Avoiding the "reload temptation"

[Ramon]

One flaw in the game is that there is no way to set up difficulty but the prestige.
But saving before the action and reloading if you don't like the result is a temptation that make any difficulty level close to useless.
Could be possible to remove the saving option (like when playing by email) to make the game more challenging?
I understand that some scenarios are quite complex and take some time to complete a turn. So, maybe could be some auto-saving each time you take a VH.
The question is avoid the "reload temptation"

[randowe]

One flaw in the game is that there is no way to set up difficulty but the prestige.
But saving before the action and reloading if you don't like the result is a temptation that make any difficulty level close to useless.
Could be possible to remove the saving option (like when playing by email) to make the game more challenging?
I understand that some scenarios are quite complex and take some time to complete a turn. So, maybe could be some auto-saving each time you take a VH.
The question is avoid the "reload temptation"

Do you save before every fight?

[none]

One flaw in the game is that there is no way to set up difficulty but the prestige.

There actually is a way to make different difficulty settings, but it's tedious: It requires starting with a "choice" scenario, letting the player chose between "Hard" or "Easy"... And then make the whole campaign twice, one with more, and one with less player/AI resources...

But from the rest of your post, I think what you wanted to say is "there is no way to enforce difficulty", i.e. prevent the player from taking shortcuts.
Indeed, there isn't. There is nothing that prevents him from editing the scenario in Open Suite to allocate himself a cartload of overpowered units. Or edit his savegames. Or some such. Reloading is in this case just jaywalking.

Anyway, isn't the real question here actually "Should we really try to prevent that?"?

As somebody who makes big, very complicated and often difficult scenarios/campaigns, I am tempted to say "no".
Because, why do we waste days and weeks of our precious life time to create those scenarios? To punish any player stupid enough to try them, or in the hope somebody might enjoy them?

Everybody enjoys his own game in his own way, there is no "right" way, and enforcing your very own philosophy on this will only make players stay away from your campaigns, which certainly isn't what you want, do you.

(BTW this it's the old "cheating vs. not cheating" debate, and as an old gamer I've seen it millions of times all over the Internet. My own opinion here is, "whatever floats your boat": If your pleasure is to cheat (or reload each time something nasty happens), feel free to do so, it's your game after all. I play mine the way I want too. )


(Lets not pollute the wishlist thread, if somebody wants keep discussing this (indeed quite interesting question), please let's make a dedicated thread in the Designer's Corner. Somebody with Mod powers please move the relevant posts?)

[Ramon]

Do you save before every fight?

Of curse not. But I get upset when I take heavy loses just out of bad luck. If that happens to an important or expensive unit I use to start the turn again.The same goes when a well planed attack is ruined just because bad luck. That makes me frustrated and I start to save before important/expensive units take a fight. As it works, I find myself doing it more often.
At the end it makes the campaign too easy and makes me more frustrated and feeling bad for "cheating"
Yes, Shame on me!
But I'm not sure if this is only my problem or there are other player falling into the same "temptation"

[none]

feeling bad for "cheating"
Yes, Shame on me!

OMG, what a cheater!
Did you read my reply further up? I'm afraid your moral uprightness is totally wasted here. There is no competition you might cheat out of their well-deserved reward, you're just playing for yourself.

But I'm not sure if this is only my problem or there are other player falling into the same "temptation"

Yes, everybody does reload when the dice fall outside what one would be willing to accept, because we play for fun, and from the moment there is no fun anymore, there is no reason to play, isn't it.

[Ramon]

Yes, everybody does reload when the dice fall outside what one would be willing to accept, because we play for fun, and from the moment there is no fun anymore, there is no reason to play, isn't it.

That depends on what is fun for you.
For me paying in an easy way by reloading is not fun at all.
I think you misunderstood me.
I'm not willing "to cheat" at all. And I have nothing again people doing whatever they want playing. I completely agree with your opinion.
But, what I want is to have the most of this game as an strategic game.
Most of the fun is before starting the scenario. Figuring out the way to win.
What can be a good plan? How should I divide my units? What units should I buy or upgrade? Should I go full speed and take some loses or will be better slow down and gain experience?
For me the harder, the better. There is nothing more rewarding that seen that I have been able to figure out a way to win a difficult scenario.
And there is nothing more frustrating than seen that bad luck have ruined my efforts.
That's why I take a quick look at the scenario if I have never played it before. Not to inspect each enemy unit but to figure out a sound plan.
But there is nothing I can do about bad luck, except reloading. But on doing that, you will end up with too many good experienced units that make any plan works. And for me that ruin the full experience of the game, and all the fun.

