The Middle Game™ -1 reply

Please wait...

Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

Forgotten Hope Subject: The Middle Game Suggestion: Altering of game dynamics with direct impact on the middle game. Body: In any round based combative game with reasonable duration and significant elements of strategy involved can be described has having a "Beginning Game" a "Middle Game" and an "End Game." The middle game is the "meat" of the conflict where both sides are locked in battle, nearly equal in strength. Decisive tide turning happens here and bridges the budding early game to the final end game wherein a winner conquers the loser. In strategy games like RTS's, it's often very difficult to have a noticable middle game wherein the balance of power will go back and forth between sides. It is nice to have as both sides feel a challenge, a threat, and sense that their actions will determine if they win or lose. The Snowball Effect: This effect exists in situations where one side, once having gotten somewhat more powerful than the other and continue to become more likely to win quickly as their advantage grows. The winning team quickly "snowballs" and crushes the other once garnering a reletively small advantage from deadlock. Back to FH: I feel FH suffers from the snowball effect and could and should have a more prevelent middle game where a losing team has the ability to come back. Strickly speaking, territorily, one team will generaly gain more and better equipment as it starts to capture flags, making the next flag all that much easier to capture. See: Snowball Effect. Possible changes (Using tanks as example): 1. Tank numbers tend not to rise, tend not to rise as rapidly, fall as a winning team captures over half the points. Making further advancement difficult. 2. Tank travel distances increasing as more and more territory is gained. I.e. making all or most tanks spawn near the back lines. 3. More numberous and stronger defenses as one loses flags. 4. Advantages given to the losing team as they lose territory. I think these changes would be best applied to maps where both sides have an uncapturable base, thus keeping combat from these mainbases and into the region between them.




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

agree. i think mobile, deployable defenses can to some degree balance this. there's no doubt that it's possible, the main question is perhaps rather "will it look good"? i believe it'll at least look "good enough", while waiting for a new engine with proper towing capability. the balancing you propose must of course be considered whether or not it complies with the real events.

the maps that suffers the heaviest from these flaws are the dice-maps, in my experience. they just don't fit in :p




Dime_a_Dozen

FH Dev Team Member

50 XP

1st January 2003

0 Uploads

324 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

Good points. But for further discussion, let say in a scenario like Tobruk which has German armor assaulting a more-or-less static British defense, the Germans capture the first line defenses. Instead of snowballing, several tanks spawn back in the British base as reinforcements for a counterattack to extend the "middle game". Most likely these will be something that will have to be a formidable yet mobile unit--the Matilda II comes to mind. What's to give the defenders incentive to defend that particular forward base that once in German hands, spawns them a tank that is "Queen of the Battlefield"? Even if it wasn't the Matilda, you'd know you'd be getting more "stuff" if you lost those first few flags. Why defend them? Wouldn't it just make those forward flags more or less useless? People tend to go where the toys are, no matter if they are losing or not.




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

Mostly I ment the fact that capturing flags gives you winning side more winning gear. What you could do is tie the tanks in the Axis base with the Allied flags... so as allies lost flags, less armor would spawn in the Axis base. Likewise, as Germany gained flags, British would gain more equipment. Of course, the spawners don't exactly determine what's on the battlefield. Just that, in Tobruk for example, by the time the Germans were to their last flag most of their armor doesn't spawn so they "Have to win with what they have currently fielded."




mrchee

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

5th March 2005

0 Uploads

113 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago
FrederfMostly I ment the fact that capturing flags gives you winning side more winning gear. What you could do is tie the tanks in the Axis base with the Allied flags... so as allies lost flags, less armor would spawn in the Axis base. Likewise, as Germany gained flags, British would gain more equipment. Of course, the spawners don't exactly determine what's on the battlefield. Just that, in Tobruk for example, by the time the Germans were to their last flag most of their armor doesn't spawn so they "Have to win with what they have currently fielded."

I dont know how realistic that may be, but it sounds awesome IMO.

It makes some sense on a super-strategic level: A marshal would not usually send reinforcements to a nearly-won theatre, but would rather concentrate them in the other harder going battles elsewhere. Thus the "winning with what you already have fielded"




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago

Always cracks me up when a team landslides another and they have 300 Shermans "WHERE THE HECK WERE THOSE WHEN WE NEEDED YOU!" Wimps, only showing up at the end :P