1944 Branches In Development - Page 2

1944 Branches In Development

A late World War II game which attempts to balance historical realism with a tactically complex model of battle.

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7031
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Re: 1944 Branches In Development

Post by zwzsg »

neddiedrow wrote:
zwzsg wrote:
neddiedrow wrote:Prisoners are out until they're refined
:( That would have been the only feature making S44 worth checking.
Yeah, you know, besides armour zones on units, armour penetration based on gun calibre, suppression, cover zones on maps, etcetera...
None of which are as enticing to me as prisoners.
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: 1944 Branches In Development

Post by JohannesH »

Its pretty natural that if factions are different enough, different ones are most viable depending on the experience and skill, or just playstyles of players.

Problem is, you have to decide what kind of players are you balancing it for. If a faction is mechanically or strategically harder to use, and its pretty equal to other factions between current best players - how to make it so that it doesnt have such potential, that as people get better it will actually be clearly the best faction in right hands? (Yes theres obvious solutions too, just change the balance at that point or play different maps)
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: 1944 Branches In Development

Post by Gota »

Maps are a huge part of balance just as much as unit stats...blizzard doesn't spend a huge amount on its maps for nothing.
In spring we just have it the other way around.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: 1944 Branches In Development

Post by Neddie »

Harder to use does not boil down merely to micromanagement or task level control. It can also manifest at the tactical level, in the movement and cooperation of groups, or the allocation of resources - in what is often considered macromanagement. I also disagree with the assertion that harder to use boils down to cost effectiveness - the cost effectiveness of an individual unit cannot always over come the narrowness of a role, or the functional limit on number/concentration. Additionally, there is the operational level - how you can play the side effectively.

It the case of Finland, there are missing roles in the selection of forces available which we are working around mechanically - at a task level you might need to capture a tank, and at a tactical level you might need to mix your options differently and behave very differently at individual battles using concealed ambushes and spats of hit and run activity... but it is at the operational level that the real difficulty appears for Finland. For the Germans the game favours highly aggressive mass operations spearheaded by medium and heavy armour, the Americans rely upon mechanized infantry supported by light and medium armour in a battle of movement, the British play a closer hand with concentrated fire groups of aircraft or guns while using armour to shield infantry for slow advancement, and the Russians depend upon overwhelming numbers of cheap assets moving deliberately but with a nod to tactical retreats. The Finns don't work like any of those, and deviating from the operational parameters of the design will be less forgiving than it is for, say, Germany. Finland is designed to play operationally like it did during the Winter War with a little more aggressive potential - Finland is to play defensively, relying upon ambushes and superior land mobility to rack up tactical successes with inferior numbers. This is an entirely different mindset from the sides already in the game - while Finns will be demanding in terms of task micromanagement and tactical action, I think this level of the design will prove the most difficult for people to grasp and master.

As for the point on semantics, semantics as meaning is really everything.
User avatar
Nixa
Posts: 350
Joined: 05 Oct 2006, 04:32

Re: 1944 Branches In Development

Post by Nixa »

Gota wrote:Maps are a huge part of balance just as much as unit stats...blizzard doesn't spend a huge amount on its maps for nothing.
In spring we just have it the other way around.
Well 1944 River Valleys is designed to take s44 to a whole different level regarding the use of tanks/trucks and stationary guns. But your right, s44 is a great mod with no maps to back it up. If I'm honest here, I probably wouldn't map for them either if I wasn't on good terms with neddie and nemo (and ofcourse a ww2 junkie). You need to open your tight nit community up a lil :P. Espcially get on side with beherith as he's currently the #1 when it comes to mapping and feature design

- And yes this is waking up the dead, but it's still the same now as it was then
User avatar
Beherith
Moderator
Posts: 5010
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: 1944 Branches In Development

Post by Beherith »

Got a link to 1944 river valley?
User avatar
Nixa
Posts: 350
Joined: 05 Oct 2006, 04:32

Re: 1944 Branches In Development

Post by Nixa »

Doesn't seem to want to upload :?
exdeath
Posts: 33
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 08:18

Re: 1944 Branches In Development

Post by exdeath »

About balance:
You could do like infiltration mod.

Lets imagine a map, that has the team A (stronger one) and Team B (Crappy one).

On the first round the players choose the teams, and play the game. After the battle finish another round start and they change teams.

If a player wins both rounds, he wins the game.
If one player wins the first round and the other wins the second round. The player that "better won" his round wins the game.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: 1944 Branches In Development

Post by Neddie »

We have discussed that, though that again comes down to one of our team weaknesses - mapping.
Post Reply

Return to “Spring: 1944”