Don't change balance issues keep realism! -1 reply

Please wait...

Jedi_2

GF Pwns Me!

50 XP

26th September 2003

0 Uploads

46 Posts

0 Threads

#1 16 years ago

A question for you all, was World War 2 Balanced? I think not did the British yell and scream unbalanced at the Battle of Britian everytime German planes would be coming;nooooo. Look this is a realism mod thus, balance has no meaning here; If you have a team that is working together you will win.




bmargb

BF 1936 TEAM

50 XP

31st August 2003

0 Uploads

340 Posts

0 Threads

#2 16 years ago

I think that realism is a great way to get fun. So I vote for realism, a bit more than the actual 0.5 FH; but no extrem a realism, cuz it is impossible to make (┬┐anyone got full the truth history?) Realism increase the teamplay in many aspects.

Its a mod, and have to be at least playable. So all the realism issues have to be playable. For example I'm agree with the realist maps, and realist stats for weapons an vehicles, also agree with the fantastic class/weapon system that use the mod. But there are limits. For example you can't modelate plane as exact as the life, cuz It will need more than 200.000 polygons.

And I think that the kit idea is great, and yo can make lots of kits ( aidman, mortar, AT rifles, a grease gun soldier... ). May be great when you developed it.

I think that there will have to be some issues to make better the mod, an example is Navy Skins, for the naval battles (that I expect will be more than just the midway and the atlantic ones).




rIFTEr [HSF]

I post to get attention

50 XP

12th May 2003

0 Uploads

72 Posts

0 Threads

#3 16 years ago

Well. That is fine and dandy. You want realism? Alright. You play on the axis team, while I play on the Allies which will enjoy a realistic 2-1 or 3-1 player ratio. This means, that while your team has 9 players, my team will have 18 or 27. Would you also enjoy this type of realism?

I know realism is great, but for anything to be successful on a level playing field, inwhich games are, it should atleast have some balance in there, thus realism should take a little step over for balance.

No one are going to enjoy playing on a team that has tanks that need 5 shots to kill the enemy tanks, while the enemy tanks need one to kill them. Same with planes, hand weapons, ships and everything else. Either they will not enjoy it, or they will do what seems to be the "leet" thing to do, which is stack the team with all the big toys...




General FUp

The forums staffers think I'm Cool

50 XP

28th April 2003

0 Uploads

200 Posts

0 Threads

#4 16 years ago

'rIFTEr [HSF']Well. That is fine and dandy. You want realism? Alright. You play on the axis team, while I play on the Allies which will enjoy a realistic 2-1 or 3-1 player ratio. This means, that while your team has 9 players, my team will have 18 or 27. Would you also enjoy this type of realism?

I know realism is great, but for anything to be successful on a level playing field, inwhich games are, it should atleast have some balance in there, thus realism should take a little step over for balance.

No one are going to enjoy playing on a team that has tanks that need 5 shots to kill the enemy tanks, while the enemy tanks need one to kill them. Same with planes, hand weapons, ships and everything else. Either they will not enjoy it, or they will do what seems to be the "leet" thing to do, which is stack the team with all the big toys...

Oh please.. Don't you see how that idea of 1:2 or 1:3 isn't practical when it comes to the size of battles in this mod? I know you weren't actually suggesting it, but even throwing that kind of idea around is silly.. unless you throw it into the toilet and flush it.. quick!

Anyway, what's even sillier, you're saying that Tigers should burn as easily as Shermans? :rolleyes: That's just simply laughable.. Now you have to use proper tactics to scorch that Tiger, or die trying ;) It's fine this way, or rather, when the bugs are corrected :)




Mike 51

Bush/Cheney 2004 apparently

50 XP

27th September 2003

0 Uploads

526 Posts

0 Threads

#5 16 years ago

Still, he's a got a solid point.

By all means make everything in the game realistic, but only so long as it's balanced. Make the weapons how they really were, but give them to both sides. Include the Tiger, but include three or four Shermans as well.

At the end of the day this is still a game. A challenge, that's fine, but unbalancing the game with nothing more to say than 'If you're good enough, you'll probably win' isn't right. Both teams should have a fair shot. If the price of that is that one too many Shermans appear on Bocage, and you 'historians' scream that that mirrors unrealistic Sherman production statistics for August 1944 or whatever, it's a price I'm willing to pay. I like a realistic battlefield but some of you guys are going overboard here.




Peo

The forums staffers think I'm Cool

50 XP

28th April 2003

0 Uploads

177 Posts

0 Threads

#6 16 years ago

Realism is fun. However since the teams always are about equal there needs to be something that balances the scales. For example the Battle of Valirisk The Germans have 1 Tiger, iirc 3 PzIV and 2 Stugs. They also have 2 bombers. The russians have 2 T34-76 and 1 T34-85 and one crappy fighter. This is niether realistic nor balanced nor very fun since it always ends up with the Germans camping the exits of the russian base.

More realistic would be 1 tiger (which spawns once) 2 PzIV and 1 Stug and one bomber for the Germans. Against this would be 4 t34-76 and 1 t34-85 and 1 fighter. Where the russian tanks spawn faster.




scion

I post to get attention

50 XP

29th September 2003

0 Uploads

67 Posts

0 Threads

#7 16 years ago

Simply the spawn times could be tweaked perhaps...

If simulating a 3:1 Ratio, Have a Sherman spawning in 1 minute, and a Tiger Spawning in 3




Mike 51

Bush/Cheney 2004 apparently

50 XP

27th September 2003

0 Uploads

526 Posts

0 Threads

#8 16 years ago

Peo, where is the Russian fighter? I didn't think there was any air cover on that map.

Otherwise, yes, that's what I'm talking about. Not changing the realism of the tanks, but things like spawn times and numbers for better balance between them.




FH_Hades

FHMOD Researcher

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

117 Posts

0 Threads

#9 16 years ago

Valirisk is being overhauled...




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#10 16 years ago

Almost all armies have an anti tank weapon that kills any tank in one close range shot. So tanks are not really that dangerous however strong they are in tank to tank battles, plus US tanks historically should avoid head-on engagements with german tanks. Learn how to ambush behind cover and have enough self control to let the german tank roll by before you fire and you can take him out before he knows where you are and can effectively fire back ( slow turret rotation )

First i thought a few maps were unbalanced but after playing them a long time i saw they can be won both ways. It's just quitte a few players have to get used to a diffrent feel and adjust to the new gameplay.