Let's talk about scaling :)

[HelloLittlePink]

First please stay respectful to your peer players. I know people's opinions on this subject vary but let's try to keep this discussion constructive.

As you know the AI's army size and quatanty only depend on those of the player's, and the reward of each battle is fixed(excluding politcs buffing); these two mechanisms combined means intentionally making your army small and ill-equipped will be a lot easier than actually developing it. Some people considered this scaling concept challenging and a good way to improve the gaming dynamics. Some people think scaling kills all the fun since AI doesn't need to worry about casulty at all, and can just trade the their hard-earned vetrans and equipment as much as possible.

So maybe the developer can just make two different modes, one with sacling like it is now; another mode where enemy army size and equipment are fixed(and only relevant to difficulty) just like other classic strategic games.

Another way I can think of is to make the outcome of each battle have a bigger impact on the next one. I don't think "-5% army size on the next campaign" is quite enough.

What's your opinion and suggestion on scaling?

[Luunyrkki]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

So the player is allowed to snowball their army by taking advantage of certain situations? You need to account for that, and the only reliable way of doing that is through scaling. Read my post on the issue at the top of page 2 - and if you don't read the entire thing, you don't know my position.

So in your opinion the only way to deal with snowballing is...by snowballing the AI? Dealing with this issue through scaling is not the "only realiable way" it's the easiest way and a cheap fix to the problem, and it doesn't work. How about for example making experience and rank count for something? Why can a major lead a 2500 men brigade with extremely minimal penalties? Anythign less than a brigade commander leading a maxed out brigade should end in chaos.

Or how about making it so that the playher has an incentive to have smaller units, right now there is absolutely none. Why? Because the AI will scale upwards in any case.The only reason to field small brigades is to min-max the scaling(ie in multi phase battles where you can go to camp you can reinforce the 500 men brigades to 2500).

Please, list off half a dozen other ways to replace scaling. Simply setting the number of troops on the enemy side won't work due to the aforementioned certain situations the player can beat battles (even Grand Battles) with virtually no casualties and go into the next with massive forces.

Well that's the crux of the issue there. it's just numbers. Scaling is setting numbers, in case that escaped your attention. Replacing scaling would require a real dynamic campaign, as well as some other changes such as an AI that doesn't banzai charge 24/7. And having an actual AI opponent; now you're kind of just playing historical battles with changing army(and there is no incentive to develope your army because of the scaling). As for your number one problem the solutution is quite easy: if the AI gets beaten too heavily you simply give it fresh corps or historical army.

[CrashToDesktop]

@Luunyrikki
I asked that you read my post at the top of page 2. You pretty clearly didn't, because I address literally everything you just said (and more) in that post. Read it or be off.

[Luunyrkki]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

@Luunyrikki
I asked that you read my post at the top of page 2. You pretty clearly didn't, because I address literally everything you just said (and more) in that post. Read it or be off.

I didn't find your topic(you do know that forum outlook depends on preferences; my page two is not your page two), so please address the issue here or at least provide a link.

EDIT: you meant this thread. Your post only deals with how to make the scaling suck less, it doesn't explain in a single word why scaling is the only and the ebst solution. It doesn't even touch anything I wrote.

Scaling causes me to play the game like it's an excel formula, it's no fun. Especially when figuring out how to beat the AI makes no difference.

[Volodio]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

Before I even start, I will state that scaling is needed in this kind of game. Completely removing scaling will make every battle exactly the same throughout every playthrough, and is not fun. Making scaling too prevalent means the same exact thing - the player will always be facing the same odds, more often than not overwhelming. The game in it's current form is the latter - the player will always be equaled and sometimes bettered by the enemy because scaling says so. Some of the current formula needs to be changed, others kept the same, or some bits completely removed or new bits added. Scaling is needed to keep the game engaging, Generals.

You're wrong. It's scaling which makes every campaign the same. Doesn't matter if you choose to have 60 000 rookies or 20 000 seasoned veterans because the enemy gonna have the same army as you do. If there was the same number of soldiers (let's say 40 000 normal soldiers), how you do the battle will change depends on how you did your army.

I agree with Lunnirkki, a campaign with different paths depending on if you're winning or losing would be better for balance. And there would be much more replayability.

