RE: Rigging The Game

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Rigging The Game

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 >> RE: Rigging The Game

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Rigging The Game - 6/27/2007 4:57:30 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

. . . At which point does the use of ammo re-supply become an advantage for the human? I don�t think this an easy question to answer because of the way the dynamics of a human versus computer battle work.

For instance, the computer will almost always outnumber the human player. The outnumbered player will experience greater ammo expenditure per unit since he has more targets to shoot at. This greatly favors the side with more units.

. . .

Right now, I believe that any human who plays with AI Advantage ON and Hard Battle (x2), like I do, is at a serious disadvantage against the computer without some form of ammo re-supply. However, how much ammo re-supply is enough to be �balanced and fair� and yet not give the human player an advantage against the computer?

That is the question.

I stand by what I said in the quote above. Since the computer outnumbers the human player, often by 2 to 1 or more, then the human player is at a substantial disadvantage without some form of ammo re-supply.

What I'm seeking is fair and balanced, with no advantage to either side. For example, perhaps the equivalent of 1 ammo carrier per 1000 points (or 1 ammo dump per 3000 points) does not give either side an advantage in battles that last 30 turns or less.

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 61

RE: Rigging The Game - 6/27/2007 5:29:30 AM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

Try checkers?

I'm evil.

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 62

RE: Rigging The Game - 6/27/2007 5:46:31 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

Considering the content of the last two posts, you are right. This is a complete waste of time.

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 63

RE: Rigging The Game - 6/27/2007 6:12:30 AM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

I was jesting with Victor, and I think he knows it. Let's be nice. I concur that trying to quantify what, IMO, cannot be quantified seems a waste of time, but the forums are here for�member enjoyment, no? If Vahauser enjoys attempting to come up with a system that works for him, then it is not a waste of time for him.

quote:

with no advantage to either side

That's what prompted my checkers comment.

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 64

RE: Rigging The Game - 6/27/2007 8:24:01 AM

Riun T

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline

Know what really puzzles me?

the fact that throu the last few months I've been asking VA to actually finish ANY campaign,and I can finally tell u all why thats so important to me.
Goblin just said he's quantifying things,and we all get his drift in what he considers "the list of things HE see's as advantages"
But wouldn't u figure by going back and reading the posts that his "extreme challenge campaign" settings and play style should have indicated threw playtesting,and review from his little SPWAW playgroup to have given him a good data base to refer to anyway.
ALL this kibitzing,, and blame and bash to other hardworking forum members on silly things like "WHY didn't this one extreme ranged german cannon get represented right in the OOB's,"or this whole {informing us on what u think is an advantage/rigging to player favor} and then doing a random poll right after telling us what U think is rigging the game and broken down by statistical values too boot!?@#$
why doesn't VA see that we are much more interested in tangible physical evidance of the braging rights that screen shots of even 100 saved games as testimony would give not only to his playing ability,{beyond 2-5 preset to his likeing single battles} and answer his own questions on things like stacking and ammo useage and prove to at least me that he could playthrou even 1/2 of the battles in a WHOLE campaign without using all these advantages.
OR at least try something like I did with the flashfyre effort and let us QUANTIFY your progress,,,all of us that have PM'ed me have put their money on the AI with u claiming that u never use air assets,incursion,mines/obstucals,,, I used everything the rarity and date/conditions of battle would allow me and I got lots of draws and a pretty average campaign score,, so maybe u prove to us that u CAN get as many victories as u,ve claimed and even 1/2 the score I got with the same settings,,then we won't badger u or hyjack threads u start.

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 65

RE: Rigging The Game - 6/27/2007 12:18:16 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Riun,

. . .

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Riun T,

. . .

Here is what is relevant. I told you what I was willing to do. You start a thread describing the core and the rules and the guidelines you want me to use, and let's see what happens. My only requirement is that the campaign must use Enhanced DVRN.

Riun T,

I told you what I was willing to do. You start a thread describing the core and the rules and the guidelines you want me to use, and let's see what happens. My only requirement is that the campaign must use Enhanced DVRN.

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 66

RE: Rigging The Game - 7/7/2007 10:30:30 AM

Rimrunner

Posts: 12
Joined: 7/6/2007
Status: offline

When playing UK vs Germans in early war, and without mines
there have been some battles where I have had to just bug out and leave the field to the Germans,
to preserve core force and experience.
In 1940/41, I think that for UK to use (limited amounts, eg 40) mines, in a Defend battle, is acceptable.
(But not in a Delay battle!).
What say you?

Also, it seems to me (since I got SPWAW and more so since I got v8.4) that units are not
losing experience when destroyed the way they used to in the original game. At least sometimes,
When a tank blows and the crew is killed, you repair, and when you look in the next battle, their
experience is still say in the 80's, where baseline indicates it should only be 60-something.
If this is true, then the original way seems better. Or am I making some mistake?

