Log in
Who is online?
In total there are 2 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 2 Guests None
Most users ever online was 250 on Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:07 am
Latest topics
Top posting users this month
No user |
Asymmetric Map Theory
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
Asymmetric Map Theory
I have for a long time been curious whether it's possible to make balanced asymmetric maps - maps where each side starts off with different advantages and has to play to their strengths.
So I'm making this thread for discussion purposes. Since I'm mostly new to asymmetric map-making I'd like to get some opinions on these questions.
2. Generally, how many cities is an extra base worth?
3. Generally, how many cities is an extra airport worth?
So I'm making this thread for discussion purposes. Since I'm mostly new to asymmetric map-making I'd like to get some opinions on these questions.
Resource Asymmetry
1. Generally, how many cities is an extra tower worth?2. Generally, how many cities is an extra base worth?
3. Generally, how many cities is an extra airport worth?
Everdan- AWBW Map Committee
- Posts : 138
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2015-01-06
Re: Asymmetric Map Theory
First, I love the idea of trying to make asymmetry balanced. (I think I've said that before... have I said that before? )
Ahem...
I think all of those are situation dependent questions.
For your first question, the answer has a lot to do with timing. Starting out with 2 extra cities is much different than expanding at the same rate as your opponent, but eventually capturing 2 extra cities. Assuming the capture of the tower and extra cities were simultaneous, I'd probably estimate something like 10% income bonus equals a tower. I realize that 10% attack boost and 10% income boost are not necessarily equal, but I think it's a good starting point, for sure. It's definitely income, map, and CO dependent, however. Certain COs benefit more from towers and good 2HKOs, but on the other hand, 10% funding increase could really change the unit tier availability. Which is more valuable, higher tier units, or easier 2HKOs? That will tell you whether we're talking about >10% or <10%, I would think.
The extra base one is more difficult. IMO, you need enough cities that the player can afford regular higher tier units. Regular md. tanks or bombers (not every turn, obviously) would be important because the biggest problem will be overcoming all of infantry spam that their opponent can crank out, while still being threatening in ways that AA aren't. Bombers and md. tanks have weaknesses, but are not exactly vulnerable (though the bomber can be, especially to fighters) and are able to OHKO infantry so they really fill that role well. You'd just have to design the map that enemy arties can't just hold out indefinitely at chokepoints, blasting away at the md. tanks. In short, I think an extra base needs to be countered with a higher unit tier. Copters meet bombers, tanks meet md tanks (again, not exclusively). Alternatively, enough extra income that, say, 50% of the meatshield can be recons or mechs instead of infantry, to counteract quantity with quality; the Kanbei method. Perhaps money for transportation + mechs or predeployed footsoldier transports for the mechs would help some too.
As for your last question, I think that's tough to answer, if you assume that this means one player is without an airport altogether. (e.g., OS gets 3 bases + 1 airport, BM gets 3 bases + extra income). Quantifying an entire dimension of gameplay with raw income is just plain scary to think about. Well, assuming the airport player has the same number of bases, they'll probably have a higher meatshield level than the non-airport player plus additional mobility. My guess is they'll favor arties to support their copters because they're cheaper than tanks, but still work to deter or counter AAs, especially when combined with more meatshield. I think this might be a scenario where missiles would actually be useful for zone control of copters to help prevent them from capitalizing on their mobility, but that will be as much terraining as anything else since missiles suck at going almost anywhere. I'd probably lean towards about 4 cities, but it's really hard to really get a grasp on it.
The main thing I think needs to be taken into consideration with asymmetry is that funding alone will not be a sufficient counter and terrain opportunities (mobility, defensibility, etc.), property placement, or possibly predeployed components (transports, inf to boost capture phase, recon to delay enemy, etc.) will play a huge role. On top of that, I think that, especially in its current unexplored state, every map will really have to be taken on a case-by-case basis to determine what exactly one player gains from having an airport, or an extra base and what counters would balance that out in a fair way.
Ahem...
I think all of those are situation dependent questions.