[IrateQuaker]

I think the Developers are stuck because they are still in the 'Single Battle' mindset and not equiped to deal with a campaign of inter-related battles. The AI must withdraw it's forces after taking a certain amount of losses making it imperative for a player to decide to pursue in hopes of destroying the army or just holding the objectives. Just like the original generals had to decide. The same would be a consideration for the player though we make that determination in camp.

If the game became more tactical during battle then the larger strategic picture would be easier to deal with. instead they are trying to make each battle play equally to the last or the next. That cannot be done because it sets a linear path which makes a campaign pointless.

As far as scaling goes, I don't understand why you would give the AI more men AND give them more experience. It should be one or the other, as previously mentioned by someone else. Making more men available without the increase of experience is one way of fixing the problem but only so long as the Dev's fix this suicidal behavior. Then again, Grant was famous for throwing troops at the Confederates until they finally surrendered.

If you want to fix the problems with the game you must:

1) correct the AI assault coding so they only attack where they think they can win.

2) Make an AI limit to the amount of casualties they will sustain before retreating. Those troops should obviously be available in the next battle making it imperative to a player to engage in combat before the enemy receives overwhelming numbers and takes the field by storm.

3) Code the AI to be more tactical, taking smaller objectives and chaining them together until they take the main objective. This would hopefully keep them from mass charging the main objective outright and ending the battle after ten minutes with massive casualties.

4) Choices for the next assault. Instead of giving us battles that were historical and allowing us to fight there make it a choice on where to fight next, making the rewards of those battles the reason why we fight them. It would also mean the player is not just running down a menu list of battles to fight while waiting for the main to begin. And it would mean that those bonuses earned in the smaller battles are there for the main and something the player was willing to sacrifice his army for. Strategy.

[Black Hammer]

Beating the AI should make them get larger forces of green troops, representing your front receiving the bulk of recruits. Losing to the AI should make them get better weapons and more veterancy. This gives the AI two different ways to scale, instead of just getting all of everything.

[CrashToDesktop]

@Lunnyrkki
I listed that out ways to make scaling suck less because that's the only way to make it work that I can think of. Speaking of, you still haven't listed out even a single other feasible way of replacing Scaling.

@Volodio
So what you're asking for is a dymamic campaign - which, as a develper myself, can say isn't going to be the easiest thing to do. I don't know if the devs are planning on replacing the current system or not, but if they aren't, scaling is here to stay definitely here to stay. Work with that you've got.

[Volodio]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

@Volodio
So what you're asking for is a dymamic campaign - which, as a develper myself, can say isn't going to be the easiest thing to do. I don't know if the devs are planning on replacing the current system or not, but if they aren't, scaling is here to stay definitely here to stay. Work with that you've got.

It doesn't have to stay like this, because if the enemy has always the same army as you do, the game becomes boring quickly.

[CrashToDesktop]

Originally posted by Volodio:

It doesn't have to stay like this, because if the enemy has always the same army as you do, the game becomes boring quickly.

The same can be said if the enemy always has the same army every playthrough. There's no easy solution.

[Volodio]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

Originally posted by Volodio:

It doesn't have to stay like this, because if the enemy has always the same army as you do, the game becomes boring quickly.

The same can be said if the enemy always has the same army every playthrough. There's no easy solution.

Not exatly the same because in that case you can at least use different strategy. The enemy has the same army but you don't, you can alternate quantity/quality, so you can play double time (at least) without getting bored.

[kokopeli]

I have a proposal to address the balance without engaging scaling to a great extent, but many folks won't like the idea. Just consider it and if it has some good parts, let's look at how we can build upon the idea.

How about if all major battles are played like the 1st Manassas where your forces are subordinate to a higher level of command. You would maintain a smaller force but the computer will give you the forces you need to keep the major battles about right.

This is something I have wanted from early on, to fight engagements alongside the other forces instead of being the supreme commander. I believe this has more challenge.

I would like to use the Battle of Shiloh (Confederates) as an example. In this battle you are given the South's left flank (but you use your army) to attack Shiloh Church. The computer provides the order of battle for everything else. What I would like is two options. First I would like the option to take the Confederate center or the Confederate right instead of having to fight the Confederate left every time.

The second option I want, and this will blow many of you away, is to have the computer control the other two 'wings' of the Confederate battle while I am controlling my area. This has been done in other games and I think it could be very fun.

