Two Weeks In Normandy: Help With Scoring Bug

[Brett Turner]

Fellow Gamers:

Hi out there. I'm Brett Turner. A few years back I designed series of TOAW Normandy scenarios. Among those scenarios was a small one called Two Weeks In Normandy, which has received a modest amount of favorable comment on this site and others. I'm grateful for the positive feedback. :cool:

In recent months, I've started to receive increasing reports that the VP scoring in Two Weeks is not working right. I ran a whole evening of tests tonight, and I may be getting a handle on what the problem is.

Still, I would like to seek help from this group in two different ways. First, I'd like to see some end-of-game save files from games where the scoring didn't work. This will help me make sure I've diagnosed the problem. Second, I want to describe what I think the problem is, and see if anyone has any suggestions.

Here's how the scoring was designed to work. Two Weeks lasts exactly 12 turns, no more and more less. It has seven special VP locations. Four give +30 VPs for the allies only, if occupied; three give +30 VPs to the Germans only, if occupied. I want the special VPs to be granted only if the relevant side controls the location at the end of the game. That is, I don't care who controls them on turn 1 or turn 2 or even halfway through turn 12. All I care about is who owns each location at the end of turn 12.

Here's how I coded the scoring. Since events are checked at the beginning of a turn, I can't do VPs at the end of turn 12; I have to check them at the start of turn 13. So the scenario is actually set up to last 13 turns. The last event on turn 13 is 100% likely to end the scenario.

I'll use Cherbourg as an example. Event 28 is a news-only event which activates when Cherbourg is occupied. Event 29 gives 30 VPs upon activation of event 28. Event 36, which fires 100% on turn 1, deactivates event 28. Event 40, which files 100% of the time on turn 13, reenables event 28. The net result is that 30VPs are awarded only if Cherbourg is occupied on turn 13.

Now, I know that this whole method fails if the game ends before turn 13. There's a news event which fires only on turn 13; in all of the failed games I've seen, it fires. Early ending is not the problem.

Now again, I also know that this whole method won't work if the four events for each special location don't fire in the right order. In the case of Cherbourg, event 28 must be checked after event 40 reenables it. But after a bunch of tests, I know it does. Events which enable other events seem to fire first, or at least their news line is listed first.

But here's where I think *maybe* it's not working. The whole concept flies only if a "location occupied" event fires whenever the location is occupied. In tonight's testing, whenever a VP location was taken on turn 12, the scoring worked. Whenever the location was taken before turn 12, the "location occupied" event was properly reactivated, but failed to fire. I have only one failed-scoring saved game, sent by MattyBurn7 (Thanks, Matt). Consistently, in that game the failed location (Cherbourg) was taken before turn 12. I have one saved game in which Cherbourg was taken on turn 12; consistently, it scored properly. I thought I had nailed down the problem... but then, in a quick simple test scenario I threw together with 4 units on a desert island, the "location occupied" event was firing even when the location was taken before the last turn.

So, my limited investigation suggests that the "location occupied" events *could* be firing only if the location was taken on the last turn before the event fires... but I need more data to make sure. In the meantime:

1. Has anyone else experienced this problem?

2. Is this consistent with any situations, known to anyone out there, in which location VPs in Two Weeks have not scored correctly?

3. If my suspicion about what is happening is correct, is there any sense whether this is a "bug" or a "feature?" I assumed until tonight that "location occupied" events fire if the location is occupied. Now, I am not so sure.

Thanks in advance for any assistance received.

--Brett Turner

[Secadegas]

It happen to me. I took (and kept) Cherbourg, St. Lô and Torigni well before turn 12 and didn't had any VP's for that. Also took B. Ridge at turn 11 (not 12) and got 30 VP's at the end. I check the news and only B. Ridge was mentioned.

[General Staff]

Originally posted by Brett Turner
...I'll use Cherbourg as an example. Event 28 is a news-only event which activates when Cherbourg is occupied. Event 29 gives 30 VPs upon activation of event 28. Event 36, which fires 100% on turn 1, deactivates event 28. Event 40, which files 100% of the time on turn 13, reenables event 28. The net result is that 30VPs are awarded only if Cherbourg is occupied on turn 13...Firstly, I'd just like to say how great it is to see you here. And many thanks for one of my favourite scenarios.

Secondly, the answer I believe is in the above excerpt. Event 36 DEACTIVATES Event 28, which means the system NEVER checks for occupation of Cherbourg UNTIL Event 40 REACTIVATES Event 28, which checking ONLY happens on Turn 13.

I think you'll find the flag for the switch in possession is being set at the close of each turn, but ONLY CHECKED in this case on Turn 13. This would be consistent with why only Turn 12 occupation triggers it- at Turn End 12/Turn Start 13 the Switch is ON, whereas if Occupied on Turn 11- the Switch is OFF Turn End 12/Turn Start 13 though it would have been ON for the Turn End/Start on the Turn it was occupied.

Testing (c5 times) on a scenario where the Germans (including emergency reserves) were clever enough to disband as the 1/507th made its way overland to Cherbourg shows the VPs only show when it is occupied Turn 12- NEVER PRIOR.

I've attached a fix that seems to work (for Cherbourg anyway) after delving in the bowels of the Event Editor- it really is quite awful down there. Shades of Assembly Language and some nasty memories of Branch Not Equals etc... The fix, containing a capture sequence for each side, is roughly:

Every Turn:
1. Enable #6
2. Enable #7
3. Enable #9
4. Enable #10
On Activation:
5. Side 1 (Allies) Occupies Cherbourg ->
6. Side 1 (Allies) gets +30 VPs for Cherbourg ->
7. Enable 8
8. Side 2 (Germans) Occupies Cherbourg ->
9. Side 1 (Allies) gets -30 VPs for Cherbourg ->
10. Enable 5

Note that once an event is activated, it will not be 'hit' again until deliberately enabled or activated again- hence 7, 10 on capture occuring and 1-4 EACH turn.

The solution is to activate ONLY the POST-capture sequence events for each side EVERY turn, then use each capture sequence event's last event to activate the INITIAL capture sequence event for the other side. If Events 5 or 8 are NOT enabled, 6-7 and 9-10 CANNOT be activated even though they are enabled each turn.

