History VS Game Balance #2

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

History VS Game Balance #2

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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> History VS Game Balance #2

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

History VS Game Balance #2 - 5/28/2003 10:44:37 AM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

I get worried when I read certain threads that have certain posters consistently pushing for one side's obvious superiority or the other's, based upon history. I don't want a game where the USN always wins (unless the USN player is a complete fool), historical or not. UV isn't completely USN dominated - but is getting very close IMO.

It depends upon the victory conditions - but I'm interested in discovering how MANY people feel one way or the other - rather than just having certain posters try to "out-post" each other with the number and size of their posts! ;)

I would like to limit this poll to the discussion of game mechanics - not to the discussion of scenario options (although UV tried to fulfill the balanced gameplay field by introducing Scn 19).

In WITP, which would you prefer (please vote and then post your reasons).

1. Historical gameplay (like I feel UV attempts to recreate), with the USN basically always triumphant. Historical, but has imbalance issues.

Or

2. Balanced gameplay, where the game is ahistorical, but gives each player a 50/50 shot at victory. Things like zeroes shooting down B-17s, S boats limited etc. etc.

For myself - I would prefer better gameplay.

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

Post #: 1

- 5/28/2003 11:02:13 AM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

Balanced game play please. It is a GAME. The Allies should win the war, but only win the game 50% of the time.

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 2

- 5/28/2003 11:14:27 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

I am in a poll!:eek:

Gameplay [I]based[/I] on what the weapon systems are [I]able[/I] (did) do IRL.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 3

- 5/28/2003 11:25:29 AM

Aussie

Posts: 122
Joined: 10/3/2002
From: Darwin, Australia
Status: offline

I don't agree with reducing the historical aspect of the game just to even the odds. Sure there may be little or no chance for a total Japanese victory (for two evenly matched players) but there should be other provisions for the Japanese player to win a victory of sorts. PacWar had the kill multiplier for allied losses in '44 and '45 - maybe WiTP could utilise factors such as those to give the Japanese player a fighting chance.

You could change the stats of a Zero to make it attack B-17s like a Fw-190 but then it wouldn't be a Zero...

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 4

- 5/28/2003 1:36:22 PM

Zakhal

Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyv�skyl�, Finland
Status: offline

All i want is an ingame switch. Gameplay: Historical - Balanced. ;)

_____________________________

"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."� Edmund Burke

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 5

- 5/28/2003 3:19:42 PM

Hoplosternum

Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline

Well I hope it is more historical. In fact just like UV only bigger :)

For most of us the game is not going to run the distance very often regardless of the balance. Once the game becomes pretty one sided why does either want to play on for a year or two of both game time and real time (in PBEM!)? And this is the sort of game when after a while one side is likely to get on top. CVs and major surface assets are rather fragile and once one side gets an edge this could snowball.

For those who want a balanced scenario that is what the editor is for. Scenarios #17 and #19 etc. are fantasy ones where the Japanese have more stuff (or lost less) than they did historically. I am all in favour of an alternative campaign that gives Japan extra CVs, BBs and decent and extra ACs through '42, '43 and beyond. But I would rather that the basic game had (roughly) the real weapons with their capabilities at it's heart.

So historical for me. But with an editor and preferably a decent Japanese fantasy scenario thrown in from the start.

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 6

- 5/28/2003 9:34:36 PM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

Oh come on??? A deadlock between gameplay and historical and NOBODY thinks beating Raver is most important??? What is wrong with you people?? :D

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 7

- 5/28/2003 9:38:50 PM

Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: V�ster�s,Sweden
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan
[B]Oh come on??? A deadlock between gameplay and historical and NOBODY thinks beating Raver is most important??? What is wrong with you people?? :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Hey as long as I can beat Raver the game gets 5/5!:D

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 8

- 5/28/2003 10:06:55 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

My vote should be obvious.

As for the historicity-game balance thing, it's easy. The game should depict historical possibilities to the maximum extent and model historical reality absolutely. Game balance should be taken care of by crafting of victory conditions that give both players a reasonable chance of "winning the game," if not "winning the history."

