AGEOD Forums

I really like the AJE system - but a good system is of no use if the scenarios are poorly balanced. How the scenario "The Year of the Four Emperors" could be included in the demo beats me. A demo is supposed to leave you wanting more and buying the game. When you have three playable factions in a scenario all of them should be able to win. I am not saying that it must be equally easy/hard for the factions to win but all factions should have a chance of winning. "Year of the Four Emperors" is so rigged in Vespasianus favour, making it impossible to win as Otho. I have tried winning as Otho a dozen times. Even if I hold ALL of my objectives and take the two Vesp objective towns in Moesia Superior Vesp wins on points (ab 100 usually) without ever being even close to Rome. I have tried sailing all the way to his capital Antiochia but there is not enough time to take it - it is a lvl 4 fort...Will this scenario be balanced in a future patch? I, for one, will not buy the game unless the scenarios are reasonably balanced - unbalanced scenarios ruin the fun of a great engine.

The thing is History wasn't balanced either..thats why some one always looses.

What maybe needs to be done is that the sides don't don't have a chance of winning militarily should still have a chance of winning the game by lets say holding on longer than their real life generals.

I think it's impossible to balance scenarios if your trying to make a historical game play more or less historically.

Anyway no I don't think all sides should be able to win if historically they where battered and outnumbered etc etc. That just takes the whole thing into fantasy. I do think different sides should have tailored vp points..to the point that all sides could "win" in the end as they manage to either beat all the opponents military, or they managed to put up a better fight than historically...Thats what i feel should be done in more wargames.

Maybe we shouldn't be so hung up on winning and maybe the game should judge us on how well we fared compared to historical events.

When simulating historical yet grossly uneven conflicts (and I am not sure this scenario depicts such a conflict) the way to handle that gamewise is to define "win" as "do better than history". Handled that way even the underdogs are playable as you can "win" by doing better than history. This is common practice in war games. This scenario ends after one year because historically the conflict did not last more than one year. So for all logical purposes comparison to history should determine winner but as I write in my first post that is not the case. Victory points should be tweaked accordingly, alternatively the time limit should be extended.

I agree with Cato. Scenarios should be balanced in some way. That doesn't necessarily mean ignoring the historical outcome but finding a new way to define 'win'. After all, it is a 'game'. If there's no chance of winning then why play? Why not just watch a film instead? because - let's face it - the outcome will be the same whether you participate or not if the scenario does not allow a chance of a win.

Well, I guess some victory-messages don't work properly. In Caesar vs. Pompejus the good, old Caesar hat only one city left, no legion and maybe 2 cavalry units - but Pompejus got no victory screen. Of course no one could doubt, that Caesar had lost Same in your case: You may have won the scenario, but the enginge didn't check it. Her fault, not yours Enjoy your win. And let's hope that things like this are fixed in the patch, sheduled of coming out at the end next week.

Cato, you are playing the demo version of the scenario, it is shortened and has various functions disabled in it. It is only meant to give you an idea of whether the full game will run on your system and what the game looks and plays like. You can't judge how balanced it is on the demo version. You need to try the full version.

Ebbingford wrote:Cato, you are playing the demo version of the scenario, it is shortened and has various functions disabled in it. It is only meant to give you an idea of whether the full game will run on your system and what the game looks and plays like. You can't judge how balanced it is on the demo version. You need to try the full version.

I just realised that and bought the full game! With double the amount of time I think all factions have a shot at victory in this scenario. Now let's see if we finally can get Otho to rule...

BTW, can it be WAD that after taking Rome with Vitellians I got victory screen and then remaining Othonian forces joined my side including Otho - still alive - himself? They still have green backgrounds in TDMs, but I can issue them orders.

Cato wrote:I just realised that and bought the full game! With double the amount of time I think all factions have a shot at victory in this scenario. Now let's see if we finally can get Otho to rule...

Actually, as of 1.00, Otho is just as screwed in Victory Points as in the demo :/ This should change in next patch, I hope.

Narwhal wrote:Actually, as of 1.00, Otho is just as screwed in Victory Points as in the demo :/ This should change in next patch, I hope.

True, I noticed that on my first playthrough as Otho using the full version. Vesp won on points again, he got more than double my points (697 vs mine 332), yet I held Rome and all objectives/strategic cities in Italia in addition to all objectives/strategic cities in Cisalpina except Mediolanum (which Vitellius snatched). Victory points need to be tweaked - I also hope this will be done in next patch.

Yarpen wrote:BTW, can it be WAD that after taking Rome with Vitellians I got victory screen and then remaining Othonian forces joined my side including Otho - still alive - himself? They still have green backgrounds in TDMs, but I can issue them orders.

Anyone? I'm a bit afraid this may cause CTD or some bugs if I play further.

Otho cannot win even if he manages to annex Macer. I did that and put all my armies, including Macer's old legions, onboard a fleet sailing for Antiochia, the capital of Vespasianus, leaving behind only forces enough to protect Rome. I landed in Adana with my huge army, set up a base there building a lvl 4 depot and starting laying siege to the accursed capital of my OP nemesis Vespasianus. I managed to get a breach in a couple of turns but then Vesp shows up with 8 legions plus aux troops! This at the same time as he is eating my provinces in the west for breakfast. He just brushed my force aside - not taking many casualties himself but inflicting massive casualties on me and destroying my bridgehead and any hope of victory. So unbalanced. This scenario NEEDS to be fixed!