The file has all events stripped out of it except those 10 needed to make it work. In addition 1/507 had (in this test version at any rate) the dubious distinction of being the first into Cherbourg (via chute on June 5th) to allow for easy testing. Try taking/retaking Cherbourg and you should see that the calcs work OK at start of each new turn (i.e. After Bookkeeping)- even accounting for turns where the Allies take the town and the Germans retake it. Note that each and every event prints out to the the News Reader for (relatively!) easy tracking.

This also has the added benefit of providing a running total that's included in the turn-to-turn VP totals, as opposed to calculating it solely at scenario end.

Hope this helps.

[General Staff]

Actually the above should work for all Allied objectives, since they all start the game German-controlled: Bourgebus Ridge, Cherbourg, St Lo and Torigni.

For German objectives, the pseudo-code should be slightly different and of 2 varieties:

A. Carentan, Foret de Cerisy:

0. Germans Get +30 VPs. (Turn 1 Only)
Every Turn:
1. Enable #6
2. Enable #7
3. Enable #9
4. Enable #10
On Activation:
5. Side 1 (Allies) Occupies Objective ->
6. Side 2 (Germans) gets -30 VPs for Losing Objective ->
7. Enable 8
8. Side 2 (Germans) Occupies Objective ->
9. Side 2 (Germans) gets +30 VPs for Retaking Objective ->
10. Enable 5

B. Pegasus Bridge

Every Turn:
1. Enable #6
2. Enable #7
3. Enable #9
4. Enable #10
On Activation:
5. Side 2 (Germans) Occupies Objective ->
6. Side 2 (Germans) gets +30 VPs for Gaining Objective ->
7. Enable 8
8. Side 1 (Allies) Occupies Objective ->
9. Side 2 (Germans) gets -30 VPs for Losing Objective ->
10. Enable 5

Let me know if I'm missing something here! Now away for a quick Q- any more scenarios in the works? :cheeky:

Hope this helps too.

[Brett Turner]

All:

Well, it's good to have confirmation that the problem is scoring for objectives taken before turn 12. Looks like "Location Occupied" events check a change-of-possession flag, rather than simply looking to see which side is actually the current owner. Bleah. :p

I'll experiment with the posted test file and see what I can come up with.

Secadegas, B. Ridge is usually not the problem, because it has a two hex radius. If the Allies are in the area, it's pretty likely that some location within two of the key spot changed possession on turn 12-- in which case everything should work.

General Staff, nice to see someone else who's an admirer of JFC Fuller. I'm working slowly on a seven week Normandy scenario, but do not currently have any other TOAW projects in the works.

Thanks again all,

--Brett Turner

[Mantis]

Brett, we are strongly considering using 2 Weeks in Normandy as one of our scenarios in the upcoming WWII West Front KO Tourney. Do you have any guesstimates for an updapted release?

Thanx! (And thanx some more for your design work! Kudos!)

[Brett Turner]

Mantis and Group:

I appreciate the honor of having Two Weeks considered as a tourament scenario! :)

I made some pretty significant progress this weekend on the scoring bug. I'm still testing, but right now it's scoring almost everything correctly. (I still have to use the "old method" for Bourgebus Ridge, so the scoring won't work if the Allied player takes all 19 hexes within 2 of the central Ridge hex before turn 12, but if that happens the Allied player is going to stomp the German player anyway, unless the Americans get thrown into the sea.) If testing continues to work, chances are that version 2.2 will see light by the end of the week.

Another question for the group. While I'm in the scenario, I'm going to convert the rest of the flooded marsh/bridge hexes into regular marsh/bridge hexes. Bridges in flooded marsh hexes presently can't be rebuilt, because engineers can't get into the flooded marsh. But marshy bridges could and were rebuilt within the scope of the scenario. For the sake of accuracy, they all should be rebuildable.

However, I know that blowing bridges is a valued strategy for the Germans. I'm concerned that if I make all the bridges rebuildable, it might tip balance toward the Allies. (I can't test this in computer vs. computer play, because the computer so rarely blows or rebuilds bridges.) But a few points off the 125% Allied shock on turn 1 should be sufficient to even this out.

Question: if all blown bridges can be rebuilt, will that have a noticeable effect on human vs. human play balance? If so, would a moderate drop (say, 5 points, to 120%) in turn 1 Allied shock offset that drop?

Thanks,

--Brett Turner

[JAMiAM]

You could always just give the American Engineers the Amphibious unit icon, to allow just them to enter the flooded marsh hexes to effect repair. That'll prevent all the other units from taking advantage of the downgrading of the hex into regular marsh, and crossing over. Though, for the most part, those bridges in question are also in Super River hexes, and given the lack of Engineer squads in most units, it's really a moot point.

The biggest flaw in the scenario is the small map and the effect that a normal advance by the Allies has on air interdiction values. The smart tactic for the Allies is to set all of his air units on air interdiction at the end of the first turn of the game, and leave them like that throughout. By the midgame, it is not unusual to have interdiction percentages of 30-40% making it extremely tough on the Germans. In fact, in one game against Brian (Siberian HEAT) I had over 60% interdiction by turn 11. The bulk of his later turns were spent watching my air force pound his units, regardless of movement, or attacks launched.

An interdiction dilution zone of off map hexes, under the control of the Germans would help with this problem inherent in small maps, whose ownership proportions change dramatically during the game.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by JAMiAM
An interdiction dilution zone...

Now who was the inventor of that?...:whist:

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


Now who was the inventor of that?...:whist:

And if you would get your little gem of a scenario out into circulation, more people would see its implementation, and I won't feel that I wasted so much time playtesting a scenario that stays under lock and key!:p

If you've updated it since our last test (back in July?) you should put it out into the public.

[Mantis]

What scenario? C'mon, tell us! Gimmegimmegimme! Info, Info!

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by JAMiAM


And if you would get your little gem of a scenario out into circulation, more people would see its implementation, and I won't feel that I wasted so much time playtesting a scenario that stays under lock and key!:p

If you've updated it since our last test (back in July?) you should put it out into the public.

Lol...the little gem is hibernating under major TO&E revision. Your playtesting effort was truly appreciated, and you know it, you big rascal. :p

[Mantis]

Originally posted by JAMiAM
You could always just give the American Engineers the Amphibious unit icon

That's s much more elegant solution!