[hoza]

Yes, everybody does reload when the dice fall outside what one would be willing to accept, because we play for fun, and from the moment there is no fun anymore, there is no reason to play, isn't it.

That depends on what is fun for you.
For me paying in an easy way by reloading is not fun at all.
I think you misunderstood me.
I'm not willing "to cheat" at all. And I have nothing again people doing whatever they want playing. I completely agree with your opinion.
But, what I want is to have the most of this game as an strategic game.
Most of the fun is before starting the scenario. Figuring out the way to win.
What can be a good plan? How should I divide my units? What units should I buy or upgrade? Should I go full speed and take some loses or will be better slow down and gain experience?
For me the harder, the better. There is nothing more rewarding that seen that I have been able to figure out a way to win a difficult scenario.
And there is nothing more frustrating than seen that bad luck have ruined my efforts.
That's why I take a quick look at the scenario if I have never played it before. Not to inspect each enemy unit but to figure out a sound plan.
But there is nothing I can do about bad luck, except reloading. But on doing that, you will end up with too many good experienced units that make any plan works. And for me that ruin the full experience of the game, and all the fun.

I totally agree with both of you. I like OG because of its strategy and tactics assets. It is more fun than chess because it has these features associated with pictures and maps and WWII history. But whereas in chess you have no luck incorporated and therefore you are not allowed to take back your move in OG there is a reasonable amount of luck and I feel that one should not spoil a campaign or a difficult scenario only because this silly computer decided to have luck.

[randowe]

It is possible though, to minimize the amount of luck in the game with your gameplay. So for example rugged defense will never be a problem.

(Maybe this discussion can be split into a seperate topic.)

[none]

[lots of things I mostly agree with]

So what are we discussing here? You are the player who will always go for the "Ironman" setting, and I respect that. The problem is that implementing a true "Ironman" setting in OG would require lots of work for very little (if any) reward, since you already can play with 0 prestige and control when you will allow yourself to save. I don't see what Luis could add to that, except enforce the fact you can't save, for those lacking the strength of will...

But there is nothing I can do about bad luck, except reloading.

Yes, well, but there isn't a real solution for that problem, is there.
If you have randomness, you have to take into account that things will sometimes go spectacularly badly (or ridiculously well, too).
There is no way to make a "severe-but-not-too-much" random numbers generator...
The only thing you can do as a player is to decide when you will just take the blow, and when you will say that this is too much, try again.

(Yes, could somebody with mod powers please split this into it's own thread? )

----Edited to add:

Thanks!

[Ramon]

Thanks for making a thread out of this.

It is possible though, to minimize the amount of luck in the game with your gameplay. So for example rugged defense will never be a problem.

Sorry about my ignorance, but I don't know what you mean with gameplay

If you have randomness, you have to take into account that things will sometimes go spectacularly badly (or ridiculously well, too).
There is no way to make a "severe-but-not-too-much" random numbers generator...

Of course you can!
You can chose randomly from a range of numbers like 0 to 10 or +2 to -2. Even you can use a set of number like (+2,+1,+1,0,0,0,-1,-1,-2)
This last example will be perfect for reduce outcomes that differ too much from the estimated odds.
As I said I'm not sure how combat formulas works and I hope Luis correct me if I'm wrong.
But in his website at a point it say:

To get casualties in real combat, this is the procedure:
One Dice(1,20) is thrown for each shot (unit's unsuppressed strength)

http://www.luis-guzman.com/OpenGen_Combat.htm
Well the point is to change this type of "Dice thrown" or somehow make the outcome close to the estimated odd. The further from the estimate odd the less possible the outcome. Something like this:

Code: Select all

+/- 2 = 15% probability
+/- 1 = 35% probability
same that estimated odd = 50% probability

And then I will be very happy to accept playing without the possibility of saving.
This can maybe be an option like the % of prestige you choose at the beginning of the campaign/scenario.

[randowe]

It is possible though, to minimize the amount of luck in the game with your gameplay. So for example rugged defense will never be a problem.

Sorry about my ignorance, but I don't know what you mean with gameplay

I address the general you

I mean the way a player builds his core, moves his units and initiate attacks. For example, consecutive attacks, even if the do no or only little damage will alter the combat formulas to your favor. Attack an enemy unit with a recon and a fighter and an artillery, with the fights end 0:0 an then initiate your "real" attack.

Or do you attack an enemy infantry in a city at the end of your turn with one of your unexperienced infantries? Then you might end up with a badly damaged infantry due to rugged defense and since your other units have already moved, the turn ends and the enemy might destroy your infantry.

Or do you recon enough? If you always recon the whole area in front of your units you will never be surprised by either enemy units or "crashing" your own unit into a undiscovered enemy. Recon is most important!