Hi Cato
I'm not sure it happened to you but there is a bug that causes a 25% penalty with Macer's forces.. it seems the Legatus of each legion retain their original bias leading to a foreign troop penalty. The devs are aware of this. Anyway, I am routinely smacked around as Otho so I agree some ballancing is needed, but then again he did lose and I am not a very good player.

jack54 wrote:Hi Cato
I'm not sure it happened to you but there is a bug that causes a 25% penalty with Macer's forces.. it seems the Legatus of each legion retain their original bias leading to a foreign troop penalty. The devs are aware of this. Anyway, I am routinely smacked around as Otho so I agree some ballancing is needed, but then again he did lose and I am not a very good player.

The CP (Command Point) penalty that happens with absorbed factions (as Macer) will be indeed fixed in the upcoming patch.

Yarpen wrote:Anyone? I'm a bit afraid this may cause CTD or some bugs if I play further.

Can you provide the contents of your scripts folder (AJE\Scripts) in zip or rar format, preferably right after you captured Rome ?

Thanks

Franciscus wrote:The CP (Command Point) penalty that happens with absorbed factions (as Macer) will be indeed fixed in the upcoming patch.

Could you please tweak Victory Points as well? As of now Vespasianus is generating too many points, he wins on points without even attacking. The opposite is true of Otho - his objectives generate far too few points. A great game deserves great scenarios right?

Cato wrote:Could you please tweak Victory Points as well? As of now Vespasianus is generating too many points, he wins on points without even attacking. The opposite is true of Otho - his objectives generate far too few points. A great game deserves great scenarios right?

We will discuss this with the scenario designers.

Thanks for your remarks.

Well look at history... Vespasian won for a reason. Otho's in trouble but there are Parthians, Judean's, barbarians and as well as Vitelius and Vespasian to distract each other.

I won as Otho on morale points in my last play of this scenario, although it seems there was a reason in this case: The Jews had been apparently victorious, and had not only defended Jerusalem but were in the process of conquering Syria at game end.

dpt24 wrote:Well look at history... Vespasian won for a reason. Otho's in trouble but there are Parthians, Judean's, barbarians and as well as Vitelius and Vespasian to distract each other.

Yes but historically Vespasian had to attack Italy to win, not just to stand on the rich and troubled Orient. VP distribution should indeed force Vespasian to adopt an offensive stance, leaving Otho the benefit of defense.

numahr wrote:Yes but historically Vespasian had to attack Italy to win, not just to stand on the rich and troubled Orient. VP distribution should indeed force Vespasian to adopt an offensive stance, leaving Otho the benefit of defense.

Well spoken! Exactly my point. The ultimate goal of any wannabe emperor during this time was and must be Italia and Rome - as of now that is not reflected in the VP distribution.

Cato wrote:Well spoken! Exactly my point. The ultimate goal of any wannabe emperor during this time was and must be Italia and Rome - as of now that is not reflected in the VP distribution.

I totally agree. The historical goal of Vespasian was to become an Emperor... of the whole thing, not just the richest. Securing the East should be worth at least as much as holding Italy and Rome.

But I think we can change the VPs ourselves, and dish out an scenario with a different distribution of VPs. Now I only need to figure out AGEOD scenario file format :-)

I won a minor victory this afternoon as Vespasian and it got me thinking about this issue as well. Sure, Vespasian had Asia, Africa and the far east all locked up, but Otho and Vitellius were both still in play when the turns ran out and the VPs were counted. I guess a minor victory was better than say a draw, but still, it seems that some sort of sudden death mode should be considered as a way for final victory to be achieved decisively. Maybe have an event card launched on the second to last turn, sort of along the lines of the Macer event. Allow all remaining sides to play a last turn card option and the dice can be rolled, declaring at random or by VP and morale score who wins the 'final battle.'

I personally don't mind a hard fought minor victory, but when the results leave so much open and undecided, it bitters the taste of the triumph. As the OP stated, this is certainly far more apparent in the 4 emperors scenario.

Would it be possible to extend the amount of turns in this scenario?

I finally managed to get a Minor Victory as Otho! Having played this scenario more than a dozen times (I have not, in fact, played any of the other scenarios - yet) I am convinced there is a good scenario in there wanting out.

Observations:
- It is super easy to win as Vespasianus - you don't even have to attack since VPs are working in your favour just by keeping most of your objectives. If you take Rome you win immediately. Taking Rome is quite easy - just land a force in Rome and take it. Otho is weak and does not defend Rome properly.
- It is super easy to win as Vitellius too. Build some transports, gather a good army in Massalia, drop it on Rome, take Rome, game over.
- It is super hard to win as Otho - se postings above.

Remedy:
- More VPs to Otho - Otho should be able to win playing defensively keeping Rome.
- No Automatic victory for Vesp or Vit when taking Rome - that might knock Otho out but should not knock the third contestant out.
- Maybe increase game length by half a year - a year

I think this would make for a really interesting scenario!