For your first question, the answer has a lot to do with timing. Starting out with 2 extra cities is much different than expanding at the same rate as your opponent, but eventually capturing 2 extra cities. Assuming the capture of the tower and extra cities were simultaneous, I'd probably estimate something like 10% income bonus equals a tower. I realize that 10% attack boost and 10% income boost are not necessarily equal, but I think it's a good starting point, for sure. It's definitely income, map, and CO dependent, however. Certain COs benefit more from towers and good 2HKOs, but on the other hand, 10% funding increase could really change the unit tier availability. Which is more valuable, higher tier units, or easier 2HKOs? That will tell you whether we're talking about >10% or <10%, I would think.
The extra base one is more difficult. IMO, you need enough cities that the player can afford regular higher tier units. Regular md. tanks or bombers (not every turn, obviously) would be important because the biggest problem will be overcoming all of infantry spam that their opponent can crank out, while still being threatening in ways that AA aren't. Bombers and md. tanks have weaknesses, but are not exactly vulnerable (though the bomber can be, especially to fighters) and are able to OHKO infantry so they really fill that role well. You'd just have to design the map that enemy arties can't just hold out indefinitely at chokepoints, blasting away at the md. tanks. In short, I think an extra base needs to be countered with a higher unit tier. Copters meet bombers, tanks meet md tanks (again, not exclusively). Alternatively, enough extra income that, say, 50% of the meatshield can be recons or mechs instead of infantry, to counteract quantity with quality; the Kanbei method. Perhaps money for transportation + mechs or predeployed footsoldier transports for the mechs would help some too.
As for your last question, I think that's tough to answer, if you assume that this means one player is without an airport altogether. (e.g., OS gets 3 bases + 1 airport, BM gets 3 bases + extra income). Quantifying an entire dimension of gameplay with raw income is just plain scary to think about. Well, assuming the airport player has the same number of bases, they'll probably have a higher meatshield level than the non-airport player plus additional mobility. My guess is they'll favor arties to support their copters because they're cheaper than tanks, but still work to deter or counter AAs, especially when combined with more meatshield. I think this might be a scenario where missiles would actually be useful for zone control of copters to help prevent them from capitalizing on their mobility, but that will be as much terraining as anything else since missiles suck at going almost anywhere. I'd probably lean towards about 4 cities, but it's really hard to really get a grasp on it.
The main thing I think needs to be taken into consideration with asymmetry is that funding alone will not be a sufficient counter and terrain opportunities (mobility, defensibility, etc.), property placement, or possibly predeployed components (transports, inf to boost capture phase, recon to delay enemy, etc.) will play a huge role. On top of that, I think that, especially in its current unexplored state, every map will really have to be taken on a case-by-case basis to determine what exactly one player gains from having an airport, or an extra base and what counters would balance that out in a fair way.
Xmo5- AWBW Map Committee
- Posts : 458
Reputation : 106
Join date : 2014-01-16
Age : 33
Location : Wherever I happen to be
Re: Asymmetric Map Theory
My next question is:
If we're looking into asymmetry, do the goals have to be the same? Couldn't we also explore survival type games where one player has a defensive objective and the other has to overtake them in a certain number of days? That could take place in a variety of different ways by manipulating each sides strengths in the following categories (and maybe others?):
If we could test something like that and make it pretty fair, it would be cool to do a tournament like that where each player attacks and defends against the other players, playing each one once. Players with <50% success rate would not move on to the next round, etc.
I guess my point is, right now "fair" means that each player has an equal chance of destroying and/or capturing the opponent. In theory, we could just as easily balance "fair" to mean Player 1 has an equal chance of destroying Player 2 in 15 days as Player 2 has of surviving 15 days. There are loads of unofficial versions of games like this on the site, so if we're trying to make asymmetry balanced, I don't see any reason to limit our scope if we see potential.
If we're looking into asymmetry, do the goals have to be the same? Couldn't we also explore survival type games where one player has a defensive objective and the other has to overtake them in a certain number of days? That could take place in a variety of different ways by manipulating each sides strengths in the following categories (and maybe others?):
- Predeployed force
- Income level/base number and/or expansion rate
- Power (via towers)
- Unit availability (labs, or airports)
- Terrain defense level
- Logistics (terrain + units + production locations)
If we could test something like that and make it pretty fair, it would be cool to do a tournament like that where each player attacks and defends against the other players, playing each one once. Players with <50% success rate would not move on to the next round, etc.
