Game balance vs. Historical Reality

[Guest raat]

Just an observation about two current themes of discussion here on the forums:

 

1. On the one hand we are upset when people drop out of a (storm) battle and make it an uneven match between the two opposing fleets

2. On the other hand, there is a push for realism and an aversion to artificial compression ship strength, which would even the odds for ships which might meet each other in the open sea.

 

Are the two reconcilable?

 

Yes, because unfair engagements are real.  However, in Open World, the side with the disadvantage won't have to fight in an artificially enclosing circle.  They can flee to fight another day as they probably would IRL.

[Nonesuch]

I know people want a big open realistic world but there's gotta be some sort of faction v faction prearranged naval battles with level limits and ship restrictions. "your nation is calling you up for service" sort of thing. It doesn't have to be the core of the game but new players gotta be able to do something.

[gandzia]

Imagine a situation -- a 44 gun heavy frigate against a 32 gun smallish frigate.  The 44 gun ship hits harder, hits further, takes far more punishment...and in reality, handles almost exactly as well.  With two equally skilled captains, the 44 gun frig wins every time.  This is exactly in line with reality -- the 32 gun ship is simply outclassed, to the point where it probably doesn't even matter how well he sails -- he will always lose.

Imagine a situation -- a 32 gun xebec-frigate against a 14 gun brig. After boarding brig captures a frigate and take as a prize to home port. 

Sounds like a unhistorical fun? 

 

Nope. Actualy this is a real fight between HMS Speedy with Lord Cochrane as a commander and El Gambo which had grater firepower and crew - about six times the size of Cochrane ship (Or fight between HMS Sophie with Aubrey and Cacafuego ;-) ) 

 

So I would like to see in this game historical gameplay where there is no balance between ships (generaly: smaller ships are almost always weaker) but captin and crew with good skills and some luck shloud be able to capture / sink bigger ship.  

[MATANZA]

I just hate any kind of artificial balance implemented in a game.

 

Like War Thunder, where for example German tanks from early 40s fight with American Walker Buldogs which went into service in 1953.

 

If you want to balance something, do it with quantity, not quality.

Edited February 16, 2015 by MATANZA

[kblack]

I am against Gameplay balance if only because opens a big can of worms, as IMHO happent on PotBS, Wot, and probably others.

 

IMHO they should balance on cost (buying AND maintenance), strategical/tactical flexibility, Open World characteristics (like draft and visibility), etc.....

 

Just my 0,02 db

[Panzergraf]

There are many ways to balance a game while still keeping it historically accurate and realistic.

 

Remember, the finished game will be Open World.

A ship of the line is designed for battle, of course it will obliterate a brig or indiaman if it encounters one.

But it's also really expensive, has close to 1000 crew (that I assume will have to be paid if you don't want them to desert and steal your ship), and has a deeper draft. A lighter ship can go closer to shore and make use of shallow harbors.

A frigate has the speed and endurance to go on long voyages, and doesn't require as many mouths to feed, so it will be a cheaper alternative as an escort for your trade ships.

 

If things are kept realistic, there's no reason we would see players use nothing but large SOL's. Simply picking the "best" ships is what we'd see in an arcade game that doesn't extend beyond battle mode.

Like in Empire: Total War. My battle fleets were made up of mostly larger SOL's, but the upkeep and build costs of those was too high to use them for other tasks, like protecting indiamen from pirates, raiding ports and trade routes or ferrying agents around the map.

[Preserved_Killick]

There are other aspects to consider when discussing Historical Accuracy vs Gaming experience, not just a 32 frigate fighting an 18 gun sloop.  If the game were to have realistic sailing physics you could be chasing down a ship for hours tacking in to the wind.  The setting of particular sails would greatly effect your sailing efficiency (missen sails taking the wind from the main and foresails as an example).  But who wants to order which specific sails to set and how many reefs to take in?  The time taken to have men removed from the guns and running up the masts to set sails as apposed to switching from Sailing mode to Gunnery mode instantaneously.  There's already plenty of "gaming experience" winning over "realism" in the game.  The question is where to draw the line. 

[Guest raat]

There are many ways to balance a game while still keeping it historically accurate and realistic.

 

Remember, the finished game will be Open World.

A ship of the line is designed for battle, of course it will obliterate a brig or indiaman if it encounters one.

But it's also really expensive, has close to 1000 crew (that I assume will have to be paid if you don't want them to desert and steal your ship), and has a deeper draft. A lighter ship can go closer to shore and make use of shallow harbors.

