch sides for the second game. Winner is the one with the higher combined score.
Interesting point about maps and the difference they can make. I'm thinking you mean change sides in the sense of playing Allies first and then Axis second? I've played one game were we simply kept the same forces but changed sides of the map. The first was a draw the second a win. What I discovered was some map setups can favor one side for better play. This was a premade map. When you use the random generater watch side ones map terrian. You might notice less high ground or more rivers running through their area. Neither is good. Some kind of advantage built in for the AI? This is a gut feeling, no test has been tried other than hitting the create map button and looking at the map trying to get something a little more balanced. Pack Rat



Hunpecked -> (3/10/2001 6:47:00 AM)

Pack Rat, Yes, I meant switching sides in the national, not the geographic sense. Playing a second game with east and west exchanged cancels out the map bias (if any), but not the (alleged) national OoB bias.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.65625