Re: Thoughts on game balance

[Dave Fancella <david.fancella@comcast.net>]

Ok, I feel conclusion to this subject.

When I played the Anthill map the artillery came in line and was able to do 
its job.  If only the other units had fared so well....

By the end of the map, when the infantry were getting close to the base, the 
cannons were able to take them down 5 hit points at a blast, and it was real 
nice.  Sure, they had a tougher time when they first started firing, but 
towards the end of the scenario they got pretty tough.  Same with the AA 
guns, they worked out nicely.

If I could just manage to keep my helicopters long enough to do something 
useful with them, I might be able to comment on them.  I haven't yet noticed 
the air units and how they're affecting the game now, but I've been playing 
maps that don't have many/any air units.  :)

Hm, I did have a light tank that was sitting on 2 hit points (or whatever it's 
called) that was surrounded by light tanks and my tank stuck around with his 
two hit points for four more turns, each turn taking out one more light tank.  
It was awesome for a last stand pocket on a last stand map, I'll admit.  
Maybe the fact that it was finally taken out means it was perfectly balanced.  
:)

Dave

On Tuesday 10 February 2004 05:58 pm, Jens Granseuer wrote:
> > > Then there's experience. If you have a very strong level 1 unit
> > > (being able to wipe out other units 1-on-1 in one or two turns),
> > > you get real monsters in later levels. This was the case, for
> > > example, in Battle Isle where a single artillery, surrounded by
> > > a ring of cannon fodder, could easily win or lose a map. (Admittedly,
> > > this could be fun if the artillery happened to be on your end...)
> > > In CF I did not want such units.
> >
> > This is something I've only started experiencing (no pun intended), or
> > rather, noticing.  :)  It doesn't look like CF moves pieces from one
> > field to the next, though.
>
> 'Later levels' means 'later experience levels', not 'later maps',
> in this context. You may have noticed the little white symbol next
> to the '(6)' for unit health. This is the XP level indicator.
> Units get stronger with more XP.
>
> > > Finally, we have the AI. Making the game rules more complicated
> > > usually makes the AI at least twice as complicated. This is somewhat
> > > unfortunate, but also provides a very good reason for keeping combat
> > > rules simple.
> >
> > Personally, not that I'm volunteering to program the AI (although I might
> > take a crack at it sooner or later, since I'm planning on trying to use
> > parts of the AI to automate parts of the game for human players), but I
> > tend to think that the AI is something that shouldn't define the rules. 
> > That would be the tail wagging the dog.
>
> In priciple, I agree. Unfortunately, in this case, that might leave us
> with a dog with no tail at all (or a tail with no dog?).
>
> > > > On defense, both artillery and air units seem to be stronger than
> > > > they should.
> > >
> > > Well, the reasoning for the artillery units was that since they
> > > are so slow and can't even defend themselves when attacked, they
> > > at least need some protection so they are not obliterated by the
> > > first gust of wind that happens to come along.
> >
> > Actually, if you were after some sort of realism in this case, it is a
> > fact that artillery get obliterated by the first gust of wind that comes
> > along.
> >
> > :)
>
> I don't think we're after realism. ;-)
>
> > That said, I agree that artillery should be able to defend themselves
> > when attacked, but defense strength and attack strength are entirely
> > different matters.
>
> Yes, but you were claiming the artillery was too strong in defense...
>
> > Hm, it may be a personal preference.  I don't know about the regular Army
> > infantry, but I do know that US Marines, at least, carry some pretty
> > advanced AA weapons.  Of course, the Marines aren't "infantry" in the
> > traditional sense, and their mission is totally different than the
> > regular Army's.  It might be interesting to have a Marine piece, though,
> > that has abilities that regular infantry don't have.
>
> That's mainly a matter of someone painting the graphics and convincing
> me we need it ;-)
>
> > > When talking about the number of turns it takes to detroy an enemy unit
> > > it makes a vast difference if you fight a 1-on-1 or use a second unit
> > > for support. Depending on the units the latter can easily double or
> > > triple the number of hits.
> >
> > I just learned about support, actually, and have been using it fairly
> > effectively (I won the Island Hoppers map using it, not that that map was
> > particularly hard already).
> > [...]
> > The other thing is that
> > the support method that's there actually gives an even greater advantage
> > to the army that has the most numbers.  I would tend to think that
> > greater numbers is already an advantage in itself.  But I don't yet have
> > an opinion on this because I only just learned about it.  ;)
>
> That may be true. But then again, it's the only way to beat the 'hopeless'
> maps...
>
> > > > What do y'all think about a second movement phase after the firing
> > > > phase is resolved?  I ask because that's how Ogre/GEV did it, you got
> > > > a second movement phase for GEVs (Ground Effect Vehicle, aka
> > > > hovercraft).  That made your GEVs very useful, if light, strategic
> > > > pieces.
> > >
> > > In Battle Isle 2 (or was it 3, or both?) this was used as well, mainly
> > > for recon squads. I also thought about adding this ability but it
> > > doesn't work very well with combat resolution at the end of the turn
> > > as is used in CF.
> >
> > Actually, I seem to recall that Ogre/GEV had a turn sequence identical to
> > what Crimson has, except for the second movement phase.  First you move
> > all of your pieces, then you resolve combat, then you get your second
> > movement.  You also didn't have to choose targets as part of the movement
> > phase, but I think Crimson's interface for this is the best possible
> > interface.  ;)  It would work well, or at least it has in board games. 
> > I'll see if I can throw together a hack that does it so you can check it
> > out.  I feel particularly passionate about this one, because I'm a hit
> > and run type of tactician, and there aren't any opportunities for them
> > that I've found, yet.
>
> The only solution I can think of would be a second turn after having ended
> your turn which seems dreadful and horribly wrong especially as it's
> optional (i.e. only if you have such ambush units). I already see players
> going berzerk in hotseat games: "Hey, why did you hit OK? That's my turn
> you stupid #?$!" "No, it isn't! %$§!" "Yes, it is. I didn't move my
> buggies, yet!" "That's because I destroyed them, you &?*!"...
>
> > > We made sure that all currently distributed maps can be beaten with
> > > the current set of units and tactics available in CF (TM). ;-)
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, how do you make sure?  I ask because it's possible
> > to design a map that is so hard that most people will say it's
> > unbeatable, even though it really isn't.  ;)
>
> Well, I beat them. Simple as that. ;-)
>
> > > > Oo, one more.  The suicide stand.
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > friend and foe alike. It doesn't really fit the overall theme.
> >
> > No, it doesn't, but it is something of a fact of military life in
> > general. When someone knows they have to hold a piece of ground for a
> > length of time but they can't possibly survive (supplies cut off,
> > surrounded, etc., like Custard at Little Bighorn, or any number of
> > examples even during more recent wars), they get a charge of adrenaline.
>
> But if we talk highly advanced warfare those might not be humans, but
> robots (not to think of strange alien races without adrenaline ;-)...
>
> Jens

-- 
Visit my website!
http://www.davefancella.com/?event=em

Bondage maybe, discipline never!
		-- T.K.