I guess my point is, right now "fair" means that each player has an equal chance of destroying and/or capturing the opponent. In theory, we could just as easily balance "fair" to mean Player 1 has an equal chance of destroying Player 2 in 15 days as Player 2 has of surviving 15 days. There are loads of unofficial versions of games like this on the site, so if we're trying to make asymmetry balanced, I don't see any reason to limit our scope if we see potential.
Xmo5- AWBW Map Committee
- Posts : 458
Reputation : 106
Join date : 2014-01-16
Age : 33
Location : Wherever I happen to be
Re: Asymmetric Map Theory
Lots of good stuff there - I agree about the situation-dependent thing. It would be good to establish some baselines that apply to most maps though, and then adjust those according to different types of maps. 10% funding to 10% income seems reasonable though.
With regard to extra base vs extra income, on second thought I think I'm going to have to clarify it a little more, because obviously 3v2 bases is very different from 5v4. And then it depends on map size, number of fronts, funds:base ratio and terrain as well. So let's consider a situation of 3 bases with 20k funding vs 4 bases with maybe 15-16k funding, on a relatively open map - the 3-base side gets an extra half vehicle every turn, which can be invested in recons to counter the inf spam from the 4-base side or extra tanks for firepower.
I believe we do have a (sort of) precedent for airport vs extra funds vs extra tower on Walker's Stormiest Glen map - there an airport is valued at 3-4 cities (nominally 3, but you get more early funding). The tower is worth maybe 2.5 cities (tower + silo = 3 cities). No precedent for extra base though - though I think maybe the situtation I described above could be justifiable. It would have to be more for 3v2 and less for 5v4.
And regarding what you said about asymmetrical goals - I'm all for it, personally, but I think it's going to be a nightmare to balance especially considering the huge variety of strategies available. All those things could theoretically be balanced, but the trouble is that we don't really have any way to objectively determine how much each one is worth, and adding more asymmetries just means more variables we have to eventually suss out and balance. I'd lean towards grabbing the low-hanging fruit for now.
Still, asymmetric maps of the type you describe are definitely on the table and something I find very interesting as well - perhaps we can explore those in the future.
With regard to extra base vs extra income, on second thought I think I'm going to have to clarify it a little more, because obviously 3v2 bases is very different from 5v4. And then it depends on map size, number of fronts, funds:base ratio and terrain as well. So let's consider a situation of 3 bases with 20k funding vs 4 bases with maybe 15-16k funding, on a relatively open map - the 3-base side gets an extra half vehicle every turn, which can be invested in recons to counter the inf spam from the 4-base side or extra tanks for firepower.
I believe we do have a (sort of) precedent for airport vs extra funds vs extra tower on Walker's Stormiest Glen map - there an airport is valued at 3-4 cities (nominally 3, but you get more early funding). The tower is worth maybe 2.5 cities (tower + silo = 3 cities). No precedent for extra base though - though I think maybe the situtation I described above could be justifiable. It would have to be more for 3v2 and less for 5v4.
And regarding what you said about asymmetrical goals - I'm all for it, personally, but I think it's going to be a nightmare to balance especially considering the huge variety of strategies available. All those things could theoretically be balanced, but the trouble is that we don't really have any way to objectively determine how much each one is worth, and adding more asymmetries just means more variables we have to eventually suss out and balance. I'd lean towards grabbing the low-hanging fruit for now.
Still, asymmetric maps of the type you describe are definitely on the table and something I find very interesting as well - perhaps we can explore those in the future.
Everdan- AWBW Map Committee
- Posts : 138
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2015-01-06
Re: Asymmetric Map Theory
Don't have a lot of time right now, but yeah that was my general thinking: work on the low hanging fruit and see where the experience takes us. If we start learning a lot, I would continue to push the boundaries of asymmetry until it looks like there's no way to balance it (Predeployed units are one of my biggest concerns, though they ironically seem easier to balance on an asymmetrical map.)
