RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa



Message

willgamer -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (1/29/2016 9:22:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DicedT

So the consensus is that the game favors the Germans? Because almost all of these changes seem to favor the Soviets.


It seems that the problem that's being fixed here is directed towards pbem, and within pbem, toward helping SU against very good German players.

Solo player vs. the SU AI will have a tougher go at it since the AI plays by different rules that can actually put up more defense than a human, e.g. garrisons in every city.

Since Vic's metrics shown that 94.5% of solo player is at the normal level, and many of those games are abandoned, I hope the devs will consider some love for solo non elite German players.[sm=love0059.gif]



willgamer -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (1/29/2016 9:30:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkhorn45

Unintended consequences,in order to get siege artillery to Riga you now are forced to set agn route to go to riga which I don't find optimal prefer the kaunas route.
Your right s.a.is now virtually useless.


So coastal red dot cities, with unlimited supply, may simply be impregnable. [X(]



RandomAttack -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (1/29/2016 10:03:04 PM)

I understand the need/desire to balance this as much as possible for PBEM. But are some of these changes having a disproportionate effect on single-player? Siege artillery in particular? I haven't played enough to have a strong opinion yet, I just hope the single-player experience isn't ignored/subordinated. Frankly, I'm having a tough enough time (Germans) as it is. Or maybe even have a "vanilla" version with just engine/mechanics-type fixes but not all the buff/nerf stuff. In short, if you tailor the game too much to the 1-percenter's that are warrior gods, not sure how much fun it's going to be for us mere mortals.



lancer -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (1/30/2016 4:33:32 AM)

Hi,

Nope, you've not been forgotten. The single player experience is the main focus of the game.

Very few of the changes affect the German vs. Soviet AI game. We made a series of big changes to the Soviet reinforcement schedule (and a few other things) back in the last official update to ease the burden if you're playing German single player.

The Soviet vs. German AI has been improved with this recent update.

With all balance changes it's an ongoing process.

Cheers,
Cameron



WingedIncubus -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (1/30/2016 4:57:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer
So coastal red dot cities, with unlimited supply, may simply be impregnable. [X(]


In the South I don't mind if Odessa or Sevastopol hold out indefinitely. It took months and dozens of thousands casualties to the Romanian Army to finally capture Odessa. Sevastopol wasn't even threatened until October 1941.

In the North I agree that there should be a supply limit in Riga if the city is cut out, because the Baltic Sea was controled by the Kriegmarine. But it is theorically possible for the German player to breakthrough with 4th Panzergruppe and race to Riga before the Soviet places a major garrison, as per history.

Neglecting Riga might now prove a serious thorn in AGN's side if the Soviet player bottles a lot of divisions there, but that's a wider problem to discuss : Hexes should have stacking limits in themselves. It shouldn't be possible to stack so many divisions (like 8 Divisions and over) in a single hex without serious supply and defensive penalties, even in a city.



barkhorn45 -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (1/31/2016 3:36:39 PM)

Here's a interesting discussion on rail conv.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=2304



RandomAttack -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (1/31/2016 4:35:45 PM)

I posted this in a Tech Support thread, but really think it's better here, with a couple of edits:

This is kind of interesting for those so inclined. Start a new game of 1.03B as human vs. human. FOW *must* be off. Speed thru the first turn screens. Pick a Soviet Inf Div in the open with 100 entrenchment and attack with two German Inf Divs. Look at the battle details. Lo and behold, all the expected modifiers seem to be fully applied!

My takeaways are:
1) People playing PBEM/hotseat are getting MUCH different battle results than those playing against the AI. Battles seem MUCH more decisive (due to the application of *all* bonus/penalties). So people that play mostly PBEM are having very different experiences/results than those playing the AI. Apples and oranges. I think this is where a lot of contradictory opinions are coming from.

2) In SP the AI side seems completely buffed. If you are the Germans, the Soviets get FULL entrenchment which significantly impacts your advance. Seems like the Soviet casualties are about HALF what they are in hotseat/PBEM. If you are playing as the Soviets you get the entrenchment PENALTY, as well as seeming to be more hobbled as to how many units you can activate, etc.