A bit about the interdiction - that just ruins a scenario. I'm interested in seeing what methods Brett takes to remedy this to a reasonable degree. I've played a couple games where it gets to the point that you're better off not moving any units, regardless of their current disposition. I don't want to have air units determine the results of the scenario without any skill required on the part of the victor... It's alright that the German is under the gun, but he's got to have some chances.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Mantis
What scenario? C'mon, tell us! Gimmegimmegimme! Info, Info!

It is a grand scale scenario covering all of Europe during WWII.

Or is that what Mantis would like it to be? :p

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Mantis
A bit about the interdiction - that just ruins a scenario. I'm interested in seeing what methods Brett takes to remedy this to a reasonable degree. I've played a couple games where it gets to the point that you're better off not moving any units, regardless of their current disposition. I don't want to have air units determine the results of the scenario without any skill required on the part of the victor... It's alright that the German is under the gun, but he's got to have some chances.

IMO, the enhanced interdiction, presented in the latest (?) official patch was a design mistake....

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


It is a grand scale scenario covering all of Europe during WWII.

Or is that what Mantis would like it to be? :p

Glock tease! (oops, sorry, wrong timeframe!)

Seriously, is that the focus of your scenario?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Nope :D

[Mantis]

Not gonna share?

:cry:

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Sorry, no can do.:violin:

[Mantis]

lol! I'd be interested in your thought process for that decision. If it was to avoid having people asking you alot of questions, it doesn't seem to be working, does it?

:D

How about an era?

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Mantis
lol! I'd be interested in your thought process for that decision. If it was to avoid having people asking you alot of questions, it doesn't seem to be working, does it?

:D

How about an era?

He's just embarrassed. He thinks noone will want to play his "Land that Time Forgot" scenario. But, with that interdiction dilution zone, the Pterodactyl units are quite manageable. Before, the ground slogging Brontosaurs were just getting "plastered" by Ptero droppings. Couldn't even move a Tricerotop Battalion without bringing in massive interdiction attacks.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Mantis
lol! I'd be interested in your thought process for that decision. If it was to avoid having people asking you alot of questions, it doesn't seem to be working, does it?

:D

How about an era?

In fact, versions of it have been available also here at Warfare HQ...

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by JAMiAM


He's just embarrassed. He thinks noone will want to play his "Land that Time Forgot" scenario. But, with that interdiction dilution zone, the Pterodactyl units are quite manageable. Before, the ground slogging Brontosaurs were just getting "plastered" by Ptero droppings. Couldn't even move a Tricerotop Battalion without bringing in massive interdiction attacks.

So you had to tell him everything, hadn't you? :mad:

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


IMO, the enhanced interdiction, presented in the latest (?) official patch was a design mistake....

IMO, the design choice was valid, but the backwards compatability with existing scenarios was lacking. With the enhanced interdiction designers have to pay very close attention to the unit and formation proficiencies of air units. Also, the relative size between the air units, and the median scale of the ground units involved is an important factor.

There are a lot of scenarios that may have played fine, without it, but became unplayable after its implementation.

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


So you had to tell him everything, hadn't you? :mad:

LoL...at least I didn't tell them about the Stegosaurus' special ability...:p

[General Staff]

Originally posted by Mantis
Not gonna share?:cry: It's the Sheikh. Therefore it's gotta/gonna feature tundra, reindeers, snow, T34s, Panthers, (Shermans?)...:D

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Definitely no Shermans. :p

[Mantis]

Originally posted by JAMiAM


He's just embarrassed. He thinks noone will want to play his "Land that Time Forgot" scenario. But, with that interdiction dilution zone, the Pterodactyl units are quite manageable. Before, the ground slogging Brontosaurs were just getting "plastered" by Ptero droppings. Couldn't even move a Tricerotop Battalion without bringing in massive interdiction attacks.

Now THAT sounds like something worth playing!

(And tell the truth - you had to look up pterodactyl, didn't you?!!? :clown: )

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


In fact, versions of it have been available also here at Warfare HQ...

More secrecy... And nothing available in the archives from Sheik in his various guises. :hmmm:

[Brett Turner]

Bridges. The flooded marsh bridges should be rebuildable, but I don't know that they should be as rebuildable as regular bridges. The Germans did indeed deliberately flood a good portion of the Contentin (as well as the area south of Omaha Beach), I think primarily as an obstacle to airborne landings. IIRC, there's a single army-level engineer unit for the British and Americans, plus divisional engineers for each division. How about giving the amphib icon to the army level engineers only?

Airpower. The situation which prevails early in the game is the designer's intent. Airpower was one contributing factor to Allied success, but not the decisive factor. It clearly did not make movement impossible; the best recent study of German records (Zetterlin) concludes that its tactical effects (as opposed to its effect on movement to the battlefield) were moderate.

I had not realized that the diminishing number of German-controlled hexes on the map was having such a serious effect upon German movement. I'm reluctant to expand the map. Can we achieve a similar effect by withdrawing a few air units in the mid-game, on grounds that they are being used southward to interdict off-map areas?

And I have to say, this is one impressive example of topic drift. From marshes and airpower in Normandy to dinosaurs?!? :rolleyes:

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Brett Turner
It clearly did not make movement impossible; the best recent study of German records (Zetterlin) concludes that its tactical effects (as opposed to its effect on movement to the battlefield) were moderate.

Yep, that's why I regard the enhanced interdictions as a design mistake.

Originally posted by Brett Turner
And I have to say, this is one impressive example of topic drift. From marshes and airpower in Normandy to dinosaurs?!? :rolleyes:

LoL...sorry about that.

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Brett Turner
I had not realized that the diminishing number of German-controlled hexes on the map was having such a serious effect upon German movement. I'm reluctant to expand the map. Can we achieve a similar effect by withdrawing a few air units in the mid-game, on grounds that they are being used southward to interdict off-map areas?

Yes, interdiction percentage is a function of the proportion of friendly controlled hexes. In essence, this makes sense, as the assets have less enemy territory to patrol over, so the number of friendly planes per enemy square mile make for an increased probability of detecting and attacking enemy targets. The problem lies in small maps that have a large proportional shift from one side to the other. Particularly, when the strategic attacker is the one with the overwhelming superiority in air assets.