If you have a infantry leader with combat support upgrade it into a unit with recon movement if one is available in the efile. If you have an infantry with recon movement leader, upgrade it into a HQ unit if one is available.

Use bad weather to savely move your paratroopers over enemy territory. Use it to move your ground units out of sight of the enemy and scout with your planes savely direct over the enemy AD/Flak.

Things like that.

[none]

Even you can use a set of number like (+2,+1,+1,0,0,0,-1,-1,-2)

Well, that wouldn't be a random number generator anymore, would it...

Besides I don't think this could work, because how do you filter? There are lots of cases where the dice are supposed to roll a 20: For instance, when an elite (5 levels) unit is attacking a weak newbie unit.
The computer can't (easily) make the difference between what looks normal to humans and what not, it hasn't a notion of "justice". You probably could code a statistical limiting filter ("is that result statistically likely to happen?"), but it would be complicated, absolutely not bulletproof, and given those bad results don't happen all that often, I still think reloading is the easiest solution. If you are afraid to get too cozy, just don't reload every now and then. I know I do.

make the outcome close to the estimated odd.

But the estimated odd is voluntarily wrong! It disregards plenty of things (like entrenchment, support artillery and such), which means half of the time it's totally wrong (usually too optimistic, but it can also be a real coward).
(And that's good, because else it would take all the risk out of playing: If you always knew precisely the odds there would be no danger whatsoever.)

[none]

If you have a infantry leader with combat support upgrade it into a unit with recon movement if one is available in the efile. If you have an infantry with recon movement leader, upgrade it into a HQ unit if one is available.

I guess that is so it can go around and always be near the next unit about to attack, isn't it?

Well, I don't like combat support (leaders or specials), they can only be useful in the beginning, and only if you happen to have an experienced unit with a "combat support" leader and lots of newbie units...
Whatever happens, after 4-5 scenarios your core troops will naturally become fairly experienced by themselves. Unless it's a campaign with lots of inexperienced auxiliary troops, or the player can buy lots of green troops all the time, your "combat support" leader/special will eventually become less and less useful.

In my E-File I've made HQ (combat support special) units no-buy, and only hand them out in some campaigns where the player has very few core units and is indeed supposed to spend the bulk of the campaign with lots of inexperienced units.
And I make them MSU to keep the player on his toes.

[randowe]

I guess that is so it can go around and always be near the next unit about to attack, isn't it?

Yes, the more units it can support in combat, the better

Well, I don't like combat support (leaders or specials), they can only be useful in the beginning, and only if you happen to have an experienced unit with a "combat support" leader and lots of newbie units...
Whatever happens, after 4-5 scenarios your core troops will naturally become fairly experienced by themselves. Unless it's a campaign with lots of inexperienced auxiliary troops, or the player can buy lots of green troops all the time, your "combat support" leader/special will eventually become less and less useful.

A combat support leader/unit never becomes useless. I rather fight with 10, 15 or even 20 experience bars against a enemy IS-2 or Pershing tank when i can gather enough [C]-units Combat support units are the most powerful units in the game.

[hoza]

I guess that is so it can go around and always be near the next unit about to attack, isn't it?

Yes, the more units it can support in combat, the better

Well, I don't like combat support (leaders or specials), they can only be useful in the beginning, and only if you happen to have an experienced unit with a "combat support" leader and lots of newbie units...
Whatever happens, after 4-5 scenarios your core troops will naturally become fairly experienced by themselves. Unless it's a campaign with lots of inexperienced auxiliary troops, or the player can buy lots of green troops all the time, your "combat support" leader/special will eventually become less and less useful.

A combat support leader/unit never becomes useless. I rather fight with 10, 15 or even 20 experience bars against a enemy IS-2 or Pershing tank when i can gather enough [C]-units Combat support units are the most powerful units in the game.

That is right. In the magic combat formula the initiative value of the units is very important for the resolution of the fight outcome. Simplified the number of experience bars is added to the initiative of the units involved. As you cannot get more than 5 bars no matter how experienced your units are ( may be 4000) it is very valuable when you have combat supporting units surrounding because this is the only way to have a unit fighting with more than 5 bars and accordingly huge initiative.

[none]

I rather fight with 10, 15 or even 20 experience bars against a enemy IS-2 or Pershing tank when i can gather enough [C]-units

What do you mean?
AFAIK a combat support unit is making the adjacent units fight like they were of his level -1 (i.e. they become level 2 if the CS unit is level 3).
So, even if you put several level 3 units near a rookie unit, the influence will never go over level 2.

Or did I miss something?