So a straight SP experience isn't even attractive to me at this point. I'll just play hotseat to get a "fair" game, although that is not what I wanted. I would REALLY like to see Vic & Cameron come up with a SP mode that quits buffing the AI so much. Let's use the same rules for both! For me it isn't just about winning or losing, but "feeling" some kind of historical parallel. Let ME decide the level of difficulty, and the BASELINE should be same as PBEM/hotseat.




James Ward -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (1/31/2016 5:09:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I posted this in a Tech Support thread, but really think it's better here, with a couple of edits:

This is kind of interesting for those so inclined. Start a new game of 1.03B as human vs. human. FOW *must* be off. Speed thru the first turn screens. Pick a Soviet Inf Div in the open with 100 entrenchment and attack with two German Inf Divs. Look at the battle details. Lo and behold, all the expected modifiers seem to be fully applied!

My takeaways are:
1) People playing PBEM/hotseat are getting MUCH different battle results than those playing against the AI. Battles seem MUCH more decisive (due to the application of *all* bonus/penalties). So people that play mostly PBEM are having very different experiences/results than those playing the AI. Apples and oranges. I think this is where a lot of contradictory opinions are coming from.

2) In SP the AI side seems completely buffed. If you are the Germans, the Soviets get FULL entrenchment which significantly impacts your advance. Seems like the Soviet casualties are about HALF what they are in hotseat/PBEM. If you are playing as the Soviets you get the entrenchment PENALTY, as well as seeming to be more hobbled as to how many units you can activate, etc.

So a straight SP experience isn't even attractive to me at this point. I'll just play hotseat to get a "fair" game, although that is not what I wanted. I would REALLY like to see Vic & Cameron come up with a SP mode that quits buffing the AI so much. Let's use the same rules for both! For me it isn't just about winning or losing, but "feeling" some kind of historical parallel. Let ME decide the level of difficulty, and the BASELINE should be same as PBEM/hotseat.




I think both AI's work very different in SP in version g. I noticed as the Germans the Russians do stand up a little better than in the past. I started a game as the Russians and German attack after attack results in heavy losses for me and no losses at all for the Germans, even against full strength Russians behind rivers. It early in the game, 4th turn, so maybe things will change as the initial shock effects wear off but it is different than previous versions.



ChuckBerger -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (1/31/2016 9:40:48 PM)

Yep, it appears to me that the AI gets a range of benefits to compensate for its less-than-human performance in a range of areas, like stacking bonuses and strategic positioning.

As the Germans, you'll find it hard going indeed if you are not encircling and destroying large numbers of soviet divisions. Large pockets can and must be created in this game. In the centre, plan carefully and use your 2 PzGs in tandem to cut off chunks of 10-20 divisions at a time. Attack with 4 panzer/motorized units, ideally with blitz or luftwaffe bonuses or both. Often a stack like that can slice 2-3 hexes straight into the soviet lines, even along a single-hex frontage. Look for where the geometry of the lines helps you out a bit. I've gotten pockets easily as big as the historical Kiev pocket against both AI and human players. Careful planning and setup is the key. You can't just wing it from turn to turn. Plan on where you want your PzGs to be in 1/2/3 turns time to set up a major pocket.




lancer -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/1/2016 2:11:57 AM)

Hi,

Here's a copy of a post I've made on the bug forum. It's probably just as relevant here.

---

To clear up a bit of confusion here's how the early turn penalties work.

If you're playing a Soviet Player (human) they receive the blitzkrieg penalty and an entrenchment penalty. There are exceptions for units in cities and on the Finnish, Hungarian and Romanian borders. Soviet units in forests and swamps also gain an adverse terrain bonus (even at the start) but this doesn't apply on the Finnish border.

If you're playing the Soviet AI at normal AI level the Soviets receive a combined defensive penalty rather than the individual blitzkrieg and shock penalties as per the manual. This equates to a -65% defensive combat penalty on the first turn and decreasing amounts thereafter. The Soviet AI units aren't configured to a particular posture instead this is built into the combined off/def penalties/bonuses so the -65% def penalty encompasses this as well.