The decision to withdraw some air assets during the course of the scenario would be an easy fix to the problem on this map. How much and how soon would need to be tested to not destroy the play balance too much.

Originally posted by Brett Turner
And I have to say, this is one impressive example of topic drift. From marshes and airpower in Normandy to dinosaurs?!? :rolleyes:

Welcome to WarfareHQ...:cheeky:

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by JAMiAM
The decision to withdraw some air assets during the course of the scenario would be an easy fix to the problem on this map. How much and how soon would need to be tested to not destroy the play balance too much.

Damn, I hate quoting myself...

You might want to link the withdrawal of certain groups of air units to the capture of various positions, rather than make them time based.

[General Staff]

Originally posted by Brett Turner
Bridges. The flooded marsh bridges should be rebuildable, but I don't know that they should be as rebuildable as regular bridges. The Germans did indeed deliberately flood a good portion of the Contentin (as well as the area south of Omaha Beach), I think primarily as an obstacle to airborne landings. IIRC, there's a single army-level engineer unit for the British and Americans, plus divisional engineers for each division. How about giving the amphib icon to the army level engineers only?First Army has 1- also has RR Repair capability. 2nd Army has 1, but there is no 2nd Army formation on map so it's actually under I Corps. Both appear turn 4.

As Germans a small (only?) ray of hope is being able to 'seal' Utah off to some degree by blowing the bridges, leaving the bridge NE of Carentan the only (repairable) way south from Utah until St Saveur west. But with Allied Turn 1 deployments this is highly unlikely. Even so I'd hate to lose this option as Germans. Hmmm. Tough call.

[Brett Turner]

Bridges. Unless I'm just blind, which is always possible, there's no amphibious engineer icon. Is there? :crosseye: And don't units lose some engineering functions if they lose their engineering icon? Within no amphib engineers icon, I'm kind of inclined to convert the flooded marsh/bridge hexes to regular marsh, and compensate the Germans in other ways.

Air. I like removing air units, and of course it should depend upon progress and not time. What we're really simulating is a "rolling interdiction zone" in front of the front line. As the front line moves south, part of the zone moves off the map, so we withdraw those units maintaining the off-map part of the zone.

It will take testing to be maintain balance, but air vs. ground balance is something I have always been able to refine with computer vs. computer testing.

--Brett Turner

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Brett Turner
Bridges. Unless I'm just blind, which is always possible, there's no amphibious engineer icon. Is there? :crosseye: And don't units lose some engineering functions if they lose their engineering icon? Within no amphib engineers icon, I'm kind of inclined to convert the flooded marsh/bridge hexes to regular marsh, and compensate the Germans in other ways.
--Brett Turner

Well...we won't go into your eyesight, but your assumptions on the engineering icon are incorrect. It grants no special capabilities. Engineering capability is strictly a function of the number of engineer squads in a unit and scaled accordingly to the hex scale of the scenario. You could stick the engineering squads into an artillery unit and it will have the same engineering capability.

Likewise, minor ferry is also a function of the number of engineering squads and major ferry is a function of the number of Ferry-Bridging teams. I've already tested the amphibious icon on the 326/101 AB Engineer Battalion, and it works fine in every way.

With respect to your claims of the computer-computer play being fine for playtesting, I would beg to differ. The computer is very poor at certain aspects of the game. River crossings, and its air management are very poor. Both of these variables play a large part in the scenario, and it would do your fine piece of work an injustice to let the computer's play determine whether the anomalies have all been worked out.

Just my 0.02...

[Mantis]

Interesting reading about the air interdiction 'curve'.

Also great to see a scenario getting a good once over by expert players and the designer. I'm glad the new tourney will be a little while yet; this 'improved' 2WiN sounds like it will be a winner!

[General Staff]

While I think of it- Theatre Recon on TOAW-designed scenarios ported to ACOW. From an article on Events and the Editor by our (sometime? :D) colleagues over at TDG:

http://www.tdg.nu/resources/articles/design%20articles/The%20Evil%20Ed.htm

"In version 1.04 this trigger no longer sets the actual number of theatre recon but has either a + or a - attached to it... ...This has a pretty big impact on some of the older scenarios most of which now have incredibly high recon ratings since in the old system if the recon was set at 25 and later an event took place that increased it the editor would set it at, for example 30... ...in the new system that is interpreted as 25+30=55..."

Hope this helps.

[Brett Turner]

Computer Testing. This scenario goes back to the early days of TOAW I, and I've mostly always balanced it back having the computer play itself. Of course the AI doesn't play a very good game, but my experience is that it tends to play both sides equally poorly. Back when new editions were coming out fast and furious, I rebalanced the scenario every 2 versions or so mostly by having the AI play itself, and adjusting a few key variables. I'm not really changing much now--just withdrawing a few air units on later turns--and in the past computer vs. computer testing has worked fine for this sort of small tweak.

Theater Recon. Thanks for the warning; problem fixed.

Air Unit Removal. The problem of advancing units is mostly an American problem. The British run into real panzer divisions between Caen and Caumont, and then move slowly if at all. The Americans get to race around in the Contentin and charge on St. Lo.

The present plan is to remove the two American medium bomber units. #1 goes when the Americans get within 10 hexes of St. Lo. #2 goes when the Americans get within 8 hexes of Portbail, or 3 hexes of Valognes. (I can't use one big area in the Contentin, or it gets triggered too early by the 82d Airborne.) In computer vs. computer testing, this puts the Allies about a turn behind, which fixes itself nicely if Allied global supply level rises from 10 to 11.

--Brett Turner

[Brett Turner]

All:

Just added to the scenario library on this site: Version 2.2 of Two Weeks In Normandy. The scoring bug is fixed for all VP locations except Borguebus Ridge. That location uses the old system, and there one very unlikely combination of events which may cause it not to score right, but I don't think that combination will ever happen. Full details in the documentation.

The two U.S. medium bombers are withdrawn when the Allies get within 10 hexes of St. Lo (#1) or within 8 hexes of Portbail or 3 hexes of Valognes (#2).