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 9

- 5/28/2003 11:02:40 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

The poll is useless unless we can agree on what 'history' is.
I doubt that is possible.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 10

- 5/28/2003 11:04:06 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

With an excellent editor, it should be possible for gamers to have ALL possibilties:

Both historical and "what-if" scenarios/campaigns.

But the key here is to have a very user-friendly scenario editor. Allow us to tweak/change everything in the game, including units, attributes, base names, start times, etc, etc :)

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 11

- 5/28/2003 11:24:00 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

I want a game that will keep me coming back over and over so I guess gameplay takes precedence. As stated above, the weapons systems need to be historical but the events perhaps could be random. I want the "what ifs".

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 12

- 5/28/2003 11:52:05 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by Chiteng
[QUOTE]The poll is useless unless we can agree on what 'history' is. I doubt that is possible.[/QUOTE]

Why do I keep thinking of Marvin the Robot in "The Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy"???

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 13

- 5/28/2003 11:56:55 PM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

I think history is the most important. What's the point of years of research into historical ships, units, planes, pilots, captains, etc. if you're not going to have historical results? To balance gameplay though, there should be auto victory conditions of some sort, because "historically" the Japanese player cannot win against the manufacturing might of the USA - so who'd want to try? I leave the decision of what auto win should be to others, but thats my take.

I think you can have your cake and -mostly- eat it too...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 14

- 5/29/2003 1:05:32 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

Wow, I can�t believe the results. This is a GAME. Of course GAMEplay should be of utmost importance. Sure, I love to watch the History channel too, but I don�t want to play it out for months on end and feel like my hands are tied if I try to go beyond history. I know it is a balance issue but I would hope the developers would lean heavily toward playability since the purpose of a game is entertainment.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 15

- 5/29/2003 1:31:40 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]Wow, I can�t believe the results. This is a GAME. Of course GAMEplay should be of utmost importance. Sure, I love to watch the History channel too, but I don�t want to play it out for months on end and feel like my hands are tied if I try to go beyond history. I know it is a balance issue but I would hope the developers would lean heavily toward playability since the purpose of a game is entertainment.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

Well if I wanted to simply play checkers...I would play checkers.
There is a REASON, that I play wargames.

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 16

- 5/29/2003 1:53:31 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

There's no reason why players cant have both. Dont see it as a major issue.

*options* are the key.

example: USN Codebreaking; On or Off

On: Historical crowd preference

Off: playability crowd preference, 'or' historical crowd that would like to play a different slant on the old theme.

Another age old example: Diff levels....Easy, Historical, Hard, Very Hard, Insane ;)

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 17

- 5/29/2003 2:04:34 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]There's no reason why players cant have both. Dont see it as a major issue.

*options* are the key.

example: USN Codebreaking; On or Off

On: Historical crowd preference

Off: playability crowd preference, 'or' historical crowd that would like to play a different slant on the old theme.

Another age old example: Diff levels....Easy, Historical, Hard, Very Hard, Insane ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

Except of course that the code breaking was not a constant
during the war. It 'surged'

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 18

- 5/29/2003 2:17:43 AM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]My vote should be obvious.

As for the historicity-game balance thing, it's easy. The game should depict historical possibilities to the maximum extent and model historical reality absolutely. Game balance should be taken care of by crafting of victory conditions that give both players a reasonable chance of "winning the game," if not "winning the history." [/B][/QUOTE]

Moslty I agree with this - it seems reasonable. It has to be done with caution lest you get into the point counting too deeply and leave reality behind. I think the auto victory for the Japanese in UV is good - it gives a reasonable political scenario. Yeah, I can hear everyone saying "we would never surrender" and "the Chinese didn't surrender" etc. And perhaps the auto victory is only a Japanese dream, but it makes the game playable (at least if you go with the non-historic scenarios). :)

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 19

- 5/29/2003 2:51:08 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2
[B]Hey as long as I can beat Raver the game gets 5/5!:D [/B][/QUOTE]

Mmmm.....careless he is, thinking about the Raven.....when young warrior should be more focused on current situation.