Overall the Soviet AI gets a better deal here than a Soviet Player, but not excessively so. A human Soviet player will, in general, outperform a Soviet AI hence the AI needs a small advantage to remain competitive.

The same exceptions that apply to the Soviet player also apply to a Soviet AI so if you are looking at a Soviet unit, for example in the 9th Army down south, it'll have no early turn penalties as it's in the Romanian border region however in the centre, 10th Army for example, they'll be penalised heavily.

In 1.03b there is a small bug remaining that ensures that on the first campaign turn the Soviet AI receives a -45% penalty instead of the -65% but it's not a big deal as the values were transposed and on turn 2 the -65% kicks in.

Cheers,
Cameron



Flaviusx -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/1/2016 3:02:40 AM)

Zhukov is still buggy. When you try to switch over to defensive posture, armies that fail the roll refund 5 PPs even when the cost to do this is actually zero with Zhukov in the theater. Presumably this also true for any costs above zero.

The weirdness I observed earlier with PP awards for the Sovs appears gone now and is tracking correctly.

Am very much enjoying the game more with Sovs now. I could win with them before easily enough against the AI, but the changes open up a lot of play options. Remains to be seen how this stuff flies in PBEM, but the bugs need stomping before I'll go there.



RandomAttack -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/1/2016 3:03:45 AM)

Should have posted here vice tech support-- sorry!

To further request clarification, since I'm not sure I am cogently making my point, the Soviet AI counterattack penalty can only be expected to slightly reduce German casualties that are already relatively small. A counterattack doesn't seem to result in anything other than a "miss" for the counterattacker. Meanwhile, the unreduced entrenchment value seems to have a sizeable effect on reducing Soviet casualties. So I just don't see how these two things can be considered equivalent or a "small advantage" for the AI. Just from playing both ways (SP & hotseat)it seems there is a *significant* difference in favor of Soviet AI. That's fine for a higher difficulty, but I don't think it's right for "normal".



Vic -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/1/2016 6:55:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

Should have posted here vice tech support-- sorry!

To further request clarification, since I'm not sure I am cogently making my point, the Soviet AI counterattack penalty can only be expected to slightly reduce German casualties that are already relatively small. A counterattack doesn't seem to result in anything other than a "miss" for the counterattacker. Meanwhile, the unreduced entrenchment value seems to have a sizeable effect on reducing Soviet casualties. So I just don't see how these two things can be considered equivalent or a "small advantage" for the AI. Just from playing both ways (SP & hotseat)it seems there is a *significant* difference in favor of Soviet AI. That's fine for a higher difficulty, but I don't think it's right for "normal".



Are you sure you fully understand the combat mechanics? For example Soviet Infantry indvidual #Y would typically have the following interactions in 1 combat round:

-German Infantry (X) attacks Soviet Infantry (Y) : No Sov Def Bonus applied. German Att Bonus applied.
-Soviet Infantry (Y) counter-attacks German Infantry (X) : Sov Def Bonus applied. No German Att bonus applied.
-Soviet Infantry (Y) attacks German Infantry (Z) : Sov Def Bonus applied. No German Att bonus applied.
-German Infantry (Z) counter-attacks Soviet Infantry (Y) : No Sov Def Bonus applied German Att Bonus applied.

Anyway I understand your point, but we feel the difficulty level for NORMAL is quite good as it is, especially with 1.03 which will be slightly easier for the German player than 1.02.

best wishes,
Vic



RandomAttack -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/1/2016 12:58:56 PM)

Vic,
I hadn't seen it spelled out just that way, but it's pretty much as I thought it worked. My point was simply the Def Bonus (negative in this case) seems to have an almost inconsequential impact on combat results compared to the full entrenchment bonus. I will try and keep an open mind and play a couple of games of the official 1.03 when it comes out before commenting further. Thanks for listening!



Franciscus -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/1/2016 1:14:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

Here's a copy of a post I've made on the bug forum. It's probably just as relevant here.

---

To clear up a bit of confusion here's how the early turn penalties work.