All flooded marsh/bridge hexes are now converted to marsh/bridge, so they can all be rebuilt. I thought hard about the amphibious engineer option discussed above, but as a matter of historical fact I'm convinced that Allies were able to rebuild any bridge on the map without a long delay. I know the change will hurt the Germans in face to face play, but the loss of two Allied air units for roughly half the game should offset the harm.

The balance inclines just slightly more German than version 2.0 when the computer plays itself. Over a long run of scenarios the Allies are about half a turn behind where they were. I experimented with tweaking Allied strength a bit more upward, but since reports indicate a slight Allied advantage between two human players, I decided to leave the balance where it was. In 20-odd computer vs. computer tests, I saw occasional victories by both sides, though the great majority of the results were of course draws.

Permission is hereby granted for anyone to upload version 2.2, unmodified of course, to any reputable scenario site on the web.

A special "thank you" from the scenario designer to everyone who helped fix the scoring bug and draw my attention to the effect of changing control and 1.03 uber-interdiction on German movement. If anything in version 2.2 fails to work, please email me (attaching a *.sav file if appropriate) and I'll try to figure out what went wrong.

Thanks again,

--Brett Turner

[MikeJ]

Appreciate you updating the scenario. There are a lot of scenarios out there right now that could use updating but the designers no longer play TOAW it seems :|.

I'm not sure removing the medium bombers will have a significant impact though.. at least.. not as much as allowing the bridges to be rebuilt will. It will be less noticable for the AI as the AI just doesn't exploit advantages like that at all, much less to the level a human player can, which is why I'm not sure AI vs AI testing to balance the new changes will be very effective. If anything, it sounds like it's just going to be an impossible scenario vs a competent attacker (minus some very good fortune... like a bad first turn for the Allies - even 2.01 seems to be a stretch to win against any Allied player that knows what he's doing and doesn't have an unfortunate first turn). We can't move our units at night as the Germans did to help minimize interdiction, nor can we tell our drivers to turn their headlights off ;).

I guess I just don't know if realism over playability is the best way to go in this case. I know a whole lot of "realistic" scenarios that are wholly unbalanced that nobody ever plays PBEM because, while realistically depicting the mass slaughter of one side, isn't very much fun for whoever has to play that side.

Take this all with a grain of salt though, as I'm only now on my first mirrored game of 2WIN, but I think I've played enough TOAW to qualify the above comments.

[Mantis]

Let me add my thanks for your update, and working through it publicly on our forums. Good stuff! :thumup:

I'll second the philosophy of balance over realism, however. You want people playing your scenarios, not admiring them through the editor for their accuracy, then letting them gather cyberdust on the HD.

[General Staff]

TVM for the update. I'm sure any balance issues will work themselves out in the wash (or marsh?)...

[Mantis]

Brett, I just sent you an email, please let me know if you don't receive it.

Thanx.

[Brett Turner]

All:

Realism and balance are absolutely not a zero sum game here. We have enough flexibility with victory conditions in TOAW that we can balance anything, simply by putting the right victory points in the right places. If people playing 2.2 find that it consistently favors the Allies too much, I can balance the scenario without touching realism simply by moving victory points around. There also a whole bunch of discretionary "soft" variables, e.g., supply and proficiency levels, which can be tweaked considerably without running into realism concerns.

But all the feedback I've received to date suggests that this was pretty balanced scenario in prior versions. Only since the interdiction change have I begun to hear that it favors the Allies, and that only slightly. The Germans have lost the ability to permanently blow only 3-4 bridges, and they are all between areas (generally between Utah and Omaha) rather than between landings and objectives. And those bridges are still lost from the time blown until the time repaired. I can't see the loss of those bridges crippling German chances.

Withdrawal of two air units was pretty arbitrary. I know that the withdrawal is significant for the AI, but as a couple of people have pointed out, the AI uses its air assets less efficiently than human players. Maybe the scenario will work better with a larger withdrawal. But two is my best guess right now for what it takes to weaken late-game uber-interdiction, while still recognizing airpower as a major Allied advantage. If experience shows that version 2.2 is significantly unbalanced in favor of the Allies, we'll fix that in version 2.3.

--Brett

[Mantis]

For the scenario as it stands (and what you're trying to accomplish here), I'm totally with you; I solidly agree. You want the game itself to be as balanced as possible, and mean to maintain the campaign's historical realities. Certainly messing around with the 'soft' variables is more than enough to give both sides an equal chance of a victory, while being true to the flavor of the battle. This may require some playtesting, as you point out, but that's what we're here for!

(PS - Don't mistake our emails for me disagreeing on balance issues. I am 100% in agreeance with you on your 'vision' for 2WiN. What I was discussing was a seperate entity, meant to be something totally different, with different goals and objectives. I'll continue this in email, where I'll respond to your most recent reply!)

[MikeJ]

Sounds good. The timing is just a tad awkward if this next WHQ tourney gets started soon. Either way, I'm glad you're willing to rebalance if necessary. I'll try to give the new version a go in PBEM play for my next new game, provided whoever I end up playing is willing.

[MikeJ]

Maybe shock should be removed for the Allies completely?

This game is in all probability over before it's begun. The Axis haen't even had a chance to move before this happens...

Of particular concern are Axis reinforcement hexes around Caen which almost assuredly will be blocked by the end of turn 2 with basically nothing to reopen them with.

[MikeJ]

...

[General Staff]

How on earth was this achieved? Were German units removed from the scenario via the Editor? Even Omaha is as clean as a whistle. If you feel you can duplicate this I'd be happy to playtest the new 2WIN against you with me playing the Germans- ex-ladder of course (-;.

[Mantis]

Now, the results of this I'd be very happy to hear about.

Mike, were you playing against a PO or something?

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by General Staff
How on earth was this achieved? Were German units removed from the scenario via the Editor? Even Omaha is as clean as a whistle. If you feel you can duplicate this I'd be happy to playtest the new 2WIN against you with me playing the Germans- ex-ladder of course (-;.

Those are very good results. However, tongue in cheek as I know the General's comment to be, no German units need be removed to score similarly during the first turn. Just a little bit of luck and a whole lotta planning.

I had a first turn very close to that (though a couple hexes lacking, here and there) during a tournament game against Siberian HEAT. He was able to prevent me from getting the OV...until turn 10. Fistandantilus likewise stepped all over Wilhelm in a Battle of the Ladders tourney game.

