Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Play balancing

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Play balancing Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Play balancing - 6/19/2012 4:58:42 AM   
Deathtreader


Posts: 711
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline
Hi,

Here's another one...........

Would it be possible to allow the 2 sides (whether head to head or AI) to play at different realism settings?? that way a newer player could play at -- for example-- realistic whilst the more experienced player played at painfully realistic. This would be another way to play balance without resorting to adjusting supply levels and reinforcements etc.

Just a thought.

Rob.

_____________________________

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)
Post #: 1
RE: Play balancing - 6/19/2012 5:26:28 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Good idea. I like it.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Deathtreader)
Post #: 2
RE: Play balancing - 6/19/2012 8:29:46 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7934
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
May also help if your struggling with a certain scenario or feel the AI may need alittle boost on others.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 3
RE: Play balancing - 6/24/2012 4:38:35 PM   
rfrizz


Posts: 89
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline
This never occurred to me. The AI has the same orders delay as you. Right?

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 4
RE: Play balancing - 6/24/2012 6:25:44 PM   
RayWolfe

 

Posts: 1548
Joined: 2/5/2003
From: Kent in the UK
Status: offline
Sure does.
No AI cheating in this game!

(in reply to rfrizz)
Post #: 5
RE: Play balancing - 6/25/2012 1:15:51 AM   
rfrizz


Posts: 89
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline
That's what I like about it. In the early 90s, there was a really cool game, "Command HQ" that was real time and not hex based. It also had head to head via modem, null modem, or lan.

I loved it, but the AI just had the rules relaxed if you wanted to crank up the difficulty. I had Yahtzee on the old TI-994a computer, and it had the same approach to difficulty.

When you set Yahtzee to the highest difficulty level, it would consistently roll Yahtzee a lot more frequently than the 19 to 1 odds against would predict. They could have been a little more subtle about the cheating than having the damn thing Yahtzee on you so much.

(in reply to RayWolfe)
Post #: 6
RE: Play balancing - 8/8/2012 1:56:25 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3619
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

May also help if your struggling with a certain scenario or feel the AI may need alittle boost on others.


For some of the new HttR scenarios, the Allied AI needs a big boost; playing as the Axis in the old Red Devils over Arnhem scenario was more slaughter than game.

I was concerned that the greater accuracy in this remake would adversely affect the play balance, and it did.


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 7
RE: Play balancing - 8/8/2012 2:11:28 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
What aspect do you think needs attention? Are the Allies too slow to get to their objectives? Are the Axis too quick? Is it a firepower issue or is the strategies/approaches being taken by the Allies letting them down?

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 8
RE: Play balancing - 8/8/2012 5:23:47 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3619
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

What aspect do you think needs attention? Are the Allies too slow to get to their objectives? Are the Axis too quick? Is it a firepower issue or is the strategies/approaches being taken by the Allies letting them down?


To some extent, all of the above.

When XXX Corps first arrived and moved North, it met weaker rear-guard units along the Highway to Arnhem, but instead of destroying them in detail with the engine's 3-pronged attack, it took the longer way around to the East, which should only have been warrented if the highway objectives were well-defended.

The initial AI para drops seemed uncoordinated and ineffective, but for the record, mine never worked well either: I think the only workable strategy is to take the Rail Bridge objective, which, if it isn't blown, draws defenders to it and away from Arnhem.

Under the new version, I never seem to get the paras anywhere near Arnhem, but I'm curious to know if any of the alpha and/or beta-testers did, and if so, how exactly did they mange it?

With this latest version, I just can't achieve anything near the historical results under normal setttings .

< Message edited by Joe D. -- 8/8/2012 5:26:37 PM >


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 9
RE: Play balancing - 8/8/2012 5:35:19 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7934
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I think when your making a wargame about a battle where one side performed exceptionally well beyond what would normally be expected it is very hard to replicate that in a game especially if the engine is designed with other battles in mind. The only way around it I think would be to increase the modifiers when dealing with unit and leader abilities, so a real crack unit will perform if having the bars full well beyond what should be expected.SO when it comes to recreating these battles you have units able to perform aswell as their real life counter parts. I think maybe a luck ability might be an idea..where if in real life the unit had some really good luck which led to the outcome then that unit has a high luck ability which again increases certain modifiers0..maybe they are harder to spot or kill or something...but you only use it for units that had luck on ttheir side in the real life battle.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 10
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 1:41:24 AM   
simovitch


Posts: 4180
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Under the new version, I never seem to get the paras anywhere near Arnhem, but I'm curious to know if any of the alpha and/or beta-testers did, and if so, how exactly did they mange it?

With this latest version, I just can't achieve anything near the historical results under normal setttings .

If you mean playing the Allies in the Arnhem scenario, then yes I am usually able to get at a para Bn near the bridge objective, hopefully enough to keep the Germans from accumulating points, that's all. It usually means following Frost's route in column formation, moving fast, and dispatching a company occasionally to attack any German companies that pop up along the way.