(...)
Overall the Soviet AI gets a better deal here than a Soviet Player, but not excessively so.

Cheers,
Cameron


Hi, Cameron

I find this design decision a bit questionable. IMHO, there should exist an AI setting (call it a new "normal" or easy AI), where the AI plays with exactly the same bonus/malus as a human player, FOW included if selected. "Hard" and above AI levels are there to give players the possibility to play against an AI with extra advantages.

As a side note, this is common in many games, but I can tell you my first hand experience, being part of the team that made the AJE-series of Ageod.
In AJE, the default AI level gives no advantages or disadvantages to the AI, that plays by the same rules as a human. The overall difficulty (including movement rate, cohesion recovery, stacking limits), aggression level, detection bonus, activation, and time for calculus can all be tailored to get a more or less challenging AI to play with.
Note however that when combat occurs in AJE, there are never different bonus/malus for the AI, whatever the difficulty selected. And exactly the same calculations in combat apply versus AI or in PBEM.
The AI also almost does not "cheat". There are only a handful of scripts to ease some moves by the AI (ex: naval invasions) that she has intrinsic problems with, but nothing that a human player could not do.

I like this kind of design.

Just my 2 cents

Regards



willgamer -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/1/2016 3:44:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Are you sure you fully understand the combat mechanics? For example Soviet Infantry indvidual #Y would typically have the following interactions in 1 combat round:

-German Infantry (X) attacks Soviet Infantry (Y) : No Sov Def Bonus applied. German Att Bonus applied.
-Soviet Infantry (Y) counter-attacks German Infantry (X) : Sov Def Bonus applied. No German Att bonus applied.
-Soviet Infantry (Y) attacks German Infantry (Z) : Sov Def Bonus applied. No German Att bonus applied.
-German Infantry (Z) counter-attacks Soviet Infantry (Y) : No Sov Def Bonus applied German Att Bonus applied.

Anyway I understand your point, but we feel the difficulty level for NORMAL is quite good as it is, especially with 1.03 which will be slightly easier for the German player than 1.02.

best wishes,
Vic


Vic- this info, not being in the manual, is new for many of us. [X(]

As someone who, according to replies to my post on this subject in the Tech Support thread, makes bone headed attacks, I'm still quite confused. [&:] [&:] [&:]

When you use the word "bonus" above, do you mean bonus or malus?

In step 1, exactly which modifiers could be applied to the SU defender?

In step 2, why would a def bonus be applied to an attacking sub-unit?

In step 3, the modifiers seem to be the same as step 2, is that correct?

If yes, then same question, why would a def bonus be applied to an attacking sub-unit?

In step 4, same question as step 1.

Steps 3 and 4, where did German Inf. Z come from?

Would it be possible for you or Cameron to post footnoted screenies showing how this all works in a way that boni/malus can be confirmed by the player?

[sm=sign0031.gif] [&o]




willgamer -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/1/2016 7:43:20 PM)

Since I being a bit of a PITA [:'(] anyway, here's another combat question-

I'm a big fan of the way the PP results are presented. You reveal the odds for the good or bad result, the d100 roll, and the corresponding result.

Could combat results be revealed in a similar manner? [&:]

With FOW off, I see the final attack and defense scores. The next line is the result. I'd like to see what occurred between the two lines.

Intuitively, it seems you may be arriving a percent to hit as: chance to hit = attack score / (attack score + defense score); then rolling d100 for the result.

Could you reveal this (or whatever is actually correct)? [&:]

[sm=sign0031.gif]



lancer -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/2/2016 2:17:31 AM)

Hi Franciscus,

Good point but I suspect we are looking at two different situations here.

I could be wrong but AJE is more 'point' based combat (stack of Romans vs. stack of whoever) fighting on an area based map.

That's very different to Barbarossa where an individual battle is a small part of a bigger picture front line and the map is divided into multiple small hexes. An individual battle matters less than the coordinated efforts of forces over the entire front.

Giving the AI no benefits compared to a Soviet player would have it overwhelmed in short order because a human's vastly superior ability to conceptualise an entire front, or theatre, as a coherent whole.

