Battlezone Forums

It's time to bite the bullet. Why should a team that invests thousands of scrap credits in building, maintaining, and supporting its army as well as defending its base lose to a single ISDF Enforcer equipped with a dual Slug cannon? Here I would appreciate if users could list possible scenarios in which a competing team is either defeated or stalemated in a fair, decent way. And I'm not talking about a dozen blast-cannon equipped Bull Dogs, either.

Slug cannon? Sounds like you're playing a rec variant other than stock, all of which can't be said to be properly balanced in a strategy map as most are for MPI play. If I remember correctly Slug is one of those advanced weapons that is unbelievably strong and can demolish about anything within 10 hits, not exactly something I imagine was designed with balance in mind.

As for advice, I'd recommend sticking with stock or trying out ZA's VSR variant http://bz2maps.us/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=3910 after play testing last night seems like a solid attempt at better balance.

I've had stalemates in G66 games, just due to the difficulty ramping up when our team gets close to the enemy base, in fact Axeminister hosts G66 games and his games tend to be quite long.

For strat, I know that stalemates happened quite often in 1.2. In 1.3 I made a mod called VSR that attempts to balance things a little better (faster build unmodded empties, 30 scrap modded empties, nerfs to blink/arc but buffs to lancers/sentries, buffs to unused weapons like pulse stab/splinter/popper/proxmine and various other balance tweaks). Had a 2 hour game last night as Scions trying to break up formations of RTs/Turrets with Lancers/Warriors, had a 4 hour game a few weeks ago vs an ISDF team that aggressively turtled while we as scions tried to assault them with Lancers, Maulers, Archers, Titans and Warriors.

As far as MPI games go they have their own balance, for example the best that the MPI modders can do (besides write really good AIPs and DLL scripts) is make difficult obstacles like Statues and use scrap boost modifiers for the AI to produce a lot of units to overwhelm the player with. VSR isnt as fun as GH/Commando recyclers for MPI and GH/Commando recyclers arent balanced for strat.

One of the things I would like to see (or do after i'm done VSR) is some new virtual classes (ie: combat, assault, defensive) so that AIPs can use them to select better targets (ie: sending blast tanks/sentries/warriors at hover units, SP tanks after seige units, and assault units at emplacements, etc)

Attacker plans in AIP's (right now) don't allow us to send generic units against other generic units, just specific units.

the only places where we can dispatch generic units against other generic units is in the [Match] section for use in DefendArea/ClearArea plans.

example:

[Match]
.
.
.
targetType1 = "Pool"
attackType1_1 = "DefendUnit"
.
.
.
targetType6 = "MainBase"
attackType6_1 = "DefendUnit"
attackType6_2 = "DefendUnit"

targetType7 = "Scav"
attackType7_1 = "DefendUnit"

targetType8 = "Scav"
attackType8_1 = "DefendUnit"
attackType8_2 = "DefendUnit"


[Plan140]
planPriority = 490
planType = "DefendArea"
pickTargetType = 2
CheckProvides = true
CheckEngageRange = false
planCondition = "Lua"
LuaFunction = "DefendPools"
MaxUnits = 2
searchRadius = 250
targetType = "Pool"
targetType1 = "Scav"
targetType2 = "DefendUnit"
targetType3 = "Defense"
targetType4 = "MainBase"
targetType5 = "UnitFactory"
targetType6 = "Bunker"
targetType7 = "BombBay"
targetType8 = "RepairTruck"
targetType9 = "RepairYard"
targetType10 = "TechCen"
targetType11 = "Training"
targetType12 = "People"
targetType13 = "Scout"
targetType14 = "MScout"
targetType15 = "LtWalker"
targetType16 = "Tank"
targetType17 = "ATank"
targetType18 = "RTank"
targetType19 = "HWalker"
targetType20 = "GunTower"
targetType21 = "RocketTower"
ContinueEvenIfFail = true

