PBEM Generated Battle (Quick Battle)

[junk2drive]

I am trying to come up with a way for two opponents that want to PBEM, to quickly have a random battle with somewhat reasonable forces.

I'm not good at maps or designing battles. The generated ones aren't too bad, IMO.

Changing the obj placement doesn't change the force pick.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Point taken. :rolleyes:
I'm just not sure that speeding to play a scenario will ever overcome balance in the playing of a scenario.
Though, it should not take more than a couple minutes to relocate the victory hexes? :chin:
It is a generated battle, after all? You did not spend hours creating a map and OOB? Or, work many more hours trying to create balance for PBEM?
It's not like it has to be perfect? Perfection takes time. :smoke:



Ed

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Can you set one up without vp hexes? Then the fight would center around what each player deems important terrain and force destruction rather than fighting around designated hexes in which many times the rest of the map is ignored. Did that a few times in a 4vs4 in Sid Meiers' Gettysburg and worked like a charm. Each side had 4 bdes....one with 6 rgts, 5 rgts, 4 rgts and 3 rgts, total men were within a hundred, large map. It was perfect for people who love the cat and mouse, hide a seek thing. Just curious how it would wrok in CS. I know von Earlman had a bunch of larger multi player scenarios with no objective hexes. Would like to know how those worked out.

[junk2drive]

Ed, most of the time that I see a request for a battle at the blitz, the posts tend to say "pick something and send it over". This tells me that most people, like me, don't like perusing the DB or in game scenario menu looking for something interesting to play. I'm just trying to help that situation by finding out if GBs are worth playing as an alternative to scenarios. Maybe nobody cares and I'm wasting my time. I don't want to complicate matters by instructing players to have to go into scen edit and mess about.

Back to my armoured breakthrough example. The Soviets generated forces will have a lot of ATGs and TDs. The Germans will have MBTs. Changing or deleting the Objs will not change who has the proper force for the task at hand.

Maybe Meeting Engagements will be the only thing worth playing.

OJW, that might work. It would require the extra step of editing. Fine for some, but again, I'm trying to make things as simple as possible.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

KISS(Keep It Simple Stupid) method is the best way to go. I haven't seen the game in a few yrs, I couldn't remember if there was a place to choose how many objective hexes one wanted in the game. Me and somebody else tried back then to generate a pbem game, but could never figure out how to get both to be able to play. Sent files and everything. Then my puter crashed and then I relocated to another state right after, so I lost everything. I will have to say Meeting Engagements are the most interesting, IMO. I remember generating one Div and one corps sized scenario against the ai. Turned out pretty wild and confusing..........a tk bn arrived with three companies at three different areas across the bottom of the map totally separated by as long distance map wise, then arty started showing up and I was like, whoa, I had no combat units to protect them. It was pretty cool because I didn't know whaqt the other side had on the map or where they were and my arty sitting naked because the tank companies were far away, so I had to hope that with such a large map, I would be lucky enough to not be found out til I had some units to protect them.

I did get a Co of PGS to grab an intersection in a village and were alone for about 10 turns til I was able to get a Co of Panthers to arrive in support only to discover a couple turns later that mutt of an ai had all the surrounding countryside and the rest of those two bns I was sending there had to try and fight their way thru to the village. Then I lost everything when puter crashed. But it was one of the more fun times I had against the ai and can only imagine how much more it would be against a human. Some day, when I reacquire the CS, that's what I would like to get into and if it works, a large team game Meeting Engagement would be cool I think. Looking forward to it one of these days.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Ed, most of the time that I see a request for a battle at the blitz, the posts tend to say "pick something and send it over". This tells me that most people, like me, don't like perusing the DB or in game scenario menu looking for something interesting to play.

I usually say something like that because, after playing a few hundred scenarios anything I pick I probably have played. And, I tend to gravitate to the balanced scenarios that I have experienced. some players ask if I have played a scenario before. Most likely the answer will be yes.
Seems to me that a player who is not willing to search for something interesting would only be adding to the uninteresting by selecting a "generated battle" that fit no special category, was unbalanced, or unrealistic.

I'm just trying to help that situation by finding out if GBs are worth playing as an alternative to scenarios. Maybe nobody cares and I'm wasting my time. I don't want to complicate matters by instructing players to have to go into scen edit and mess about.

Well, if the players are too lazy to search the dBASE, you are correct in thinking they will not want to edit a scenario to balance it. I've seen that most players have requested balanced scenarios, so I guess it might just be a waste of time to generate an unbalanced battle to play as a scenario?

Back to my armoured breakthrough example. The Soviets generated forces will have a lot of ATGs and TDs. The Germans will have MBTs. Changing or deleting the Objs will not change who has the proper force for the task at hand.

Maybe Meeting Engagements will be the only thing worth playing.

Yes, the meeting engagement would be the way to go. Unless you want to edit in, from the OOB, some Soviet assault troops and edit out the ATG's, in that Armor Breakthrough scenario/generated battle?
But, that would be extra work? And, it would not mean balance would be achieved?

It does seem like trying to wear a sneaker to a black tie dinner. Or, highly polished leather shoes on a basketball court? :chin:

Ed

[junk2drive]

Thanks for the input.

Yes I'm lazy and probably ADD. I also like to play battles blind. Where neither player has ever played the battle before.

When I play a balanced scenario vs an experienced player, it is no longer balanced.

Random force picks would probably drive you crazy too.

[Chuck10mtn]

I like the Idea that J2D is doing, to me its never been about winning or losing just having fun. I am now playing just games in the H2H area. Playing a game that nobody has seen the map or played would be different. I'm also playing a game that both sides picked a pre-determed amount of VP and each guy picked his own units and now we are playing it out. I thought about using winning percentages as a guide for getting more balance in games. Just my thoughts on the matter

Chuck

[keif149]

Junk,

I'm all about random and playing scenarios blind. I even use multi-sided dice to pick my forces in Combat Mission. Keep up the good work and hope you develop a formula for vp's in generated battles. While I enjoy a historical battle as much as the next guy, myself and many others enjoy the thrill of the unknown and unexpected. Looking forward to hearing more about your research.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Yes I'm lazy and probably ADD.

Thin skinned too? :rolleyes:

I also like to play battles blind. Where neither player has ever played the battle before.

I prefer a balanced scenario over a blind unbalanced one that should only be played by the blind. :cool2:

When I play a balanced scenario vs an experienced player, it is no longer balanced.

That is more an experience and skill issue? Rather than a scenario issue? :chin:

Random force picks would probably drive you crazy too.

A very short drive for me.
I've spent a little time on editing the randomly generated scenario the game engine created. It seems more work than making a hypothetical to begin with. Just less map making time, (though the map requires much attention too).

I'd like to see you come up with something. But, I am afraid we would then have to wait on the single coder to put it into the game?



Ed