;)

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 20

Winning - 5/29/2003 4:36:47 AM

herbieh

Posts: 804
Joined: 8/30/2002
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

Id like something like UV, where I have a choice of historical outcomes, or scenerios like 17, 15, more game like

Im also keen to know that if I play as Japan with all the Historical assets, that even though 43 onwards will be painful, that if I play well, I have a even chance of winning the game, even if the war is lost

If I cant do that, I cant see myself committing to a year or so of PBEM.

Im confident though that Matrix will get it right, and Ill be looking for my long term opponent soon!

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 21

- 5/29/2003 5:37:23 AM

Point Luck

Posts: 318
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: East Coast-US
Status: offline

[B]Sure, I love to watch the History channel too, but I don�t want to play it out for months on end and feel like my hands are tied if I try to go beyond history. I know it is a balance issue but I would hope the developers would lean heavily toward playability since the purpose of game is entertainment[/B]

[B]Posted By Yamamoto[/B]

[B]But the key here is to have a very user-friendly scenario editor. Allow us to tweak/change everything in the game, including units, attributes, base names, start times, etc, etc [/B]

[B]Posted By Von Rom[/B]

That�s all that needs to be said.

A game that is playable and the end results are not based on past histories is what I want from a game.

I want the weapons of a by gone time, while being able to use my own tactics. Knowing how my opponent and myself play the game will determine the winner and not the winner being based solely on the allies MUST win because that�s what happened in history is what's important for my $70

IT�S ONLY A GAME It�s suppose to be fun

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 22

- 5/29/2003 5:49:45 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Point Luck
[B][B]Sure, I love to watch the History channel too, but I don�t want to play it out for months on end and feel like my hands are tied if I try to go beyond history. I know it is a balance issue but I would hope the developers would lean heavily toward playability since the purpose of game is entertainment[/B]

[B]Posted By Yamamoto[/B]

[B]But the key here is to have a very user-friendly scenario editor. Allow us to tweak/change everything in the game, including units, attributes, base names, start times, etc, etc [/B]

[B]Posted By Von Rom[/B]

That�s all that needs to be said.

A game that is playable and the end results are not based on past histories is what I want from a game.

I want the weapons of a by gone time, while being able to use my own tactics. Knowing how my opponent and myself play the game will determine the winner and not the winner being based solely on the allies MUST win because that�s what happened in history is what's important for my $70

IT�S ONLY A GAME It�s suppose to be fun [/B][/QUOTE]

It wont be fun if the Japs lose every time because they cant shoot down B-17

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 23

- 5/29/2003 6:25:27 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

Chiteng, please stop bringing that up in every thread. We've got 2-3 threads going on that topic in 2 different forums, I think thats enough.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 24

- 5/29/2003 6:28:33 AM

Aussie

Posts: 122
Joined: 10/3/2002
From: Darwin, Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]It wont be fun if the Japs lose every time because they cant shoot down B-17 [/B][/QUOTE]

You haven't seen anything yet - wait until the B-29 comes on the scene. :D I'm sure you are exaggerating things somewhat. You can't base B-17s from every possible airbase in the Pacific, nor base 'em off carriers. B-17s cannot land on atolls and eliminate enemy land forces, nor could they taxi along the Kakoda trail and drive the Japanese back to Buna. Need I go on? :rolleyes:

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 25

- 5/29/2003 6:48:41 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aussie
[B]You haven't seen anything yet - wait until the B-29 comes on the scene. :D I'm sure you are exaggerating things somewhat. You can't base B-17s from every possible airbase in the Pacific, nor base 'em off carriers. B-17s cannot land on atolls and eliminate enemy land forces, nor could they taxi along the Kakoda trail and drive the Japanese back to Buna. Need I go on? :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

I am well aware of the effects of the B-29
However its operational loss rate was quite high, as was the cost of the weapon system.

You want to use the to chase DD, well go ahead.

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 26

- 5/29/2003 6:50:13 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Jeez, guys, you all pretty much ignored Pasternatski's post. This is not an either/or debate. You can have both as Pasternatski says.