And to clarify, although I don't think I gave any numbers on the extra base situation, I was imagining a 3v4 scenario. It would definitely require more and more as the base number decreased, seeing as one extra base contributes a more significant fraction of unit production.
One thing I've been thinking about, for the purposes of testing asymmetry, is by making an otherwise symmetric map, but then giving one player a remote island with a few cities to capture (and a predeployed bboat, for example) while making one of the other player's cities into a base. We'll eliminate a lot of variables that way and be able to focus on balancing just the resource component, much the way Stormiest Glen does by choice.
And to clarify, although I don't think I gave any numbers on the extra base situation, I was imagining a 3v4 scenario. It would definitely require more and more as the base number decreased, seeing as one extra base contributes a more significant fraction of unit production.
One thing I've been thinking about, for the purposes of testing asymmetry, is by making an otherwise symmetric map, but then giving one player a remote island with a few cities to capture (and a predeployed bboat, for example) while making one of the other player's cities into a base. We'll eliminate a lot of variables that way and be able to focus on balancing just the resource component, much the way Stormiest Glen does by choice.
Xmo5- AWBW Map Committee
- Posts : 458
Reputation : 106
Join date : 2014-01-16
Age : 33
Location : Wherever I happen to be
Re: Asymmetric Map Theory
I think that asymmetry would provide worthwhile reward for the risk. It obviously has to be done right, but then again, anti-armor in any well-designed game has to be used right. Living stuck with given standards can get suffocating. Case in point: starting funds. If you don't try being risky at all with starting funds, expect this sort of thing to happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLLvHXEVFUM (Shattered Throne)
(And believe it or not, that map has even worse FTA from Fae than what I show there: Sprites taking P2's coastal Towns on Day 3 (technically Day 4), with no way to stop that. Doesn't seem bad? How about "upgrading" them into Castles instead of Harbors.)
Of course, I think it would help to pool together resources, because right now, there's not many people between the TYT forum and the Shattered Throne forum, so establishing clean standards would help. I provided a start on ST's forum by providing a map design guide:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/469710/discussions/0/360671727316780022/
It's obviously incomplete, and even outside things like Field usage to restrict horse unit mobility, you probably could say something I'd be missing anyway. With any luck, ideas are bound to come up for both TYT and ST.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLLvHXEVFUM (Shattered Throne)
(And believe it or not, that map has even worse FTA from Fae than what I show there: Sprites taking P2's coastal Towns on Day 3 (technically Day 4), with no way to stop that. Doesn't seem bad? How about "upgrading" them into Castles instead of Harbors.)
Of course, I think it would help to pool together resources, because right now, there's not many people between the TYT forum and the Shattered Throne forum, so establishing clean standards would help. I provided a start on ST's forum by providing a map design guide:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/469710/discussions/0/360671727316780022/
It's obviously incomplete, and even outside things like Field usage to restrict horse unit mobility, you probably could say something I'd be missing anyway. With any luck, ideas are bound to come up for both TYT and ST.
- Spoiler:
- This is obviously a thinly veiled excuse to advertise my map design topic on Shattered Throne's Steam forum, though I feel I can provide input given enough similarities between ST and AW.
Master Knight DH- Mech
- Posts : 16
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2016-05-09
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|
Tue Nov 09, 2021 7:14 am by a9977321
» dpsi/Jokas Collaboration Analysis
Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:20 pm by dpsi
» Jokas' Olaf Guide
Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:03 pm by dpsi
» Jokas' Adder Guide (pt 1) English
Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:51 pm by dpsi
» Basic Guide for HQ Cheese and countering strategy for current FOW GL maps
Fri May 22, 2020 1:40 am by a9977321
» Phantom Domain Discussion
Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:44 am by a9977321
» Commander Wars an Advance Wars Clone
Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:14 am by Robosturm_
» Advanced Strategy: Minimum Attacking Ratio
Thu May 16, 2019 9:05 pm by Everdan
» Advanced Strategy: How Much is First Strike worth?
Thu May 16, 2019 8:32 pm by Everdan