AAR: The Curse of the Delay

[DRG]

The range of experience and skill level of players is far too wide to arbitrarily make changes to make one segment happy...and annoy others

The delaying side barely gets a company to defend 1.5 km of frontage. All you have done is set up a game to prove a point but the point is ridiculous..... what did you expect from 17 or so units covering 1500 m of close terrain?

You think you have found a flaw that needs " official settings be balanced"......but we allow the player to do that based on HIS level of skill......now you know what YOURS is you can adjust the defenders higher or adjust the number of game turns lower. Game turns are variable they are not fixed at the 39 you were given but they can be changed to anything you like....as can the number of points each side gets........which they would be in any tournament-----do you expect us to automagically KNOW exactly what skill level each player is at how each player thinks and constructs his forces?

You are the first person I am aware of that has complained that advances are lopsided in favour of the advancing side and I've been doing this for 20 years.........does anyone else agree ??

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by DRG

...do you expect us to automagically KNOW exactly how each player thinks and constructs his forces?

What I was trying to show is that Advance/Delay as it stands is not balanced between two players of equal skill. This is not subjective.

To repeat the decisive empirical question: Would you want to be the defending side in a generated Advance/Delay battle in a tournament?

[DRG]

You do understand that player points can be adjusted ? And they are set up that way so a player can adjust the game to his liking ? All you need to do is exert some free will and change them. The settings as they are now are set up for playing against the AI..... human Vs Human setting are whatever the two players agree on....their skill/ experience level changes depending on the players......YOU obviously don't like the automatic settings and points given out but the game is set up so players can circumvent the basic 2:1 setting and set up a game balance that works for them

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

You got this upside down. The strongest resistance was the 1 1/2 plts I mentioned, but I was of course engaging them with my entire company+ & ACs.

I don´t think reducing map width from 30 to 20 hexes would have made a big difference.

And yes, one could fiddle with the settings. But shouldn´t the official settings be balanced so as to be fit for tournament style play between humans, as much as possible?

As it stands, I doubt anyone would be happy to play the delaying side in a generated game in a tournament...

Okay take a breath
I fully understood thats what you did.

Adjusting the settings makes a big difference, I have said several times in this forum 1 out of 3 generated battles vs the AI can be very good probably because the factors are about right.

They are not official settings you can & should adjust map size turns etc to suite the battle you generate.

You are right in that I would not have liked to play that battle as defender l do not have enough units to do anything but sit there deployed close to VP. That map would be terribly boaring just sitting there waiting for you to approach, L0S does not extend far from VP area.

You have learnt for your tastes you need to reduce the number of turns & if you want to make the VP for that battle more important set timed objectives to around the halfway mark. For generated battles nothing is written in stone adjust it so it gives you a challenge.
On a side note vs a human setting timed objectives high in an engagement battle forces them to go for them if they have a habbit of playing engagements like a delay.

Its not an RTS game sides are rarely balanced & delays can go right or wrong sometimes badly so, unexpected avenue of approach can cause major headaches especially if your mainly on foot so manuvering is slow

Delay is fine in most cases, though some map visibility combinations make it a virtualy impossible task, in real life you just would not choose to defend there so dont play it.

Tournament is easy enough play it mirrored, both players play it from both sides to see who does better.

[Ravindau]

Imp: Sorry for misreading you seemingly misunderstanding one of my posts.

DRG & Imp: What I think is you assume that the defender has a large inherent advantage *even if not allowed to dig in*. Whereas I believe this is simply not the case.

Ironically, you are so well entrenched in your opinion that I could bombard you with battalions of evidence and wouldn´t change your mind an inch.

I wonder what would happen if I proposed to add an improvised dug-in state that a leg unit can enter if it is stationary for 5 turns or so. I suppose that is so heretic that it would cause heads to explode.

Wait a minute, I think i can predict your answer: "This feature has already been suggested n times n years ago, and we didn´t include it because we didn´t want to."

Was I close?

[DRG]

No, YOU miss the point. As I said the ratios are set up for the AI and have been that way since the later 1990's......suddenly you think there is a problem.......

As we have said the game has a wide variety of controls for players to tweak the game to suit themselves. You could EASILY set up an advance / delay any way you like...... don't like 50%..... no problem set the advancing side to whatever points you like then set the delaying side to 60% of that or 70% of that or 80% of that or whatever you like.....or before the game begins adjust the number of turns so the advancing side has to hurry......all of these are simple solutions that players have been using for years to adjust the game to suit their style of play...... it's quite simple......but you do not want that solution....you want the game to play perfectly for you without making adjustments. You are the FIRST person in 20 years who has voiced this complaint and as you can see people aren't flocking to support your position and since the main complaint was your belief this is unbalanced in a human vs Human game it easily to adjust the game to the turns or ratios you want

[Ravindau]

It´s not THAT easy.

I can basically forget about the Generated Campaign, because, while AI=180% would probably be fine for my Attacks/Advances, I wouldn´t survive a game where I have to Delay/Defend at that ratio, not even an ME, likely. I´m not THAT good.

Also, you keep saying the balance is for the sake of the AI. But while the current balance makes the AI look better when attacking, the AI is totally hopeless when defending. What you gain for the AI on the one side, you take away on the other...

[Ravindau]

Btw, and so as not to be misunderstood...

This is one of the best tactical games I have ever played, warts and all, and I rate it at 80% as it stands.

It´s just I would like it STILL better, if you´d cut back a little on the DOCTRINE: ATTACK! bias that i find a bit too pervasive...

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

It´s not THAT easy.

I can basically forget about the Generated Campaign, because, while AI=180% would probably be fine for my Attacks/Advances, I wouldn´t survive a game where I have to Delay/Defend at that ratio, not even an ME, likely. I´m not THAT good.

Also, you keep saying the balance is for the sake of the AI. But while the current balance makes the AI look better when attacking, the AI is totally hopeless when defending. What you gain for the AI on the one side, you take away on the other...

Wow your consistent your other thread was closed & you dont listen.
Long campaigns if you find attacking easy reduce the time given by 50% now you will actually need a plan.
You state you dont have many games under your belt some of us have thousands, have you played larger games mechanised etc.
For the last time there are so many diffrent factors units terrain, visibility that no standard setting will ever work so adjust them to make it as challenging as you want.
You just admitted your doing something wrong AI or you defending fail.
My guess as mentioned previously to small a defending force for the frontage so spread to thin.

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by Imp

You just admitted your doing something wrong AI or you defending fail.

Actually, no. I just said I wouldn´t like to defend at AI=180% advantage. If this means I am doing something seriously wrong, you are setting a rather high standard.