Random Battle Balance

[Ravindau]

In my experience the balance in non-ME Random Battles with all-default settings (100 %/XXX) is pretty much off.

Attacking/Advancing, my usual result against the AI is a decisive victory. Delaying/Defending, I am glad to get a draw. I am normally much better at defending, so that says something.

I am quite positively certain that holds true between human players: Default Random Battles, attacker will win much more often than 50/50.

I find the game otherwise very realistic; this actually supports my argument that the balance is off, because irl, if given 3:1/2:1 odds, the Assaulting/Advancing side should win most of the time. For 50/50, 2:1/3:2 would seem a better match.

I mean, really, would any human player want to be the delaying/defending side in a random default game? I rest my case.

[scorpio_rocks]

Perhaps my style of play/lack of skill shows here, but I find - certainly Vs the AI - the opposite!

The AI blindly charging forward means defend/delay are pretty easy, but I am rubbish at/find it much harder to attack!

Against a human opponent this changes I guess.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

In my experience the balance in non-ME Random Battles with all-default settings (100 %/XXX) is pretty much off.

Player experience is probably the most important factor.

What map size and battle points are you using?

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by wulfir

Player experience is probably the most important factor.

What map size and battle points are you using?

I am not very experienced with SPWW2, but I am not arguing that the game is too hard, period. I am arguing that defending is relatively hard and attacking way too easy.

Latest game: German Assault against Ancac Defence, May 1941 (Tobruk). 2000 vs. XXX pts (740, I think), 30x30 map.

Shotgun V-hexes, 20% AI advantage. (Contrary to what the manual says, AI extra pts are also given in quick battles, not just campaigns.)

This means, as the Germans I was actually at 2000 vs. 890 or so, but still the Aussies didn´t stand a chance.

The game gave me 40 turns to achieve my objectives, all the time in the world, no need to hurry.

AI defended well, did a good job with its meagre points, but to no avail. It just didn´t have enough to work with.

I attritted the poor Aussies away in 23 turns, they had no choice but to surrender. Final tally was 4000 : 300 or so. But I didn´t defeat Ancac, their points allotment did it.

[Ts4EVER]

2000 points on a 30 x 30 map? (desert map at that, I am guessing?) That doesn't seem right tbh.

[DRG]

You may indeed have found a bug........we'll look into it......

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by Ts4EVER

2000 points on a 30 x 30 map? (desert map at that, I am guessing?) That doesn't seem right tbh.

Tobruk is rather difficult terrain, rough and hilly.

A larger map would help the attack even more -defeat the puny defenders in detail.

No, I think 1.5x1.5 km is *just* right if you consider that the Australian defenders have only 2 Coys or so.

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by scorpio_rocks

The AI blindly charging forward means defend/delay are pretty easy, but I am rubbish at/find it much harder to attack!

Let me guess: You spend less than 50% of your points on rifles when attacking.

I have only played 10 games or so, but I must admit a certain prejudice has entered my mind, namely: WINSPWW2 is about rifle attrition.

My Golden Rule of SPWW2 strategy:

Buy lots and lots of rifles. Win the riflemen shootout. Make sure your opponent runs out of rifle squads first!

Assuming that is so, I see 3 connected reasons why the defender must be at a disadvantage in Quick Battles:

1) Attacker gets vastly more pts.
2) Very generous (for the attacker) turn length. (No need to hurry, make yourself comfortable, have a cup of tea.)
3) Not a pronounced advantage for defending infantry against attacking infantry in a shootout. (No discernible advantage at all when not entrenched.) I think there is a doctrinal issue here: Defenders are not supposed to simply sit in their little holes and fire at the attackers, instead they should be good sports and share the burden of moving around and being exposed to fire.

[DRG]

NO BUG from the info you described but one was found unrelated to the issue you raised.

The critical item you mentioned was in your first line in post 4 "I am not very experienced with SPWW2"....... note others have said it's their experience the problem is the other way round......everyone is different and it's impossible to build a game that will satisfy the rookie player and the very experiences one at the same time.

THAT is why there are a host of preferences to adjust to suit your style of play....... if you don't like the points allotted then set up preferences to give you what you want... right now with 10 games under your belt you think the attacker gets too many points the games are too long. If you think the proportions should be 2:1/3:2 then simply change them with proference......If P1 ( you defending ) gets 2000 points and you want P2 to attack with 3:2 then set up preferences so that P2 is given 3000 points .....and if you think the games are too long you can adjust the game length at the start as well......it can all be taylored to fit individual taste but we are not re-ordering a game structure that has worked for decades.

Don

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

Let me guess: You spend less than 50% of your points on rifles when attacking.

I have only played 10 games or so, but I must admit a certain prejudice has entered my mind, namely: WINSPWW2 is about rifle attrition.

My Golden Rule of SPWW2 strategy:

Buy lots and lots of rifles. Win the riflemen shootout. Make sure your opponent runs out of rifle squads first!

Assuming that is so, I see 3 connected reasons why the defender must be at a disadvantage in Quick Battles:

1) Attacker gets vastly more pts.
2) Very generous (for the attacker) turn length. (No need to hurry, make yourself comfortable, have a cup of tea.)
3) Not a pronounced advantage for defending infantry against attacking infantry in a shootout. (No discernible advantage at all when not entrenched.) I think there is a doctrinal issue here: Defenders are not supposed to simply sit in their little holes and fire at the attackers, instead they should be good sports and share the burden of moving around and being exposed to fire.

1) The attacker is meant to have the points advantage, as he needs it to force the defensive position. If you think the AI should have more points - then use the AIAdjustpercent variable. Ram it up to say 150% and try again. It is found on the misc tab of the game launcher programme.

2) If you think the number of turns given makes it too easy for you, then use the edit map feature to set the number of turns to a limit that you think will make you work for the win. Same goes, if say you think the objectives are too easily placed - simply re-spin the objectives, or manually edit them in the view map subroutine at game start. And since attacking in low visibility is relatively easy in WW2 (MBT has night sights so less so) then maybe up the map visibility in the same screen.

3) In an advance the opponent has no trenches, it is quite simple to sweep infantry away with a creeping barrage. So dont use one against the AI, or use a wider barrage. (If you opened up the map visibility as stated above, then enemy troops on your flanks will eventually see your troops advancing behind the barrage). Or elect to tie a hand behind your own back - by taking less arty so as to give the AI a break.

In other words - you can easily tailor the advance or assault conditions to give the AI a helping hand, should you think it is too weak defending against you. Other players may well say that it is fine as it is. But the tools exist - giving the AI more points, and editing the map and scenario conditions like #turns and visibility to the AI's advantage. Its just up to you to do it to suit yourself. Your choice, and it only takes a few minutes to do before you start purchasing troops - that is why we wrote the "view map" function anyway, the original game gave no opportunity to tweak the scenario conditions.


The AI only does a static and totally passive defence until it tries to retake the V-hexes the attacker has eventually taken. That is pretty much baked-in to the original code.

Against a human opponent, you really will be needing those points and turns. A human will deploy in a more crafty manner, and will utilise a more mobile defence plan (usually!). A human player for example, might use mechanised infantry to nip out from his start line in the early turns and set up ambushes in "no man's land". Other than a river assault (where AI troops that it initially "deployed" in the river will get pushed forward to the other bank so they do not drown, as they tended to do in the original code), its rare to find enemy ambushes in no-man's land other than in scenarios. Though the way it deploys formations does ignore the front line - so sometimes a few elements may be found 3-4 hexes ahead of the line.

(Allowing the AI a little freedom to deploy forwards into the no man's land is something I have though about as an option for its defence. It may make it in.)