Poll on realism versus balance

[stonestriker]

Hi

I am a student working on my master's thesis and I could really use your help in answering a few questions regarding NTW/ETW

I am exploring the preferences of players to fight realistic battles or balanced battles, in either single-player or multi-player games. These questions focus on skirmishes only and not the battles happening during a campaign

I have posted this in both the NTW and ETW forum so please only answer in one thread


Question A: Which type of battle would you prefer?

1. Balanced battles where each side has equal amounts of point to purchase units and the battlefield does not confer any specific advantages to either side.
2. Realistic battles where one side has more points that the other, and the starting positions give some advantage to one of the players

Question B: Which type of army would you prefer to fight with (if opponent used the same type)?

1. Free selection of units within the time period and nationality (the default used by the game)
2. Realistic armies with a majority of line infantry with limits to the numbers of grenadiers, skirmishers, etc.

Hmm, apparently I cannot make a poll before I have 25 posts. Could you please just answer in a post in this format:

A1
B1

If you would like to motivate or expand upon your answer please feel free to do so


Thanks

[Gen.Petr Ivanovich Bagration]

A2
B1

[dutch81]

A2
B2

[Bhazakhain]

A2
B2

[Tim1988]

A1
B2

[caralampio]

A2
B2

What are you studying BTW? Games?

[stonestriker]

Thanks for all the answers so far!

*caralampio: Yep, I am looking at how game designers use research to ensure accuracy and how they balance accuracy with gameplay

[♔Drewoid13♔]

Thanks for all the answers so far!

*caralampio: Yep, I am looking at how game designers use research to ensure accuracy and how they balance accuracy with gameplay

Pardon my cynicism, but CA doesn't really care about fan opinions or research polls. At least from everything I've witnessed, and the quality of NTW, they didn't give two pence about what gamers wanted changed between E and N.

I'd say Paradox is one of the top two or three companies that is receptive, engaging, and responsive to their fan base.

[Prince of Essling]

A2
B2

[Archimonday]

Im going to say A2 B2, but, I believe there needs to be a 3rd Party, which is somewhere in between the answers.

[Hilarion]

A2
B2

[♔Drewoid13♔]

A2
B2

But I add a caveat to my desire for realistic play - I want realistic battles but not in a way that gives one side or the other an unfair advantage. For example, ? A you gives choices. The realistic options seems to require that one side be unbalanced against the other. When in fact a numerically superior army may have poorly trained troops, but can be just as much an advantage as fewer, highly trained troops. Realism isn't then, imho, limited to a point value like in C&C or Ground Control. Its about fighting a battle, historically centered as some scenarios, or custom designed in skirmish, against a touch enemy who knows how to use his troops.

In other words, realism is not about point values or such, its about using what is given against a tough opponent. Realism is wholly dependent on the AI and how well the AI manages its forces.

I also think that removing the campaign battles from consideration here, removes the current perception of realism in the game. The campaign provides for the imbalances of power, effect of terrain, etc which is generated by controlled randomness (the player shapes and moves his/her armies, but surrenders to the game the opponents army composition and the specific terrain the battle is fought on). I've had some games where my army was perched on top of a hill in the campaign map, but the enemy army still held the higher ground once the battle map loaded.

[Inhuman One]

the middle ground is always best.

Realism is good when possible, but it shouldnt ruin the game.

Otherwise you might occasionly see a soldier rush to the bushes and pull his pants down to pee.

War is dependant of so many factors, if you are going for realism, the Netherlands could not have possibly survived through history when you look at the much larger neighbours with far bigger armies. But the country is still here and very prosperous. Regarding WW2 we owe it to the Brits, Americans and Canadians, but many occasions through history the Netherlands fought off invaders, including England/Brittain, France and Spain. No calculated battle would ever give the Dutch victory in the battles they fought and won.

Just look at Empire total War. the AI does nothing with the Dutch. They might conquer Belgium and French Guenea at most. They never grow out to be a powerfull faction.

I am still hoping to someday hear a player curse about getting mauled by the AI Dutch.

[♔Drewoid13♔]

Regarding WW2 we owe it to the Brits, Americans and Canadians

Welcome!

[boboman420]

A2
B2

[StormTheBreach]

A1
B1

[Hyllus]

A2
B2

[emperor77]

A2
B2

[Ahlerich]

A1
B1

A2 would be rediculous
B2 would be to limiting

[magman]

A2
B2

I have to say, in A2, the enemy would retreat until they had equal ground, not hold like Leonidas at Thermopolae 3 times a year.