[randowe]

I rather fight with 10, 15 or even 20 experience bars against a enemy IS-2 or Pershing tank when i can gather enough [C]-units

What do you mean?
AFAIK a combat support unit is making the adjacent units fight like they were of his level -1 (i.e. they become level 2 if the CS unit is level 3).
So, even if you put several level 3 units near a rookie unit, the influence will never go over level 2.

Or did I miss something?

A CS unit lends all its experience bars to the adjacent units. If i have a tank with 5 bars and a CS-unit with 5 bars, the tank uses all 10 experience bars in fight. If i have a artillery with 5 bars and gather 3 CS-units with 5 bars each, the artillery fights with 20 bars! Thats why CS-units never become obsolete.
EDIT: You can test that and see how the combat predictions change in your favor with every additional CS-unit you pull next to your attacking unit.

[hoza]

I rather fight with 10, 15 or even 20 experience bars against a enemy IS-2 or Pershing tank when i can gather enough [C]-units

What do you mean?
AFAIK a combat support unit is making the adjacent units fight like they were of his level -1 (i.e. they become level 2 if the CS unit is level 3).
So, even if you put several level 3 units near a rookie unit, the influence will never go over level 2.

Or did I miss something?

yes just read my contribution above

[none]

Are you guys sure the influence accumulates this way, without any limit?

If putting 4 level 5 CS units around a rookie unit makes it reach level 20, that sure would be a bug in my book.
Yikes!

[randowe]

Are you guys sure the influence accumulates this way, without any limit?

If putting 4 level 5 CS units around a rookie unit makes it reach level 20, that sure would be a bug in my book.
Yikes!

Not a bug, but wise gameplay

[none]

Not a bug, but wise gameplay

Nothing to do with "gameplay", it's a Perpetuum Mobile-type physical impossibility. It doesn't work like that in the real world, so in my book it's a hack or a bug.
Besides I recall the Combat Support rules differently.

I'd like Luis' input on this to settle it once and forever.

[Ramon]

Nothing to do with "gameplay", it's a Perpetuum Mobile-type physical impossibility. It doesn't work like that in the real world, so in my book it's a hack or a bug.

I suspected something like that as I have noticed that when I use a CS unit all the adjacent units had better result even if they already have 5 bar (usually at the end of a campaign).
Yes, I have to agree with you on this. CS is meant to help rookies not to hack the game.

[randowe]

CS is meant to help rookies not to hack the game.

Because you guys don't like it its a hack lmao
It has always been like this in OG

[none]

I think it's a bug, and not only because I find it ludicrous: It's illogical.

I agree that having an experienced example to follow will improve newbies, but I can't possibly explain how they could become better than their examples... Put ten teachers in any one school class and poof -- instant Einsteins!

[sympatyk]

There are various e-files ...
In Gustlik's e-file - only some nations have units with C (experience support) --> these are very expensive units. You can still get a leader from C
That's it --> so how can you have 10 units from C? --> it's impossible
So if the creator of the e-file --> constructed/created the e-file in such a way that it is easy to get C units (buy, get, receive as core) --> and you don't like it --> change the e-file to which you play --> and don't say it's an OG bug
Some people are self-limiting --> play historically --> don't buy some units (which are available)

Earlier there was a discussion - whether to reload the game if dice rolls are unsatisfactory --> if you play for fun, it's your business, but if you play for points (we have Generals Ranking) - then you have to behave sportively and follow the rules

[none]

change the e-file to which you play --> and don't say it's an OG bug

In my E-File, combat support units are "no-buy" anyway, players can't buy them, the scenario gives them out if needed.
So that's not what I'm worried about.

What I am worried about, is if the fact that influence apparently is cumulative, and thus can reach ridiculous levels (the influenced unit becoming much better than his teachers): I am wondering if this is indeed what Luis intended.

If yes, that's okay with me, I'll simply disable combat support leaders in my E-File (others can do as they like in theirs).


I am not badmouthing OG. I've spent months and years working on my E-File and campaigns, I think I have proven my dedication.

[sympatyk]

Yes, the influence of C units depends on their experience level (Number of beams - max 5)
Yes, the influence of these units is cumulative --> but, how many such units can you realistically have in the game? --> if the creator of the e-file, campaign, scenario acts prudently - the player has fun

Now by analogy see --> is there a difference if an infantry unit is supported by 1 artillery or supported by 4 artillery? --> why don't you worry about it?