A frigate has the speed and endurance to go on long voyages, and doesn't require as many mouths to feed, so it will be a cheaper alternative as an escort for your trade ships.

 

If things are kept realistic, there's no reason we would see players use nothing but large SOL's. Simply picking the "best" ships is what we'd see in an arcade game that doesn't extend beyond battle mode.

Like in Empire: Total War. My battle fleets were made up of mostly larger SOL's, but the upkeep and build costs of those was too high to use them for other tasks, like protecting indiamen from pirates, raiding ports and trade routes or ferrying agents around the map.

 

good luck affording all those SOLs in Open World with finite resources.  Sorry, just won't happen.  Impossible even unless GL just makes them too cheap, but they've already hinted at the opposite.

[MesserJocke]

I just hate any kind of artificial balance implemented in a game.

 

Like War Thunder, where for example German tanks from early 40s fight with American Walker Buldogs which went into service in 1953.

 

If you want to balance something, do it with quantity, not quality.

 

 

Pretty much this. There are enough games which failed horrible at balancing.

Try to get the ships as close as possible to real stats and everyone knows what he will face once he spots a ship on the horizon and then can decide to fight or to run.

Edited February 16, 2015 by MesserJocke

[Yankee jack]

In the real world:

SOLs  = Soldier ants.   Big and expensive.  But guard the flock.

Brigs,snows etc = worker ants.   Little guys, cheap, but scurrying to and fro.  Doing the day to day stuff.  (Feeding the "soldiers"...)

 

It will probably end up like that in the open game.

[Panzergraf]

good luck affording all those SOLs in Open World with finite resources.  Sorry, just won't happen.  Impossible even unless GL just makes them too cheap, but they've already hinted at the opposite.

That's what I'm saying. Most ships we'll see will probably be lighter, cheaper and less specialized ships.

[Rogues Salute]

A dynamic economic incentive that encourages smaller ships to work together and temps big ships to risk going it alone.

 

Leave the tactical side of things toward the realistic end of the scale and try to balance the game with strategic measures like economic incentives and supplies.

[Jeheil]

Perhaps each nation can only 'sponsor' so many top end SOL's and to earn the right to one...one needs to be in the top X of that nations captains...

[Kpt Beowulf aka Kpt Ahab]

RamJB on that topic http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/1737-ship-loss-and-replacement/?p=36619

Edited February 17, 2015 by Kpt Ahab

[Preserved_Killick]

I like the idea of having official nations in the game and having the choice to join a navy of one of those nations, get a letter of marque from one of those nations, or simply be a pirate.  If the game had a currency that was earned through trading, courier services, or capturing other ships that currency could be used for purchasing your own ships.  If you belonged to a navy, some of the money you get from prizes goes to the admiralty and you don't have the option of keeping the ship.  However, the nation would have it's own currency and fleet of ships which they can assign to its members.  Meaning you wouldn't necessarily have to pay for your own SOL but it could be assigned to you by the navy.  Who is in charge of running the navy of a nation or how ships are assigned is a nightmare and another discussion all together, but just assume some system was in place for that.  So there's the obvious incentive to join a navy because you can be assigned a ship instead of actually paying for one.

 

However, you could choose to be a privateer or pirate and keep all the money or the ship that you capture. You'd probably have to work for a navy or trading company to earn the money to buy your own ship to start but assume eventually you have money to get a Yacht and work your way up as a privateer/pirate from there.  In that case, you capture your ships and earn your own money and buy your own upgrades and better ships.

 

Finally, when you are in a battle and your ship is sunk or captured...your ship is now gone.  You have to either buy a new one or get a job with a trading company or navy.  This would add value to your ship and mean that things like ramming your ship is now a bigger decision to make.  You have actual consequences when choosing what battles to fight.

 

In order to maintain some kind of economy so that everyone's boats don't get sunk and suddenly no one can earn, the nations would have a set income that is constantly coming in so that they can keep buying ships and supplying the world with new ships to be captained or captured. 

 

I think something like that would be great but the issues of balancing would be huge and obviously all of this is way way to early in development to be expecting.  But it's worth discussing as an option.

[Yankee jack]

SOLs ?

 

Yea, they are expensive.  And yes, who would want to spend the money?   The answer to that will be revealed when the "bad guys" appear with one off your port................

Just sayin'.