[Plan190]
planPriority = 440
planType = "ClearArea"
pickTargetType = 2
CheckProvides = true
CheckEngageRange = false
planCondition = "Lua"
LuaFunction = "ClearRecycler"
MaxUnits = 2
searchRadius = 250
targetType = "MainBase"
targetType1 = "Scav"
targetType2 = "DefendUnit"
targetType3 = "Defense"
targetType4 = "MainBase"
targetType5 = "UnitFactory"
targetType6 = "Bunker"
targetType7 = "BombBay"
targetType8 = "RepairTruck"
targetType9 = "RepairYard"
targetType10 = "TechCen"
targetType11 = "Training"
targetType12 = "People"
targetType13 = "Scout"
targetType14 = "MScout"
targetType15 = "LtWalker"
targetType16 = "Tank"
targetType17 = "ATank"
targetType18 = "RTank"
targetType19 = "HWalker"
targetType20 = "GunTower"
targetType21 = "RocketTower"
ContinueEvenIfFail = true

the only problem with that is that you lose the ability to stage units at various stage points, so they always head directly for their target, which may or may not be such a bad thing, depending on what you want to accomplish. *hears MTS scream, EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!*

forgottengames wrote:Why should a team that invests thousands of scrap credits in building, maintaining, and supporting its army as well as defending its base lose to a single ISDF Enforcer equipped with a dual Slug cannon?

The Greenheart variants are listed as MPI/IA-only, IIRC. With good reason.

I've heard of ZST's that lasted for so long because the teams were so well balanced that both teams simply agree stalemate and they blow it all up with a weapon-hacked Da Bomb.

Can't do that in 1.3, but usually people just leave when they're tired now (like what happened in the 5 hour game ZA was talking about).

Feared_1 wrote:I've heard of ZST's that lasted for so long because the teams were so well balanced that both teams simply agree stalemate and they blow it all up with a weapon-hacked Da Bomb.

Can't do that in 1.3, but usually people just leave when they're tired now (like what happened in the 5 hour game ZA was talking about).

But wait, if there can be balance, then strategy matches should essentially be a game of chess - each player has the same resources, but how they are used is all that matters. The FPS element of BZ2 is what really causes many of these problems, as each player can do things that the computer cannot do, and that seems to offset the global balance of the game.

BZ2 is not chess. BZ2 is BZ2. If we wanted to play chess, we would play chess.

You're proposing that your resource collection is eliminated, your ability to make ships is eliminated, and you only have a given number of units to work with before you have nothing to defend your Recycler, whose use has already been eliminated because you can't use it to make ships, pods, or Scavengers.

The central idea behind the game is bio-metal. Strategy relies on bio-metal. Take out the bio-metal strategy in BZ2, and you have a game of chess.

I have never seen you in game, but I can guess that if you had some real strategy experience (NOT MPI), then you would understand these elements better. You would probably realize that what you're proposing is a totally new game type. You can make it if you want.

In the early days of BZ1, many of us used to play a sort-of chess-like way, that primarily was agreed upon because of the extreme end-game lag that would occur with 56K.

It would be agreed no offensive ships such as tanks, walkers, APCs, bombers or scouts would be built, and we would start with a turret. Only turrets, GTs, minelayers, howitzers, scavs, etc. would be built. Our 'offensive' vehicles were primarily howies and turrets.

It vastly reduced the lag and made the game much closer to a "normal" or ISO-view RTS, and also had the added benefit of allowing newer players with much lower FPS skill to have a chance.

I'm not sure, but isnt there some sort of chess-game out that uses BZ(2) units?

Ah, and the link was very far away ... read it and ... eerr .. play chess ..
http://www.matesfamily.org/bz8x8.html

In a press release dated 4.1.99, Pandomic Studios announced Battlezone 8x8: the Chess Zone

I've never heard of this game. BZ2 was probably more successful.

Red Spot wrote:I'm not sure, but isnt there some sort of chess-game out that uses BZ(2) units?

Ah, and the link was very far away ... read it and ... eerr .. play chess ..
http://www.matesfamily.org/bz8x8.html

The text doesn't look too believable. And by the way, everyone knows that Garry Kasparov is a cheating, dishonest prick who had thousands of his games rigged by the Soviet Union to enhance their image.

His 97' Chess apocalypse with Deep Blue had him babbling and dancing like a cheated hooker on a Saturday night.

i thought that the idea of gaming was to start out with the same units and advantage and see who can use their skills in using them to create another advantage to win.

That's why I left BZ1.4.

It morphed into an ugly mess once a high percentage of the community found out manipulating it to their advantage over those who did not was almost as easy as an options screen.