Cheers,
Cameron



lancer -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/2/2016 2:42:17 AM)

Hi Flaviusx,

quote:

Zhukov is still buggy. When you try to switch over to defensive posture, armies that fail the roll refund 5 PPs even when the cost to do this is actually zero with Zhukov in the theater. Presumably this also true for any costs above zero.


If you've got a save game that shows this I'll take a look as I can't see this happening myself.

Cheers,
Cameron



Vic -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/2/2016 7:46:51 AM)

@willgamer,

The thing is the combat details were never meant as an integral part of gameplay. They have just been made available to allow curious people a look under the hood. All the rules of thumb are in the manual and most players develop a sense of intuition after one or two games.

However to answer your core question of "why would a defensive bonus be applied to something thats attacking?".. Well because I strongly believe defensive successes are grounded in the ability of the defender to kill the attacker. So the defensive bonus does not give the defenders more armour to withstand attack and dammage, but simulates defensive doctrines, preperations and the like that lead to higher casualties for the attacker. Picture a defensive machinegun nest opening up fire on appoaching attackers. From the individuals perspective the MG is attacking (thats the perspective mentioned in the combat details) even though from a units perspective the unit as a whole is defending.

And answer to the other question: Basicly it is very simple.. the attack points for the attacker are calculated and the hitpoints for the defender. When this is done both numbers are randomized, score a value between 0 and their number and if attacker scores higher a hit is scored, otherwise not.

Best wishes,
Vic



Templer_12 -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/2/2016 8:49:14 AM)

I am very happy with the corrections of the German language. A little bit is still to do here!
I am looking forward to start a new game after the corrections.



RandomAttack -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/2/2016 3:12:27 PM)

Any word on when the final version of 1.03 will come out?



Franciscus -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/2/2016 4:38:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi Franciscus,

Good point but I suspect we are looking at two different situations here.

I could be wrong but AJE is more 'point' based combat (stack of Romans vs. stack of whoever) fighting on an area based map.

That's very different to Barbarossa where an individual battle is a small part of a bigger picture front line and the map is divided into multiple small hexes. An individual battle matters less than the coordinated efforts of forces over the entire front.

Giving the AI no benefits compared to a Soviet player would have it overwhelmed in short order because a human's vastly superior ability to conceptualise an entire front, or theatre, as a coherent whole.

Cheers,
Cameron


Hi Cameron
Thanks for replying!

For sure roman-age warfare was very different from Barbarossa. In AJE you are right that the campaign is much more fluid, and there are no "fronts", but each map region is indeed an "hex" and the AI is perfectly capable to "think" differentialy about different theaters. IMHO the main reason for AJE playing more "fluid", besides many others including the forces being much less numerous, is that Ageod games are WEGO and not IGOUGO.

Anyhow, I digress.
The main point I was trying to address is that IMHO, for a mediocre player like me, the soviet AI even in normal is too good :)
Specifically I find very hard to replicate in the first couple of turns the historical german advances and would like to see more "brittle" soviet units in combat, specially on turn 1.
So basically I feel that an "easier" AI option would be nice.:)

Regards




Philippeatbay -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/2/2016 7:30:44 PM)

The difference in fluidity caused by WEGO as opposed to IGOUGO is profound.

Sometimes there is too much fluidity, and that can be caused by the turns representing too long a period of time. That is often the root cause of weird things happening during the opening offensive of WW I on the Western Front -- cut the timescale for turns in half and most of the problems go away.

Perhaps you are not looking for a lobotomized Russian AI as much as some kind of late June handicap.

I'm not sure that it would make much difference, since I tend to break through the Russian line and go on rampages, only to run out of gas or outrun my supply lines.

But I doubt that you are as mediocre player a player as you pretend. I might believe that when you play with Athena too much the Ageod engine doesn't't give you enough opportunities to practise hex-based kiel und kessel tactics. (When you stop playing chess for ten years and start up again the first few games are always ... interesting).



RandomAttack -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/2/2016 7:51:28 PM)

quote:

(When you stop playing chess for ten years and start up again the first few games are always ... interesting).