(in reply to Riun T)

Post #: 67

RE: Rigging The Game - 7/7/2007 5:44:17 PM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rimrunner

When playing UK vs Germans in early war, and without mines
there have been some battles where I have had to just bug out and leave the field to the Germans,
to preserve core force and experience.
In 1940/41, I think that for UK to use (limited amounts, eg 40) mines, in a Defend battle, is acceptable.
(But not in a Delay battle!).
What say you?

Also, it seems to me (since I got SPWAW and more so since I got v8.4) that units are not
losing experience when destroyed the way they used to in the original game. At least sometimes,
When a tank blows and the crew is killed, you repair, and when you look in the next battle, their
experience is still say in the 80's, where baseline indicates it should only be 60-something.
If this is true, then the original way seems better. Or am I making some mistake?

You indicate you are still using 8.4; may I ask why? That version has been proven to have serious "bugs" in it, which have been corrected in 8.403. The biggest one was the "tank spotting" bug, where tanks and assault guns became "whirling dervishes of death" as they were able to spot dug-in infantry in cover at 5 hexes and immediately spin to attack them. It makes tank hunter-killer teams impossible to use, as they become spotted even while laying in ambush...

I suggest you upgrade to 8.403, or, better yet, to the Enhanced DV or DVRN Mod, which uses the 8.403 mech.exe as it's core.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rimrunner)

Post #: 68

RE: Rigging The Game - 7/7/2007 7:05:50 PM

Rimrunner

Posts: 12
Joined: 7/6/2007
Status: offline

Why 8.4? Because I only just got it and didn't know any better - thanks for the tip.

Now where would I get the patch to .403?

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 69

RE: Rigging The Game - 7/7/2007 7:22:10 PM

junk2drive

Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline

In the member's area. At the top of this page is a link between games and merchandise. You need to create a login but you can use the same name and password as the forum if you would like to.

Easier is to get the Enhanced mod and use ModSwap to install it.

(in reply to Rimrunner)

Post #: 70

RE: Rigging The Game - 7/7/2007 8:26:11 PM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rimrunner

Why 8.4? Because I only just got it and didn't know any better - thanks for the tip.

Now where would I get the patch to .403?

For Enhanced, go here Enhanced SPWAW Forum and check the SPWAW Enhanced area. There is a thread with d/load links for the Mod. There are also links for updated scenarios and campaigns using Enhanced.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rimrunner)

Post #: 71

RE: Rigging The Game - 8/26/2007 10:12:50 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

It has been suggested in another thread that switching back and forth between Auto Rally ON and Auto Rally OFF during play can give the player an advantage against the computer.

To me, this is obvious. Indeed, manipulating the game's settings during play is an easy way for the player to rig the game against the computer.

But I'm not going to add manipulating game settings during play to the rig list, though, because there are an infinite number of ways to do this, and to me it seems to defeat the purpose of having settings in the first place. So this method of rigging the game is not getting added to the list.

_____________________________

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 72

RE: Rigging The Game - 9/8/2007 7:41:26 PM

Titanwarrior89

Posts: 3283
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline

Choosing to play some Nations on Defense
Choosing to play some Nations on Defense and the odds are to great for the attacker. Such as 1 to 1, 2 to 1 or worst with heavey bunkers, anti-armour. Some nations have a great advantage in the defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

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.

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 73

RE: Rigging The Game - 9/8/2007 8:43:38 PM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

Conversely, rigging the game in favor of the AI: choose the Japanese or Russians as your opponent, and let THEM defend.

As in real life, I'm finding that the Japanese are terrible at attacking, as they rely upon human wave assaults. However, when they dig in and start deploying in bunkers and hiding in caves, it's easy to see why the USMC had to essentially turn all of their line infantry into assault units equipped with demolitions and flamethrowers.

It becomes a horrendous mix of medieval savagery fought with modern weapons, but it also includes close combat with bayonets, knives, fists, rocks and the occasional samurai sword.

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 74

RE: Rigging The Game - 9/9/2007 4:15:31 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

The comments by Erwin and Titanwarrior89 are interesting because for the past several weeks I've been working on a new campaign concept for a Generated Campaign. I will be posting that new campaign format in a new thread by the end of the month. . .

Anyway, one of the conditions of that new Generated Campaign is that the human player is not allowed to accept Defend or Delay missions. The human player may only accept Assault, Advance, and Meeting Engagements. You will read about my new campaign format soon.

Anyway, is it a coincidence that within a short period of time recently several people have concluded that Delay and Defend missions are too easy because the computer is a very poor opponent when attacking against a human defending? And that only when defending does the computer present any challenge at all?

_____________________________

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 75

RE: Rigging The Game - 9/10/2007 12:34:30 AM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Anyway, is it a coincidence that within a short period of time recently several people have concluded that Delay and Defend missions are too easy because the computer is a very poor opponent when attacking against a human defending? And that only when defending does the computer present any challenge at all?