[MikeJ]

Omaha was cleared on the first tactical round. What's odd is I was expecting Omaha to be very difficult (I just wrapped up playing as Axis where my opponent could not get off half of Omaha on turn 1 which eventually led to that beaches destruction - incidentally in the screenshots above the reason I didn't capture Port-en-bessen which was well within my ability was because I was worried about him doing to me what I did to him). I caused severe casualties to both battalions right away and it was a relatively simple matter of just overruning them right off the beach into the interior until they evaporated.

Around Caen and Utah, all it takes is keeping key units on their planned movement tracks. I planned for certain units to spearhead the advance all the way in and they never overran any units off the road with few exceptions. That being said, with the shock effects (which I had never really experienced before, but can wholly say are quite insane), this is just somewhat ridiculous IMO.

I was going to just scrap the game there and call it off because it is silly for my opponent to receive a game and for the ladder and have it, in my view anyways, be over before he's been able to move a unit. But he is up for a challenge (and is mildly masochistic I suppose ;)) so he wants to try and salvage something from it.

Maybe I need to play the scenario more, but IMO shock needs to be either reduced or removed, because it allows key units in the Allied OOB to overrun way too much. Whenever there was something I couldn't overrun I just moved units until their expected MPs (that would be lost from combat) were used up as not to waste them. Made the attacks (which more often than not resulted in the same % of turn remaining due to shock) and then carried on as if I was never delayed at all.

I don't think the Allies really need that turn 1 shock? I just ran several test runs (stock 2WIN 201 with shock) of the Allies pushing off the beach at Omaha.

With 1 exception (where it took 2 combat rounds), the Axis battalions retreated immediately taking around 30-50% combat losses. The highest losses for the Allies was 4% of the attacking force (which occured during that one combat that took 2 tactical rounds) - the attacking froce amounting to 1 armored battalion or 1 infantry battalion with air/naval support.

I don't think that shock is necessary?

What's worse is, once you push those units back, the lone armored battalion (the one that's not depleted anyways) can usually overrun the Axis battalions, even if they're in bocage/hedgerow, simply because they've taken heavy enough losses. Without the shock multiplier, I don't know how often that would happen. When it does however, the naval and air support also take their disengagement toll on the Axis battalions, so if they get overrun even once it's basically all over for them and they will evaporate before the Allied turn is done.

My biggest concern is that some Axis reinforcement hexes are already overrun (and more could have been, had I gone to the trouble of noting down what hexes axis reinforcements arrive in) and by the end of turn 2 it will almost certainly be worse... I don't think the Axis can really afford to have a single unit not arrive, much less many of them.


Mantis:

It's a ladder game, but it doesn't matter. This is turn 1, before the other side gets to move at all. PO or PBEM, same difference really. If I recieved this turn 1 in the mail, I'd concede right there.

[Chuck?]

The problem is if there is no shock bonus the turn could end after the first combat stage. I played HEAT in this scenario recently and had a failed prof. check after one round of combat on turn 2.

[MikeJ]

Hmm, that' strue. Maybe upping the Allied force proficiency? I don't know really, but it would suck to get a turn 1 like that and from the sounds of Jam's post, this isn't that rare.

[Siberian HEAT]

Chuck's first turn WAS similar to what MikeJ had too. There were some minor differences, but overall I opened the scenario's first turn and I quite literally thought about conceding the game right there. :)

Fortunately for me, his turn 2 ended early...and this gave me an ever so slight edge in the game that lasted until the end.

The allied player really has to focus on overrunning the entry hexes of the Axis player...as that is really the only hope he has of keeping himself from being bogged down.

It might pay in a revised scenario to retool the entry of certain Axis units so they cannot be overrun. For example, have all the units around St. Lo arrive IN St. Lo instead of out in the field. I think the reason the German units are placed as they are now is to avoid the punishing interdiction...and by moving their entry hexes back to St. Lo they might have to run the gauntlet to get back in position. However, this might be better than being overrun altogether? It also would avoid the allied strategy of racing for German reinforcement hexes...

[MikeJ]

That sounds like the best solution... hopefully Brett checks back and puts his thoughts into this...

[Chuck?]

I don't remember what the turn 1 shock is but making it as low as 101 would prevent the failed proficency checks.

As for the reinforcement hexes in my game I never really looked at the German side before playing. It probably would of helped if I had. :cry:

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Chuck
I don't remember what the turn 1 shock is but making it as low as 101 would prevent the failed proficency checks.

That's not true. I've had many occasions of failing proficiency checks with even up to 120 percent shock. Mostly in low overall force proficiency situations.

[MikeJ]

Originally posted by Brett Turner
But a few points off the 125% Allied shock on turn 1 should be sufficient to even this out.


^^^ Bear in mind that's referring to v2.01, not the v2.02 (though he may not have changed the shock in the new version, I don't know).

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by JAMiAM


That's not true. I've had many occasions of failing proficiency checks with even up to 120 percent shock. Mostly in low overall force proficiency situations.

Is there some type of calculation for figuring this out?

[MikeJ]

Originally posted by General Staff
If you feel you can duplicate this I'd be happy to playtest the new 2WIN against you with me playing the Germans- ex-ladder of course (-;.

I'm really behind on my turns right now and still have turn 1 of Europe Aflame backlogged that I haven't been able to get to yet, but should be clearing up 4 games relatively soon (within a matter of a week or two. If you're still available then and Brett hasn't changed the scenario at all, I'd be happy to.

[JAMiAM]

Mantis told me that he had the okay to amend the scenario for use in the tourney and had asked for suggestions. I told him to take MikeJ's screenshots and, using them as a boundary, set all the German units within to ignore losses, and fortified deployment. This would at least make the Allies have to work the first turn.

Just my 0.02.

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Chuck


Is there some type of calculation for figuring this out?

Unfortunately, I haven't derived that one out yet...:cry:

[Mantis]

Originally posted by JAMiAM
Mantis told me that he had the okay to amend the scenario for use in the tourney and had asked for suggestions. I told him to take MikeJ's screenshots and, using them as a boundary, set all the German units within to ignore losses, and fortified deployment. This would at least make the Allies have to work the first turn.