I did that! My opponent called me out for paradropping my rook over a line of pawns to attack the king. And then later for declaring his bishop a heretic and sentencing him to burn at the stake. I mean, c'mon! [:'(]



lancer -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/3/2016 8:41:56 AM)

Hi Franciscus,

During the Beta Normal AI difficulty was actually ramped well past the current point. We toned it down for the release.

However the game should be able to cater for the requirements of different Players.

Have you tried the, perhaps inappropriately named, Easy mode (option button at the start)?

Cheers,
Cameron



RandomAttack -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/3/2016 4:42:50 PM)

I don't see the issues as being with the AI at all-- it's all the "balance issues" at the very start: full entrenchment modifier, morale at 60(!), etc. According to the tooltip all the "Easy" button does is give you more fuel & PPs. Again, if you had the same combat modifiers as in PBEM for an "Easy" SP difficulty it would make a huge difference. I understand you think that would somehow make the game insultingly easy and just aren't going to do it. I disagree but it's your call of course.



willgamer -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/3/2016 7:30:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

@willgamer,

The thing is the combat details were never meant as an integral part of gameplay. They have just been made available to allow curious people a look under the hood. All the rules of thumb are in the manual and most players develop a sense of intuition after one or two games.

However to answer your core question of "why would a defensive bonus be applied to something thats attacking?".. Well because I strongly believe defensive successes are grounded in the ability of the defender to kill the attacker. So the defensive bonus does not give the defenders more armour to withstand attack and dammage, but simulates defensive doctrines, preperations and the like that lead to higher casualties for the attacker. Picture a defensive machinegun nest opening up fire on appoaching attackers. From the individuals perspective the MG is attacking (thats the perspective mentioned in the combat details) even though from a units perspective the unit as a whole is defending.

And answer to the other question: Basicly it is very simple.. the attack points for the attacker are calculated and the hitpoints for the defender. When this is done both numbers are randomized, score a value between 0 and their number and if attacker scores higher a hit is scored, otherwise not.

Best wishes,
Vic


Firstly, I believe this combat system is simply brilliant! [sm=happy0065.gif]

Therefore when you make combat details "available to allow curious people a look under the hood", I hope you will forgive those curious people when they continue to be curious.

I don't mean to be tedious so if these basic explanations have been given many times before in forums for your other games, please just provide a link.

I accept your logic for how defensive bonus is applied, even if it does put a new twist on the meaning of defensive bonus... it's really a counterattacking bonus.

Still, I think showing the randomized results would allow further clarity into how the system works.

-----------------------------

However, the difference between the way that the Early Soviet Penalties are applied, between the SP and MP, could use more clarification. That there is a difference is no problem (AI needs a little boost).

However, the Blue Box Defensive Combat bonus/penalty during those turns is correct only for the German MP player who, over and above that, benefits from the Entrenchment Penalty. In SP, the Blue Box number seems to be the same number used in MP, but there is no Entrenchment Penalty.

Just knowing that, may speed the learning process for players trying to better understand how to evaluate combat on those first three turns, or so.

Thank you for the insights into combat resolution. [sm=happy0005.gif]




Franciscus -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/3/2016 9:03:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I don't see the issues as being with the AI at all-- it's all the "balance issues" at the very start: full entrenchment modifier, morale at 60(!), etc. According to the tooltip all the "Easy" button does is give you more fuel & PPs. Again, if you had the same combat modifiers as in PBEM for an "Easy" SP difficulty it would make a huge difference. I understand you think that would somehow make the game insultingly easy and just aren't going to do it. I disagree but it's your call of course.


+1
The main issue I was trying to discuss is this. The balance (specially or even only in turn 1) in combat vs AI. I would like, even if only as an option, of having more advantages in combat resolution vs soviet AI units at least on in turn 1.

PS: So far I have been playing in "easy" mode, but only to reduce logistical and PP constraints, but that does not affect combat resolution.

Regards



lancer -> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments (2/4/2016 7:56:35 AM)

Hi Franciscus,

Fair enough. You're not the only one asking for this so I'll add something in for the next update.

It'll be an option, though.

Cheers,
Cameron



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75