_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 11
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 2:03:36 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Joe D.,

I just ran a quick RDOA scenario as the Brits to 2100 on Day 1. I stopped it there because I had forgot to set all my forces to no rest. Consequently the Attacks and Moves I had ordered just came to an abrupt halt. Now you think someone like me should no better.

As you can see from the screen dump 2nd Para Bn would have secured the rail bridge any moment now. 1st Para had routed off 4 Kraft Coy at Hartenstein and the KOSB Bn was just about to overrun the rest of Kraft Bn. A German column was approaching from the west at Groote Heide. but I was confident the two Border companies there would stop them in their tracks. I had the depleted South Staffs Bnmoving down the highway towards Arnhem - so far unopposed.

I probably should have opted to drive the 2nd Para into Arnhem instead of going for the rail bridge. They probably would have slipped into Arnhem unchallenged or at least they would have stemmed the flow of German reinforcements heading west down the road to Hartenstein. But even so, by setting the troops to Move at fastest speed, with no rest and with Bypass options you should be able to get pretty close to replicating the historical outcomes.

Re the 30th Corps advance up the highway. Point taken about the bypass. Perhaps what we need is a two pronged bypass, where we split the force into two parts with one prong continuing along the opriginal route, while a secondary force attempts to bypass.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 8/9/2012 2:06:58 AM >


_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 12
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 2:03:53 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3619
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I think when your making a wargame about a battle where one side performed exceptionally well beyond what would normally be expected it is very hard to replicate that in a game especially if the engine is designed with other battles in mind. The only way around it I think would be to increase the modifiers when dealing with unit and leader abilities ...


You may have hit the nail on the head; John Frost's abilities don't seem to be that much better than that of his peers, but shouldn't they be, considering Frost was one of the most experienced and determined para battalion commanders?

IMO, boosting Frost's and other Allied cdr's abilities could help balance this scenario.

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

... It usually means following Frost's route in column formation, moving fast, and dispatching a company occasionally to attack any German companies that pop up along the way.


Column at no rest heading east along the highway at attack and not bypass?


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 13
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 2:08:18 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3619
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

I probably should have opted to drive the 2nd Para into Arnhem instead of going for the rail bridge. They probably would have slipped into Arnhem unchallenged or at least they would have stemmed the flow of German reinforcements heading west down the road to Hartenstein. But even so, by setting the troops to Move at fastest speed, with no rest and with Bypass options you should be able to get pretty close to replicating the historical outcomes ...


We'll see what happens at my end.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 14
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 2:09:10 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Frost's 2nd Para Bn route ran along the southern minor road not the main road that ran through Hartenstein.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 15
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 4:36:11 AM   
simovitch


Posts: 4180
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Column at no rest heading east along the highway at attack and not bypass?

the whole column moves along (move command) no attack toggle. I never have much luck with bypass. When a threat is encountered attack with a single company and maybe some support and let the Bn continue with it's previous order; It will halt on it's own until the threat is removed.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 16
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 8:46:46 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

As you can see from the screen dump 2nd Para Bn would have secured the rail bridge any moment now. 1st Para had routed off 4 Kraft Coy at Hartenstein and the KOSB Bn was just about to overrun the rest of Kraft Bn. A German column was approaching from the west at Groote Heide. but I was confident the two Border companies there would stop them in their tracks. I had the depleted South Staffs Bnmoving down the highway towards Arnhem - so far unopposed.

I probably should have opted to drive the 2nd Para into Arnhem instead of going for the rail bridge. They probably would have slipped into Arnhem unchallenged or at least they would have stemmed the flow of German reinforcements heading west down the road to Hartenstein. But even so, by setting the troops to Move at fastest speed, with no rest and with Bypass options you should be able to get pretty close to replicating the historical outcomes.


At least in HTTR (without "no rest" option), focusing on the bridge didn't work out, usually, as the steady stream of forces from the east made penetrating Arnheim difficult - later on, especially slightly west of the West Arnheim objective (On your screenshot around the location where you can see a Coy that looks like a German armored Recon unit (same symbol that is used for [US?] Armored Cavalry these days), according to its symbol.
It's best to speed to Arnheim, like you or Simo suggested, then occupy the Arnheim highway bridge, and create a concentric defensive perimeter (well, actually a kind of semicircle, due to the closeness to the river) that is large enough to ensure that all crossroads and main entry points (arterial or radial roads) are blocked.