Just my 0.02.

I've been bouncing emails with Brett, and have already mentioned this to him. As I said in the email, I've no plans at all to modify any scenario for the tournament, but I'm keeping my options open.

[Brett Turner]

Gentlemen:

1. Good heavens, those are good Allied turns. If this is at all common, and from these accounts it seems to be not uncommon, we obviously need to Do Something.

One of the areas in which human players are especially better than the AI is getting a ton of combat phases out of one turn. I've never seen the AI have a turn anything like the ones posted and described.

The Allied shock was new, as of version 2.0 I think. I'm not at all wedded to 125%; indeed I was considering reducing the shock as a way to balance 2.2, but ultimately didn't go that way.

It's especially troubling that reenforcement hexes are being taken. The reason why the reenforcement hexes were spread out, especially around St. Lo, is that the AI is really bad about moving up and occupying a defensive line. In very early testing, the entire 3 FJ did enter at St. Lo---and the AI tended to leave it stacked there. Bringing the 3FJ in in pre-chosen defensive positions around St. Lo made all the difference in terms of getting a halfway decent game out of the AI.

Moving the reinforcement hexes back in some areas will have a really bad effect on the competence of the AI. Since the problem seems to be absurdly good Allied first turns, attributable mostly to shock, the logical first step is to reduce the turn 1 Allied shock. The exact level is hard for me to determine; I can't test it computer vs. computer, because the computer doesn't use shock well. And I probably can't test it myself vs. the computer either, because the sad truth is that I'm probably not using Allied shock as well as you guys are---or I would have stumbled across this problem before.

What would help is if a few people would be willing to reduce the Allied shock level to, say, 110% or 115%, and then play the first turn as the Allies. We would need to know (1) in the best cases, how far you get, especially in terms of occupying reinforcement hexes around Caen, (2) in the worst cases, where you failed a proficency check and got only a few phases, how bad was it, and (3) some sense for how often the best and worst cases are occurring.

After we get some feeling for what a better shock level is, I'll run some computer vs. computer tests to see if reduced shock has any long term effect on scenario balance. What I'm most interested in how is finding out what level of shock results in the overall best balance on turn 1.

It's historically accurate to give some level of shock. Not only were the Allies much better prepared for June 6, but a good chunk of the German high command was off at a war game near Rennes, and so was basically absent until June 7. (Silly little things, war games... distract you from real life.) And Rommel was away in Germany, visiting his wife. But like I said, there's nothing magic about 125%. Whatever figure works best, as long as there's at least some shock, can easily be justified.

MikeJ, thank you for taking the lead in reporting this problem. You've presented pretty convincing evidence that 125% Allied shock is leading to absurdly good Allied first turns in an unacceptably high number of games. One way another, We Will Fix This.

Thanks,

--Brett

[MikeJ]

JAM's suggestion of fortifying units and making sure they're on ignore losses (the briefing states the German high command considered most of the frontline, beach units as basically expendable, as such they'd be ordered to hold at all costs I presume?) will do a lot as well, particularly in front of Caen and may help lower the amount of shock eventually removed (which, negative effects it has on the balance aside, will make it unlikely for premature ending of the turn, as Chuck points out, because that could have the entirely opposite effect - ending the game in the Axis players favor given an unlucky end-turn check).

On that turn, I mowed through the Axis panzergrenadiers on Perrier's ridge (and the supporting panzer units). Being in mobile status makes them easy to force into retreat and with the firepower you have, it will probably only take 1 or 2 actual combat phases before the PzGs are overrunnable leaving the door to Caen open.

Lowering shock to some degree will probably solve most of the problems though. Getting a lot of overrun attacks and combat rounds that repeat are the primary culprit.

One of those design dilemmas, but 125 is probably too high at any rate. I'll try to push out some turn 1s with differing shock levels when I have a chunk of free time.

[Mantis]

Brett, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but unless you use TOs in the very first turn to 'tweak' the game for PO opponents, I have huge doubts as to whether you can balance this game for both the PO and PBEM play. One or the other seems to be the thoughts from the better designers that I've encountered. The difference in playing style, as you correctly note, will mean the game simply can't be balanced for both at the same time. You've seen the difference between PBEMing a newbie, and taking on a grand-master? This is worse! :p

The opening shown above is not uncommon. (I've been speaking to quite a few people about this scenario, and listening to their experiences). It doesn't happen every time, no; but with a skilled player as the Allies, it will happen more often than not. Shock will allow a huge potential amount of rounds per turn. To illustrate this, I believe that the shcok level is at 115% in Europe Aflame, and I managed to squeeze 28 rounds out of a single turn as the Axis. Jamiam posted a theory on how this might work in another thread in this forum, but the gist of it is that it's possible (and likely under certain circumstances) for combat to take place without eating any of the 10 rounds.

I'll go deeper into this with you in response to your latest email, but it's getting late here, and I've already spent most of the day involved with WFHQ work, and I need to make a quick bite to eat before I crash out.

But I'll get back to you tomorrow with some more thoughts!

[Mantis]

Originally posted by MikeJ
One of those design dilemmas, but 125 is probably too high at any rate. I'll try to push out some turn 1s with differing shock levels when I have a chunk of free time.

I'd suggest trying it with 110 and 115.

Just loaded up the scenario; with the overall force proficiency being 60% for the Allies, try 115 first. My guess, anyways.

[Mantis]

One more quick point, I'm going to tell my guys to hold off on the ver 2.2 playtest; if you want to try having all the Germans in the area affected on ignore losses and fortified, and lower the shock value, get me a test scenario as soon as you have the time, Brett, and I'll get the guys on it pronto!

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Mantis
Brett, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but unless you use TOs in the very first turn to 'tweak' the game for PO opponents, I have huge doubts as to whether you can balance this game for both the PO and PBEM play. One or the other seems to be the thoughts from the better designers that I've encountered. The difference in playing style, as you correctly note, will mean the game simply can't be balanced for both at the same time.

Yes, designers should make scenarios either for PBEM or PO -play. Combining these will lead to debilatating compromises.

