Forums

I am considering a play through of the classic scenarios that have been reported as unbalanced, either because of their design as against the AI only, or they are simply unbalanced even if designed for PBEM, with the idea of using EXTREME ASSAULT switched on as the method of "balancer".

My thought is to provide the players with more scenarios that could be used for PBEM. The scenarios would have the scenario renamed to something like "#Sidneys Sideshow (B)", with a line in the description that it must be played using Extreme Assault, along with a scenario file rename.
The "#" would show it is a classic scenario and the (B) would show that it was altered for balance. In the scenario description it will have [must EA](this scenario was altered for balance and must use the Extreme Assault on). An HSL project reissue. :chin:

If the scenario would not play balanced using EA I would not alter the file. If it does it would be renamed and added to the dBASE as a new scenario version "#(B)".
Is it worth the effort?
Should the project be given "important thread" status to stay up in the forums and provide a list of altered scenarios for expanded PBEM selections?

I'm kinda burned out on designing new scenarios and am considering playing individual games, overseeing the H2H area for CS, testing H2H submissions, and working the EA add for balance project.
When I get my wind back I will return to scenario design.

Lastly, before anyone freaks out, I will not touch any scenarios that are not classics. Though, I may look at a custom or two that have not been played in "forever" due to being not balanced. :smoke:

Does anyone see a problem with doing this project?
Or, would it be worth it?



HSL

No problem with the project. I tried something similar in the past but it proved more difficult than I thought at that time.
As far as EA is concerned. Once you are used to playing with EA "on" it is not more difficult than without, also as attacking side. So for balance it does nothing. Only maybe to those who heavily leaned on the surround-disrupt-assault steamroller and continue to do so with EA "on".
You would have to alter the scn file to get them more balanced. (I have no problem with that btw).
My main issue with most play vs AI scns used as for PBEM is that they often contain so many long term fixed units.

(01-30-2011, 01:42 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: [ -> ]No problem with the project. I tried something similar in the past but it proved more difficult than I thought at that time.
As far as EA is concerned. Once you are used to playing with EA "on" it is not more difficult than without, also as attacking side. So for balance it does nothing. Only maybe to those who heavily leaned on the surround-disrupt-assault steamroller and continue to do so with EA "on".
You would have to alter the scn file to get them more balanced. (I have no problem with that btw).
My main issue with most play vs AI scns used as for PBEM is that they often contain so many long term fixed units.

I am not as experienced player as you guys obviously, but having done all (well, almost) the Normandy scenarios past D-Day I would agree many vs. AI -scenarios could be better balanced if the fixed units would be available sooner, or even to be not fixed at all.

I have sort of become comfortable using EA, and would agree that it might not be the ultimate differece, apart to scenarios that have limited turns to reach the VP locations or exit hexes.

There are little gems there, and having them available to PBEM would be nice.

I think re-addressing any scenario for better balance is worth the effort, provided the original designer doesn't have a problem with it. Especially old designs that might be better played with new options, like EA. The only exception would be historical scenarios, for obvious reasons.

However, I know of one member who, some time ago (before the new options), began trying to better balance old scenarios, was heavily criticized for it here at the Blitz (before my time), and stopped. I remember he felt pretty bad about it, as his intentions were good.

I'm all for it Ed. Anyone who wanted to play the original can still do so, so what's the harm?

Dave

(01-30-2011, 01:42 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: [ -> ]No problem with the project. I tried something similar in the past but it proved more difficult than I thought at that time.
As far as EA is concerned. Once you are used to playing with EA "on" it is not more difficult than without, also as attacking side. So for balance it does nothing. Only maybe to those who heavily leaned on the surround-disrupt-assault steamroller and continue to do so with EA "on".
You would have to alter the scn file to get them more balanced. (I have no problem with that btw).
My main issue with most play vs AI scns used as for PBEM is that they often contain so many long term fixed units.

I have some time on my hands to attempt it.
My thought was to start with West Front because it has more versus AI scenarios.

I appreciate your comment on EA. I do not like it and believe it to be a negative when playing the classics.
I'm not saying that EA is bad. Just bad for scenarios that are not designed to be played with it in mind. And, the "steamroller" (as Umbro said) is only that when a player does not know how to counter it. Which, funny as it may sound, is similar to those who feel that way about EA?
I can do EA versus anyone in a scenario that is designed for it. I think it makes the game a tedious process and sucks some of the fun out of playing it. But, obviously that is my opinion. No one will convince me that EA does not effect classic scenarios or that it is even good for the game. To me it is just a cheesy gimmick. :smoke:

I had intention to rename and "craft the scenario" where needed, beyond just adding EA. If EA can do it alone that would be great. If EA and a couple of tweaks works that would be good too.
As Dave said, if it provides more playable balanced scenarios without having to "create" them from scratch, it could benefit all? :)

Dave, I thought by renaming the scenario and file name it would make it easier for those to see what they are playing as different from the old scenario. I'm also not planning on touching custom designs ... only classics. It will not replace the old scenario in the dBASE. The "#" will separate the scenario from both classics and Matrix ones? :chin:



HSL

(01-30-2011, 06:18 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: [ -> ]Dave, I thought by renaming the scenario and file name it would make it easier for those to see what they are playing as different from the old scenario. I'm also not planning on touching custom designs ... only classics. It will not replace the old scenario in the dBASE. The "#" will separate the scenario from both classics and Matrix ones? :chin:

Yep, I knew what you meant. That's what the player I was referring to did also. I remember him bringing it up to me cause I think he felt Blitz members thought he was infringing on other designers works, but felt that a different naming convention would make it OK. I agreed. It sounded completely reasonable. I wasn't a member here yet, though. He just wanted an unbiased take.

Seems to me that stock scenarios would be owned by Matrix anyway, and I'd be seriously surprised if Jason Petho had a problem with it.

So, again, I'm all for it. I think it's a great idea.

Dave

No problem here as the scenario files will be renamed.

Jason Petho

Be aware that rebalancing existing scenarios is more difficult and frustrating than creating and balancing new ones. Including a feature (EA) that you don't like yourself will make it even harder.

(01-30-2011, 07:38 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: [ -> ]Be aware that rebalancing existing scenarios is more difficult and frustrating than creating and balancing new ones. Including a feature (EA) that you don't like yourself will make it even harder.

Thanks Huib.
I guess I just want to see if it can be done. :eek1:
I'm willing to give it a go. If it does not work out then nothing much will be lost but the time I put into it. :chin:

Jason, the renaming would use the original name but add "#" and "(B)" to the title. I may change the file name using my tried and true method of "ed" replacing the first letter of the file's name. ;)
I'd like to discuss something in e-mail if you have some "extra" time for it? :smoke:



HSL

(01-31-2011, 12:37 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to discuss something in e-mail if you have some "extra" time for it? :smoke:

Sure, drop me a line!

Jason Petho