Your strategy in the West (2 dispatched Coys at Groote Heide) to block the highway usually works out for 1 day (and maybe several hours per each new "wave"), but then the delayed enemy (and future) columns will just ship around your roadblock after one or two unsuccessful attempts to dislodge the blocking units. It's best to advance as far as Ede and have an entire Bn establish a strong block of dug-in Coys instead, covering the polder/dam in the west and the northern approaches (possibly used by Naval/fortress units later on), who should be supported by 1 or 2 additional Mortar Coys. That block force should be left there until the Arnheim force starts to loose ground/troops heavily and then should be sent to Arnheim to reinforce the troops there.

Same with the southern approaches (south of the drop zone) to Wageningen: 3-4 Coys placed at the outskirts of the woods, blocking the main highway (roads to Arnheim), and supported by 2 mortar coys will take a big deal of pressure from the main force in Arnheim and delay the German build-up.

If one or another Coy can make it to the very important crossroads South and South East of Deelen airfield, as forward roadblocks, then this will seriously delay precious German reinforcements as well.

Destroying the 88mm position (either with Polish Para units later on, or - if you manage to take the rail bridge early on - with British troops) at the "Medinhardweg" (North of Elden) may be costly (it may require several Coys), but takes the enemy's ability to spot (for German long range/heavy arty and Nebelwerfer) and fire at your troops on the other side of the river.

quote:

Re the 30th Corps advance up the highway. Point taken about the bypass. Perhaps what we need is a two pronged bypass, where we split the force into two parts with one prong continuing along the opriginal route, while a secondary force attempts to bypass.


Actually, I guess that's what most experienced players (and commanders in RL) will do anyway, where maybe the "continuing" prong should bring the tanks forward to protect the precious INF units (as they will be sitting ducks on the highway) and to push up the highway.
The bypassing part of the split force should mainly consist of fast armored units, followed by the armored assets and motorized Inf at the rear, with Recon units (which should have a higher spotting range, since they are faster, more mobile and have better equipment for sighting) being the spearhead, in order to find the best route. I don't know how advanced the AI code is in that respect (recon, spotting, selection of routes for the main force), but whatever you do code-wise, I suggest to make the change of the plan (to split the forces) an option for the human player, as there may be situations where alt routes are occupied or just used by the enemy, so that it would be desirable to maintain a two-pronged attack/move.

Maybe like an option in the left-hand menu "split forces (if attack on the main POA [point of attack] is endangered to be delayed)" or a message window like "It appears that the current enemy activity will delay division XY's assault, do you want to split forces and bypass with half of your troops?" ["Yes"] ["No"]

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 8/9/2012 9:00:45 AM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 17
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 9:20:34 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
Edited this reply accidently, instead of adding a new reply, dang. Sorry.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 8/9/2012 3:57:46 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 18
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 1:55:33 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Goodguy,

As I mentioned in my post I gave the orders forgetting to set the "No Rest" option. So by 2100 the forces ( on "normal" rest option ) had decided to rest for the night. That is to be expected.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 19
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 3:58:04 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
Yes, I gathered that part.
That doesn't answer my question, though, plus it doesn't explain why INF units (may go for other units as well) won't move more than say 400 to 1600 meters per night, depending on parameters, if they are fatigued. My question was : Does BFTB still have that "feature"?
I edited the reply above accidently, instead of posting a new reply, but I could save one bit, so here goes:
quote:


In the demo, it was basically impossible to move INF units at night, and even with "no rest" order they would just move for another 20 mins to 1 hr before they would "fall asleep" again.


The other question was: Are INF units able to force march at night (and/or for a longer time) now, and are they able to withdraw/disengage from the enemy despite very high fatigue levels?

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 8/9/2012 3:59:22 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 20
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 3:59:03 PM   
simovitch


Posts: 4180
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
Fatigue recovery and therefore stamina on long marches was improved in the previously released patch.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 21
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 4:04:50 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
I see. Thanks Simo.

@Dave: Now what about some option for the human player like say "split troops" for the type of split movement/assault you envisioned in a previous posting? Would be pretty useful.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 8/9/2012 4:06:19 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 22
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 9:21:03 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3619
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Frost's 2nd Para Bn route ran along the southern minor road not the main road that ran through Hartenstein.


Is Hartenstein on the HttR map?

I sent Frost East in column at no rest and by-pass unto a minor road just North of the Rhine near Hevadorp, then successfully ran him North of the Rail Bridge at Osterbeek.

Was this the route you were referring to?

After Osterbeek, the road soon ran into a major highway on which Frost's column was held-up by only one Axis unit at West Arnhem, even after hitting the unit with arty and an air strike.

The lone Axis unit was soon joined by several SS units, effectively stopping Frost's men in their tracks.

My paras in the North didn't fare well either, with entire columns being held-up by a handful of Axis units that could have been easilly by-passed or driven-off.

In short, IMO, the paras seemed a bit too slow and unwieldy, while the Axis responded far too quickly for what should have been a surprise assault.

Maybe there should be a (brief) order's delay for the Axis?