[Brett Turner]

Let's see how far we can get balancing the scenario with mainly reduced shock. The problem with putting all the German units on ignore losses is that some units didn't stand; they ran away with great gusto. The German army in Normandy was an odd combination of the truly terrible (e.g., almost all of the Osttruppen) and the truly good (e.g., the Panzer divisions). If we have to dig everyone in, we will. But I hope we can get there mostly by reducing Allied shock.

The PzG's aren't dug in on Periers Ridge in front of Caen because, IIRC, they weren't there at the start of the day. They got there by the time the Allies got there, which is why they had to be deployed there. Sequential movement occasionally makes the designer want to throw TOAW through the window. But they weren't dug in, so I would rather not dig them in, unless we must for game balance reasons. The flak and engineer units on the Ridge were there all along and did hold really well, so those units can probably be put on ignore losses.

Mantis, I don't know that this problem is a reason to stop testing already in progress, **where the Allied player had a balanced first turn.** The fixes we're talking about---lowering turn 1 shock, and issuing "hold fast" orders to some German units---are mostly limited to turn 1. Come turn 2, all of the shock goes away, and the German is free to tell anyone he likes to hold fast. So long as the Allied player had a reasonable turn 1, the result of any test of 2.2 should still be relevant.

Rest easy, guys, I'm not going to throw PBEM balance out the window for the sake of the PO. But a key element in balancing a scenario is repeated computer vs. computer play. I know you're going to jump all over me because the PO is terrible, and you're right, it is terrible. But it's terrible both ways, so its weakness **to some extent** cancels out. There are still balance problems arising from things the computer doesn't do, e.g., maximally exploit shock on turn 1, blow bridges, etc. But for the meat and potatoes work of balance---how many Germans on this side of the rope vs. how many Allies on that side of the rope, repeated time and time again---computer vs. computer testing works, and above all it's gazillion times faster and easier than human vs. human testing. PBEM play balance benefits over the long term if we retain the ability of the PO to play a halfway reasonable game against itself.

--Brett

[jlbetin]

Originally posted by Brett Turner

Mantis, I don't know that this problem is a reason to stop testing already in progress, **where the Allied player had a balanced first turn.** The fixes we're talking about---lowering turn 1 shock, and issuing "hold fast" orders to some German units---are mostly limited to turn 1. Come turn 2, all of the shock goes away, and the German is free to tell anyone he likes to hold fast. So long as the Allied player had a reasonable turn 1, the result of any test of 2.2 should still be relevant.

Rest easy, guys, I'm not going to throw PBEM balance out the window for the sake of the PO. But a key element in balancing a scenario is repeated computer vs. computer play. I know you're going to jump all over me because the PO is terrible, and you're right, it is terrible. But it's terrible both ways, so its weakness **to some extent** cancels out. There are still balance problems arising from things the computer doesn't do, e.g., maximally exploit shock on turn 1, blow bridges, etc. But for the meat and potatoes work of balance---how many Germans on this side of the rope vs. how many Allies on that side of the rope, repeated time and time again---computer vs. computer testing works, and above all it's gazillion times faster and easier than human vs. human testing. PBEM play balance benefits over the long term if we retain the ability of the PO to play a halfway reasonable game against itself.

--Brett

I'm a rockie as you say but why not create a scenario for PBEM only, would that help ?
Der Wanderer

[Mantis]

They hadn't started the game yet, Brett; that's why I gave the hold order. I'd rather see what the new version balances out like, as that's what we'd be using in a tourney environment.

It's your baby, and I'll respect any direction you decide to go in, but I must disagree about the validity of PO vs PO testing. Used only as a very vague, 'feels like' kind of thing, it may have it's uses. But in no way does it even begin to show any true semblance of balance, unless your design goals are to create a scenario in which the PO can enjoy a game or two against itself. :D

You want a game where a player can take on the PO? Find the best player you can, and make the game based on his results at computer +2, trying a variety of strategies. Less skillful players will be able to utilize a level playing field, or even human +1/2.

Now, play that against a human in PBEM, and the PO's side, now controlled by a human, will knock the unholy hells out of the other side.

The proof is in the pudding - You show me any game where the PO can challenge the master players, and I'll take that side and destroy anyone. And likewise, a balanced scenario in PBEM will leave a PO that I* will spit out like old gum.

* - I use 'me' for convenience; this applies to anyone with a reasonable amount of experience. (I don't think I'm quite that hot! :D )

[Brett Turner]

Let me try another way of explaining what I mean about the PO.

If you set the scenario up so that the PO plays a halfway decent game, and the scenario is unbalanced when the PO plays itself, the chances are really good it will be unbalanced between human players---because human players can do *at least* everything the PO can do.

The reverse is clearly not true; a scenario which is balanced when the PO plays itself is not automatically balanced for PBEM, because a human player can do things which the PO can't. That's why human testing is needed.

But human testing is harder to do and slow to return results. My approach has always been to do the computer vs. computer testing first, to establish the basic elements of balance. Then I fine-tune as necessary to address concerns unique to human players. I don't buy the notion that PO and PBEM balance are completely different. They are more like layers. PO balance is the bottom layer, the foundation; PBEM balance is the top layer.

Maybe part of the confusion is the notion of designing a scenario to represent a maximum PO "challenge." That's not what I mean by PO balance. I'm not designing anything specifically to make the PO challenging. I want the PO to function, with its usual level of incompetent play, primarily (1) as a device to aid in testing and balancing, and secondarily (2) so that those who want a "challenge" can play vs. the PO with a heavy pro-computer handicap. The design goal is "normal" PO play, not a specific PO ''challenge." I have always resolved all of the design issues in favor of PBEM play, except for a few things (e.g., location of reinforcement entry hexes) which must be done to avoid complete PO breakdown.

The next version will be as balanced as I can make it for PBEM play. But within the limits of that goal, I'm still going to try to have PO functioning at a "normal" level.

--Brett

[Mantis]

No, I think we're on the same page now. :) I sent you an email about the lastest version, I have a handful of people willing to do some tests for you.

[Tiberius]

3 CHEERS to Brett. Thank you very much for your dedication. I am sure I speak for all of us (who haven't already expressed this sentiment) that we are all very pleased and thankful your willingness to engage so fully in this process.
:love: :love: :love:
(could I possibly gush more?)

[Mantis]

If you do, I'll have to 'X' rate this thread...

:D