It's not a coincidence...it's been a well-known fact of this game that the AI does best when defending. However, most players out there aren't spending an inordinate amount of time trying to "rig" the game to provide an output that fits their style, and then posting the "results"...so it may indeed appear to be a "coincidence".

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 76

RE: Rigging The Game - 9/10/2007 4:47:45 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

FlashFyre,

You are probably correct regarding most players know that the computer is more challenging when defending instead of attacking. But I speculate that most players still play lots of Delay and Defend missions in their campaigns even knowing that that is an easy way to achieve an easy Decisive Victory (especially when using mines and dragon's teeth when they are playing a Defend Mission).

However, I disagree that players don't rig the game to suit their playing style. Pretty much everybody plays with C&C OFF, which is a form of rigging the game to suit their playing style. Pretty much everybody plays with ammo re-supply units and heavy artillery, which (especially with C&C OFF) is a form of rigging the game to suit their playing style.

Further, pretty much everybody plays with a core that they are comfortable with, which (playing within their comfort zone) is a way of rigging the game to suit their playing style.

_____________________________

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 77

RE: Rigging The Game - 9/10/2007 5:34:10 AM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

Only you "rig" the game....that is, determining wat settings give you your desired result and then ONLY playing that way. I suspect many others simply play with the "default" settings, of which C&C OFF is one. Therefore, C&C OFF is not "rigging" the game...turning it ON is. Likewise, ammo resupply...

And I don't believe most "campaign players" play those Defends and Delays because they are easy...they play them because that is the battle the campaign throws at them, and they aren't going to take the time to keep restarting the save in order to get a different battle.

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 78

RE: Rigging The Game - 9/10/2007 7:32:38 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

FlashFyre,

Honestly, you have no idea how I play SPWAW. You have an impression of me based on my words in this forum, but those words (while I try hard to be forthright and accurate) paint an imperfect picture at best. If you could look over my shoulder while I was playing, I think you would be surprised.

But I don�t think that matters because I also believe that you have judged me to be a player who absolutely does NOT play the game �as it was meant to be played�. I also believe that if you had your way, players who don�t play the game �as it was meant to be played� would be forced to conform to your vision. I�m just grateful that we got Gary Grigsby�s vision back in 1995-7 of a game that did not take a rigid stand on �how the game was meant to be played� and provided options for all kinds of players to play however they wanted to play.

In any event, here is how I play the game. I play the game to be challenged. That is how I play the game. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I have a degree in history. Something that I suspect most people on this forum don�t have. I know something about history. But I do not play the game to simulate history. And I do not play the game to model historical combat. Why not? Because the game CANNOT simulate history. The game CANNOT model historical combat. It�s a game. It�s not history. And that is the truth.

And my impression of YOU is that that truth eats at you because you want the game to be an historical simulation and an historical model and it�s just not.

An historical simulation and model would be real-time in 3D with no hex-grid and no alternating turns. The simple fact that the game is turn-based, I-go You-go, with units moving one at a time over a rigid hexgrid, renders any historical simulation value pretty much zero. Even the OOBs, as much as you want them to be historical, are actually game compromises based on rigid OOB units limits and weapon slots. Frankly, SPWAW has more in common with Chess or Checkers or Go than it does with simulating actual historical combat. And I treat it as such.

Yet, when it comes right down to it, SPWAW is all about appearances. People want the game to appear to be historical. People want the game to feel authentic. People want the game to seem to be realistic. But that is as far as SPWAW can take it. Illusions of historical reality. It�s just a game. And the rigid uncompromising demands of the game trump history absolutely 100% of the time.

To repeat, I play the game to be challenged.

This whole thread is all about what settings and adjustments make the game less challenging or more challenging. It is also an attempt to provide readers with commentary that discusses each of them.

Personally, to me, �rigging� the game is something that makes the game less challenging. So, when you say that I�m the only person who �rigs� the game, you are actually saying something completely backwards from the way I actually play.

C&C OFF makes the game less challenging, so I play with C&C ON.
American artillery makes the game less challenging, so I don�t play the Americans.
Playing Delay and Defend missions make the game less challenging, so I don�t play Delay and Defend missions.
And so on and so on.

If you want to be accurate, you should say, �Victor wants challenging games and adjusts the settings and game conditions to minimize any advantages he might gain against the computer.� Whenever you have pointed out a situation where the player gains an advantage against the computer (like with Auto Rally ON/OFF), I have adopted the more challenging option (in this case, Auto Rally OFF).

To sum up, this thread is all about what makes the game more challenging or less challenging. And I personally play the game to be more challenged, not less challenged. In other words, I do NOT rig the game in my favor. I do the opposite.

_____________________________

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 79