You can have a historical game - meaning having historical capabilities without being tied to historical tactics and strategies - and still allow each side a 50:50 chance of winning. In general, the U.S. wins only if they do better than historically. How you define "better" is a trick, but it probably involves time, casualties ratios, equipment ratios, and maybe objectives. There was a thread, which I can't find now, that went into this. Since the game balance will probably shift as particular tactics or strategies become well-known that "game" the system, players can select different level of difficulties that will force the Allies to "win" the game in shorter or longer periods of time to adjust the game balance back to close to 50:50. The Allies may kick the living you-know-what out of the Japanese, but if they don't do it quicker and better than some established standard, they still lose.

Hence, the Japanese player can get waxed, but if he isn't waxed quite as bad as some standard, he wins. The Japanese player doesn't have to hold Los Angeles to win; he can win even as the Allies march into Tokyo by attriting or delaying the Allies sufficiently.

I don't believe that sacrifices reality for gameplay. Does it?

Alternatively, changing the difficulty level could alter the capabilities of the B17. On a historical setting, the B17 can average one hit on a sampan or DE size vessel per attack and suffers one point of damage for each fifty zeros that attack it. Carriers attacked by B17s are automatically sunk. Adjusting the difficulty all the way to favor the Japanese results in the B17 only hitting a sampan once for every two missions and one plane is destroyed for each fifty zeros that attack it. Carriers attacked by B17s have a one-in-three chance of not being sunk immediately.

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 27

- 5/29/2003 6:57:13 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]Jeez, guys, you all pretty much ignored Pasternatski's post. This is not an either/or debate. You can have both as Pasternatski says.

You can have a historical game - meaning having historical capabilities without being tied to historical tactics and strategies - and still allow each side a 50:50 chance of winning. In general, the U.S. wins only if they do better than historically. How you define "better" is a trick, but it probably involves time, casualties ratios, equipment ratios, and maybe objectives. There was a thread, which I can't find now, that went into this. Since the game balance will probably shift as particular tactics or strategies become well-known that "game" the system, players can select different level of difficulties that will force the Allies to "win" the game in shorter or longer periods of time to adjust the game balance back to close to 50:50. The Allies may kick the living you-know-what out of the Japanese, but if they don't do it quicker and better than some established standard, they still lose.

Hence, the Japanese player can get waxed, but if he isn't waxed quite as bad as some standard, he wins. The Japanese player doesn't have to hold Los Angeles to win; he can win even as the Allies march into Tokyo by attriting or delaying the Allies sufficiently.

I don't believe that sacrifices reality for gameplay. Does it? [/B][/QUOTE]

For one, I dont agree the current B-17 modeling matches its
historical capabilities. We can start the argument there.
Therefore I have no chance of having a 'historical game' as you put it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 28

- 5/29/2003 7:46:25 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

It was a joke. :( I was taking a horse long since kicked to death and merely grinding it to dust.

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 29

Just when you thought it was safe to post a poll . . . - 5/29/2003 12:59:27 PM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]

Why do I keep thinking of Marvin the Robot in "The Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy"??? [/B][/QUOTE]

"I despise oceans!" :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]
We can start the argument there.
[/B][/QUOTE]

No Chiteng, you can't. You see, I started this thread as a poll about user preferences - whether they see History or Gameplay as more important. I was hoping that each concerned poster would front up, vote, and then post the reason why they voted as they did.

Maybe some informed ORIGINAL discussion would ensue.

I did not start this thread to be a vessel to provide you with yet another thread to nag, bitch, whine, cry, whimper, throw a tantrum, stamp your foot, wave your arms in the air to try and get even more attention for your particular crusade(s) (whether I agree with them or not), followed by a hundred other posters either flaming you or disagreeing with you (or plain turned off the entire thread by such persistant nagging), followed by your ever stoic and predictable respone "I disagree" (which you then have to begin every subsequent post with as the argument continues).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by me
[B]
It depends upon the victory conditions - but I'm interested in discovering how MANY people feel one way or the other - rather than just having certain posters try to "out-post" each other with the number and size of their posts!
[/B][/QUOTE]

I am certain that Matrix is WELL aware what you want - you've spammed it all many times before. However you don't add any weight to your arguments by repeated them over and over and over again. The irritation factor detracts from whatever attention the arguments deserve. :(

Please take this as a friendly reminder that now that you've had your vote, and your say, let some of the other children have a turn hmm? :rolleyes:

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> History VS Game Balance #2

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>