I know many folks may reject this out of hand because it eliminates many 'what if' attacks because your forces are only a small part of the equation. But to those folks I offer that for individual battles you could play the Historic Battle stand alone and work out your 'what if' on that. I recognize that it doesn't end there for many of you because you want to pursue what happens at Gettysburg if something else happened earlier, and you need the whole campaign for that. We would just have to keep looking for a solution.

Anyway, I think playing a part in the major battles would be very engaging, and I would even like to fight in the Battle of 1st Manassas without being able to control Beauregard's, Jackson's and Longstreet's forces. I would like temporary operational control over Hampton's Legion though in the opening phase. I use this brigade to help me withdraw from the Stone Bridge without getting flanked.

As the commander of only a few Corps, the manpower and money rewards would have to be reduced notably, but I think these details could be worked out.

The Devs already have everythign they need on the big picture side to make this work, because they already have all the Historical battles set up. All they need to do is set up the battle screen so you're only playing the part of a subordinate commander.

Now I need to go find my bullet proof vest. I think it's in the downstairs closet.

[molinator]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

Originally posted by Volodio:

It doesn't have to stay like this, because if the enemy has always the same army as you do, the game becomes boring quickly.

The same can be said if the enemy always has the same army every playthrough. There's no easy solution.

I must say, I'm very surprised of a lots of comments of people defending the actual scaling system, also arguing they are developers, is difficult to implement, and blabla.
I'm also a developer, I know programming has a lot of difficult and the more easy thing on real life could be really difficult to implement in a software. That's not the point, because the point isn't on how much difficult is to implement this, the point is that this deccision is on game design phase, not on implement phase. It's a HUGE game design problem and a very lazy method to make a game balanced always.

The point is that, as player, and a customer of a product wich I paid for it (don't forget it), I see some critical problems in the gameplay that the developers promoted. I wrote it in another post, with the actual scaling system, could someone tell me where is the point on the army management?
And "army management" is the first of all the main features of the game, literally from the shop page, in bold the most important for me:

"Army management: You are the general. You have full control over the army composition. Based on your successes and reputation you might get access to more corps, divisions and brigades. Keep your soldiers alive and they will learn to fight better, turning from green rookies to crack veterans. Lose a lot of your soldiers and you might not have enough reinforcements to deliver victories. Your reputation will suffer, army morale will drop and you will be forced to resign."

With scaling that is FALSE. And evermore, it's a lie from the developers. Because if you lose a lot of soldiers, doesn't matter, because the enemy will have an small army similar than yours. And if you keep your soldiers alive and veterans, there is no problem, the enemy will have also a great and veteran army.....

Come on!! are you kidding me?!
I know the things are not easy and make a game balanced and challenged is one of the most difficult things on game design, but for this reason there are the difficult levels in almost all games.
Which don't have sense is to implement and spent hours of programming ,and promote as main feature, the "army management",if after that, an scaling system broke all the good or bad you did when you manage your army.

The scaling could be included on the difficult settings, as new option, and all battles should have an initial OOB for enemy. For example:
High - The game will scaling like now, the OOB depends of your army composition.
Medium - The game will scale, but less, the OOB depends mainly of your army composition but also in the OOB
Low - The game will scale only a little, the OOB depends of your army composition but mainly of the OOB
None - The battles are always with an OOB fixed, like historical battles have.

And, as player, if I'm CSA for example, and select none, if I reach 2nd Manassas with only 25.000 men, I should know that probably the best decission is to retreat and fight the next battle....unless that means I'll have less than zero on reputation, and in this case I will fight desesperately for a draw at less.
A game, THIS game, without scaling, could be also very funny with this kind of situations. Now, it doesn't matter if I have 25.000, 50.000 or 7.500, I will always have more or less the same chance to win.

Devs, please, you wrote a lot of code to make scaling, let it in game, for some for sure is funny. Just take in consideration add levels of scaling for who don't like it. If, after all, "none" is not funny, I will select low, or medium. Let's the player decide how the campaing will be.
On Sid Meier Gettysburg, for example, you can choose how the AI of the enemy will be before start the battle in some aspects.