This is just a theoretical problem - in a well set game there is no such problem

I wish you a lot of fun with your e-file

[Ramon]

Earlier there was a discussion - whether to reload the game if dice rolls are unsatisfactory --> if you play for fun, it's your business, but if you play for points (we have Generals Ranking) - then you have to behave sportively and follow the rules

I'm trying to avoid answering questions like this. But this is such a misunderstanding of how people take decision that I can't.
I'm sorry to lecture but this is not my opinion, this is behavior psychology 101.
There is not such a thing as "people voluntary behave sportively and follow rules" out of their free will.
That's not how decision making works. The "Iron General" does not exist.
We take decision mainly based in our emotions. And we have a lot of bias and heuristic that make that decision far from what will be our will.
Do you want a proof? Have you seen a person talking with a friend and interrupt the conversation to check a notification in his mobile? Has he took the decision of been rude with his friend out of free will or out of his emotion about the notification? That why wise people turn off unimportant notifications. They know they will take the wrong decision.
Barriers are a efficient way to help us to make good decision. Like been unable to save and reload.
Avoid your emotions get in the way is even better. That's why I like not too be upset with "unsatisfactory dice rolls"
I'm really sorry to have to answer this way. Please forgive me.

[randowe]

Avoid your emotions get in the way is even better. That's why I like not too be upset with "unsatisfactory dice rolls"

So because you become upset about the - in your eyes - unsatisfactory dice rolls, it has to change for everybody? As i wrote earlier there are many tactics one can utilize to avoid "unsatisfactory dice rolls" so that it will basically never be a problem. But i guess that is not the real problem.
I know some people get loud and swear at the enemy units every time there is rugged defense or so, but that does not mean the game has to be changed

And btw, if you pull this psychology thingy, further discussion becomes futile

[LuisGuzman]

I'd like Luis' input on this to settle it once and forever.

It has always been like this in OG

Effectively this is the way it worked in PG2, and OG kept for compatibility.

Code scan all 6 adjacent hexes to the attacker/defender unit and adds any adjacent CS unit's bars to the Attacker/defender effective attack/defense.
Thus, in pure theory, one unit could have 5 adjacent CS units giving its bars to the same side unit being attacking or defending.

It is designers' responsibility to avoid or minimize this effect.

[none]

Thus, in pure theory, one unit could have 5 adjacent CS units giving its bars to the same side unit being attacking or defending.

Thanks for chiming in!
So it's normal that if that unit has 5 bars and 5 adjacent 5-bar CS units, it becomes a 30-bar juggernaut?

[Parabellum]

...
So it's normal that if that unit has 5 bars and 5 adjacent 5-bar CS units, it becomes a 30-bar juggernaut?

That is the theory. Only the theory. In practice, however, this case will not occur for many different reasons.

[Ol' Willy]

Reload spamming was somewhat fixed in PG3D and Scorched Earth. Unlike the true RNG in PG1 and PG2, PG3 has either pseudo-RNG or saves some kind of a seed.

I.E., you save the game, you attack, you get the rolled result.
Then you reload, repeat the same attack, and you still get exactly the same result. Saveload gaming greatly reduced

PG forever uses the same scheme, and I think Panzer Corps too (haven't played it, but makes sense given the same developer)

[Ramon]

Reload spamming was somewhat fixed in PG3D and Scorched Earth. Unlike the true RNG in PG1 and PG2, PG3 has either pseudo-RNG or saves some kind of a seed.

I.E., you save the game, you attack, you get the rolled result.
Then you reload, repeat the same attack, and you still get exactly the same result. Saveload gaming greatly reduced

PG forever uses the same scheme, and I think Panzer Corps too (haven't played it, but makes sense given the same developer)

I will love to see that feature in OG.
Perfect if it was an option you can check.

[LuisGuzman]

Reload spamming was somewhat fixed in PG3D and Scorched Earth. Unlike the true RNG in PG1 and PG2, PG3 has either pseudo-RNG or saves some kind of a seed.

I.E., you save the game, you attack, you get the rolled result.
Then you reload, repeat the same attack, and you still get exactly the same result. Saveload gaming greatly reduced

PG forever uses the same scheme, and I think Panzer Corps too (haven't played it, but makes sense given the same developer)

I will love to see that feature in OG.
Perfect if it was an option you can check.

Actually this feature was included in OG some time ago, but most people claimed to remove (discussion lost with JP's Forum) ...

Anyway, I do not understand why doing optional will solve the problem ... if you would have a "store seed in saved games" option to tick, wouldn't be the same than decide yourself to avoid reloading ?

[Ramon]

Anyway, I do not understand why doing optional will solve the problem ... if you would have a "store seed in saved games" option to tick, wouldn't be the same than decide yourself to avoid reloading ?

Exactly the same!
But, humans are not rational but emotional beings. At least I am
That's why reload it's a temptation not a decision.