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 23
RE: Play balancing - 8/9/2012 9:37:27 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7934
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I think when your making a wargame about a battle where one side performed exceptionally well beyond what would normally be expected it is very hard to replicate that in a game especially if the engine is designed with other battles in mind. The only way around it I think would be to increase the modifiers when dealing with unit and leader abilities ...


You may have hit the nail on the head; John Frost's abilities don't seem to be that much better than that of his peers, but shouldn't they be, considering Frost was one of the most experienced and determined para battalion commanders?

IMO, boosting Frost's and other Allied cdr's abilities could help balance this scenario.




What I'm saying aswell is I think the higher attribute levels should have even greater bonus modifiers than they already do..so a unit with a leader with lots of blue in it's attributes in charge of another unit also with very high attributes should really make that unit maybe upto twice as good as a similar unit but with average levels or average \poor leader. I'd like it if unit attributes both leaders and actual units did have a pretty big impact in game..it appears to me that these attributes at the moment don't have a massive impact, when really it would be cool if they did, this way when we have a unit that in real life performed exceptionally it will perform exceptionally yin the scenario..rather than be abit better than normal. To be honest though I don't think I've witnessed anything in game that shows me the attributes actaully really do anything. I'm sure they do but not enough for me to notice.

< Message edited by wodin -- 8/10/2012 12:48:32 AM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 24
RE: Play balancing - 8/10/2012 12:45:34 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Frost's 2nd Para Bn route ran along the southern minor road not the main road that ran through Hartenstein.


Is Hartenstein on the HttR map?

I sent Frost East in column at no rest and by-pass unto a minor road just North of the Rhine near Hevadorp, then successfully ran him North of the Rail Bridge at Osterbeek.

Was this the route you were referring to?

After Osterbeek, the road soon ran into a major highway on which Frost's column was held-up by only one Axis unit at West Arnhem, even after hitting the unit with arty and an air strike.

The lone Axis unit was soon joined by several SS units, effectively stopping Frost's men in their tracks.

My paras in the North didn't fare well either, with entire columns being held-up by a handful of Axis units that could have been easilly by-passed or driven-off.

In short, IMO, the paras seemed a bit too slow and unwieldy, while the Axis responded far too quickly for what should have been a surprise assault.

Maybe there should be a (brief) order's delay for the Axis?


Yes that's the route.

Had you ordered the 2nd Para bn to Move with speed = fastest and Rest = No Rest?

BTW historically Kraft's Bn was on the move within the first hour of sighting of the para drops. He discounted the southern approach and focussed on the Hartenstein road and the road heading NW to Ede. Hence why 2nd Para was able to slip by unopposed. Now in our game the engine will look at the possible routes and attempt to block them if it can. So yes it does make it a little harder for the southern route but easier for the centre and northern approaches.

One thing to remember here is that our engine is designed to simulate operational land warfare not recreate historical outcomes. There is a lot of probability factors impacting on the selection of tasks, the allocation of forces to those tasks and the timing in execting those tasks. In most cases historical outcomes can be achieved but in this instance the chance of the German's allocating forces to different tasks may be such that this opportunity for the 2nd Paras to get through only occurs rarely.

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 8/10/2012 12:53:44 AM >


_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 25
RE: Play balancing - 8/10/2012 1:11:19 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3619
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Had you ordered the 2nd Para bn to Move with speed ...


Out of habit I didn't set it to fast, so we'll try again at higher speed.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 26
RE: Play balancing - 8/10/2012 4:14:49 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
IIRC John Frost's Bn averaged 6kph on their move into Arnhem, allowing for a couple pauses. To achieve that you need to set speed to fastest.

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 8/10/2012 4:15:47 AM >


_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 27
RE: Play balancing - 8/10/2012 1:59:57 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3619
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

IIRC John Frost's Bn averaged 6kph on their move into Arnhem, allowing for a couple pauses. To achieve that you need to set speed to fastest.


OK, but after setting them to fastest, progress was halting at best, apparently because the "bypass" setting isn't bypassing enemy units; Frost's units are actively engaging Axis forces both North and South of their line of march -- on the minor road between the highway and the rail bridge -- when they should be infiltrating instead.

The paras to the North didn't fare much better; entire columns are slowed by token Axis resisitance, and when they finally start-up again, other Axis units are able to fill the breach and block the way to Arnhem.

Under the old HttR, I was usually able to get at least some paras into Arnhem, but now I can't even get them close to the objective.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 28
RE: Play balancing - 8/10/2012 2:21:26 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Try setting the Agro to Min. That should minimise the amount of firing they do.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 29
RE: Play balancing - 8/10/2012 2:59:58 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

@Dave: Now what about some option for the human player like say "split troops" for the type of split movement/assault you envisioned in a previous posting? Would be pretty useful.


Dave: I guess you missed my question, so I hope you don't mind me posting it again.

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Play balancing Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125