More options for the players to decide how to play = more people happy,, better reviews and more sales ;-)

[CrashToDesktop]

@molinator
Yes, I agree that it wasn't the best design choice for how to make the game keep on going. They really needed to put a little more thought into the system before they settled on scaling as the base (think I've said that before in a previous thread on scaling). However, it's in, and it's difficult to change such a large and overlapping system like this so late into development, so I have to defend it out of practicality. If it does change in the future to something entirely different - well, we'll see if that happens.

Contrary to populat belief, unit veterancy is determined by your difficulty level. Enemy unit veterancy is fixed no matter how veteran your army is.

@kokopeli
You know, at first glance I dislike that idea. But once you think about it a little, it is growing on me. I'd be fine with this - a single Corps for me is a nice amount of men to control, not too many and not too few. However, I see one issue with this - you won't actually control the entire battle, and a good hunk of people here want huge battles where everything in under their command. You also have to rely on your own AI to win most of the battle, and I don't think the AI is quite smart enough to even allow that to happen.

[Volodio]

Originally posted by kokopeli:

I have a proposal to address the balance without engaging scaling to a great extent, but many folks won't like the idea. Just consider it and if it has some good parts, let's look at how we can build upon the idea.

How about if all major battles are played like the 1st Manassas where your forces are subordinate to a higher level of command. You would maintain a smaller force but the computer will give you the forces you need to keep the major battles about right.

This is something I have wanted from early on, to fight engagements alongside the other forces instead of being the supreme commander. I believe this has more challenge.

I would like to use the Battle of Shiloh (Confederates) as an example. In this battle you are given the South's left flank (but you use your army) to attack Shiloh Church. The computer provides the order of battle for everything else. What I would like is two options. First I would like the option to take the Confederate center or the Confederate right instead of having to fight the Confederate left every time.

The second option I want, and this will blow many of you away, is to have the computer control the other two 'wings' of the Confederate battle while I am controlling my area. This has been done in other games and I think it could be very fun.

I know many folks may reject this out of hand because it eliminates many 'what if' attacks because your forces are only a small part of the equation. But to those folks I offer that for individual battles you could play the Historic Battle stand alone and work out your 'what if' on that. I recognize that it doesn't end there for many of you because you want to pursue what happens at Gettysburg if something else happened earlier, and you need the whole campaign for that. We would just have to keep looking for a solution.

Anyway, I think playing a part in the major battles would be very engaging, and I would even like to fight in the Battle of 1st Manassas without being able to control Beauregard's, Jackson's and Longstreet's forces. I would like temporary operational control over Hampton's Legion though in the opening phase. I use this brigade to help me withdraw from the Stone Bridge without getting flanked.

As the commander of only a few Corps, the manpower and money rewards would have to be reduced notably, but I think these details could be worked out.

The Devs already have everythign they need on the big picture side to make this work, because they already have all the Historical battles set up. All they need to do is set up the battle screen so you're only playing the part of a subordinate commander.

Now I need to go find my bullet proof vest. I think it's in the downstairs closet.

I kinda like the idea, but if we can control the whole army at some time. That would give some interest to have a good rank. Like at 1st Bull Run we only control one division but if we're good, at Gettysburg we would run the army.

But there would be some issue with that, like if the AI do ♥♥♥♥, and the fact that this could be quite boring if we don't have enough freedom to change things. If the battles are always the same, could become a bit boring.

[apocal43]

Originally posted by IrateQuaker:

As far as scaling goes, I don't understand why you would give the AI more men AND give them more experience. It should be one or the other, as previously mentioned by someone else. Making more men available without the increase of experience is one way of fixing the problem but only so long as the Dev's fix this suicidal behavior.

It has been stated by testers that experience is not scaled, it is scripted for every battle. Which actually makes this whole thing worse; all those damned three star Confederate brigades running around -- when the player has maybe 2-5 total after careful husbanding -- are an intentional element of their battle design.

Yeah, I know. Feel like a yet?

Originally posted by IrateQuaker:

Then again, Grant was famous for throwing troops at the Confederates until they finally surrendered.

Grant was certainly bloody-minded about the business of war, but he had a keen mind for what we call "operational art" nowadays. If throwing men into the barrels of Confederates guns was his only trick, I'd daresay the war would have had a far different outcome. Alternately, someone much dumber would have gotten the reins of command and gone on to accomplish great things with them.