Thx for sharing some good ideas fenglicao.
About the modified scenarios in multiplayer, the game is supposed to detect changed scens and warn you, and I'm sure that at some point in the past this worked. Maybe this functionality got broken at some point, very weird. I'll have to check this.
As for handicap, actually we were under impression that some of the later scenarios (like Bagration and Balaton) were actually quite unbalanced, and so bigger steps were needed.
My feedback/wishlist on the whole game.
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
All that is needed is the ability to filter on the official screened (short) list of scenarios.
Against someone you don't trust, you can play one of these, secure in the knowledge the scenario isn't tampered with.
In all other cases (where you trust your opponent or perhaps are curious about the scenario) you play as normal.
This way you're not making a big problem out of a relatively uncommon issue. Erecting big walls and instituting "fail proof" checks often doesn't work (can still be circumvented by the tech-savvy) anyway, so why not keep it simple?
Against someone you don't trust, you can play one of these, secure in the knowledge the scenario isn't tampered with.
In all other cases (where you trust your opponent or perhaps are curious about the scenario) you play as normal.
This way you're not making a big problem out of a relatively uncommon issue. Erecting big walls and instituting "fail proof" checks often doesn't work (can still be circumvented by the tech-savvy) anyway, so why not keep it simple?
The deal with multiplayer is simple:fenglicao wrote:I am not a computer guy, but I am wondering if it's possible for someone to use a memory editor, to edit the die roll numbers and make as many kills as he want, during his turn in MP. Since it appears to me the die roll numbers are pre-generated as soon as the scenerio is started.
The client can't be trusted. Everything needs to be done by the server.
There really isn't much else to add. Either the Slitherine servers manage EVERYTHING, or it will be relatively easy to cheat. Adjust your expectations accordingly, when you're playing somebody you don't know.
To have the server to do everything may make the game too slow.
If the die rolls are not generated in advance but when the attack is clicked, people won't have time to memory edit? I know this may not be good for single player since people will save and reload, but may be needed for MP once replaying turn problem is solved.
If the die rolls are not generated in advance but when the attack is clicked, people won't have time to memory edit? I know this may not be good for single player since people will save and reload, but may be needed for MP once replaying turn problem is solved.
Scenario balance:
The MP custom scenarios are of course very balanced. But most of them are mostly too symetrical and too much chess-like, when a military engagement in real life would probably have very different units and terrains for 2 sides. The symetrical ones do have their merits, and I especially like the Frozen North, as it is a totally whole new game, unlike anything else I've tried. It needs a lot different considerations and tactics. Once it's figured out, I feel, it may favor the Russians, as their 6 movement units allow faster concentration of firepower, and quicker switching in attack direction. Among the un-symetrical ones, I found the Bzura rather favors the Axis heavily, if he concentrates both forces to attack the Polish force coming in from the Northwest. The Hunters in the Atlantic seems to favor the Allies significantly as the Axis subs can be easily dealt with by using 'undo move' button over and over with your destroyers to explore the ocean one hex a time. Once a sub is discovered, just use 2, 3 destroyers to 'hold' it in place even it evades several attacks. If the transports just go straight at the distination, Axis simply just don't have the time to destroy them, since they have to deal with the Allied fleet first, who is stronger. You can't really use Bismarck or Tirpitz much as once they are discovered and slightly weakened, a concentrated attack by the allies can take them out almost with certainty, as the 4-5 range attacks by the navy units would easily allow 5-10 attacks on 1 single target per turn in the open sea. Now if the destroyers are not allowed the 'undo move', and/or the subs don't suffer from ZOC, that is, once they evade, they can move freely, through/under the destroyers and attack targets of choice, then I think this scenario will be much more balanced.
The MP custom scenarios are of course very balanced. But most of them are mostly too symetrical and too much chess-like, when a military engagement in real life would probably have very different units and terrains for 2 sides. The symetrical ones do have their merits, and I especially like the Frozen North, as it is a totally whole new game, unlike anything else I've tried. It needs a lot different considerations and tactics. Once it's figured out, I feel, it may favor the Russians, as their 6 movement units allow faster concentration of firepower, and quicker switching in attack direction. Among the un-symetrical ones, I found the Bzura rather favors the Axis heavily, if he concentrates both forces to attack the Polish force coming in from the Northwest. The Hunters in the Atlantic seems to favor the Allies significantly as the Axis subs can be easily dealt with by using 'undo move' button over and over with your destroyers to explore the ocean one hex a time. Once a sub is discovered, just use 2, 3 destroyers to 'hold' it in place even it evades several attacks. If the transports just go straight at the distination, Axis simply just don't have the time to destroy them, since they have to deal with the Allied fleet first, who is stronger. You can't really use Bismarck or Tirpitz much as once they are discovered and slightly weakened, a concentrated attack by the allies can take them out almost with certainty, as the 4-5 range attacks by the navy units would easily allow 5-10 attacks on 1 single target per turn in the open sea. Now if the destroyers are not allowed the 'undo move', and/or the subs don't suffer from ZOC, that is, once they evade, they can move freely, through/under the destroyers and attack targets of choice, then I think this scenario will be much more balanced.
Well in most cases I'd agree with you but mismatch sides can sometimes promote interesting strategies from the underdog team.Molve wrote: I far prefer the approach where scenario designers focus on making engaging and interesting scenarios, and simply assume players play each scenario from both ends, thus nullifying any "you only won because the red side is better" arguments.
Unexpected paradrops into the enemy rear being a classic example.
Also if you make the scenarios too homogeneous for both sides then you dissolve the gameplay into chess.
I believe we have a misunderstanding - my point was that scenarios don't have to be meticulously balanced, since you can always play two games, one for each side. Thus being outnumbered or outclassed isn't such an obvious disadvantage - even if you know you will be wiped off the map; you can still survive longer than when you switch sides. Thus "winning" the scenario.Fimconte wrote:Well in most cases I'd agree with you but mismatch sides can sometimes promote interesting strategies from the underdog team.Molve wrote: I far prefer the approach where scenario designers focus on making engaging and interesting scenarios, and simply assume players play each scenario from both ends, thus nullifying any "you only won because the red side is better" arguments.
Unexpected paradrops into the enemy rear being a classic example.
Also if you make the scenarios too homogeneous for both sides then you dissolve the gameplay into chess.
In short: I agree. MP Scenarios does not need to be evenly matched.