an idea for scaling

[sonnypemberton]

First of all, I personally don't have a problem with the scaling system. It keeps it challenging and I like poor odds so I feel like I accomplished something. But there are many complaints with scaling and how it works, even with the new fixed army size. This might strike a balance.

This may have been discussed, but I think it would be a simple fix - something easy to implement.

If scaling effects the size of the brigades, and not the number, it seems like the logical choice would be to at least SOMEWHAT balance things by requiring the "historical" number for each side. Basically, for every battle - whether it said 12 or 60 required for the chosen side, whatever the player couldn't bring from their own corps would be filled in by AI brigades, like how some of the major battles work now.

 Stones River for example, the union fields 68 brigades to the  CSAs possible 60. If the player can bring in only 45 as CSA, why not have the AI add 15 to the CSA - still controllable like Shiloh or Bull Run. The scaling would only effect brigade size, and could be an average of yours or whatever required to hit accuracy.

difficulty would also be determined by veteran status and morale/ability buffs - according to level. Also, colonel could have slightly lower weapon averages, brig about the same, and major gen better weapons on average.

When and if the AI gets worked out (think Gettysburg varying difficulties) most of this wouldn't be as relevant, as major gen could have a very aggressive traits while colonel less aggressive and more careless.

Thoughts? Ideas? feedback?

[Aetius]

4 minutes ago, sonnypemberton said:

Stones River for example, the union fields 68 brigades to the  CSAs possible 60. If the player can bring in only 45 as CSA, why not have the AI add 15 to the CSA - still controllable like Shiloh or Bull Run. The scaling would only effect brigade size, and could be an average of yours or whatever required to hit accuracy.

Having played so much on Legendary recently, my only response is to salivate at getting all those allied brigades killed so I can take their weapons.

[Col_Kelly]

Yes it basically mean the player would be rewarded for doing poorly : if you have high casualties you'd get AI brigades for whom you just don't care since their losses won't impact your army. As Aetius said the player would have in fact an interest in seeing those brigade die as soon as possible. 

[Hobo]

Maybe on lower levels.  Not on middle to upper.

[sonnypemberton]

1 hour ago, Col_Kelly said:

Yes it basically mean the player would be rewarded for doing poorly : if you have high casualties you'd get AI brigades for whom you just don't care since their losses won't impact your army. As Aetius said the player would have in fact an interest in seeing those brigade die as soon as possible. 

possibly - while I don't value AI as much as my own, there are still the ktd ratios, the not gaining xp/kills for your units, and overall "score". Typically, the ai seems to have lower grade weapons too so they wouldn't want to be farmed as much...

[sonnypemberton]

another possibility would to charge reputation for maintaining those brigades as an incentive for providing your own...

[A. P. Hill]

Actually, the smarter thing to do would be to cause the AI to lose an equal percentage as the player. Rather than build the players to match.