I am working on 4 new edits for v2.xx TWGS. I am still working on planets, ships, and aliens for each edit. Can some one tell me how to balance red vs blue so that one doesn't over shadow the other. The balance can get messed up so easily, sometimes a single setting will put an edit out of whack.

H

It's been a while, but I put a lot of thought into this when I was working on my Equilibrium edit. I never got as far as coming up with any mathematical equations, but I think the most important factors are:

- turns per day
- universe properties
- corp size
- number of corps/players
- cost of probes

And just to clarify, when I talk about red vs. blue, what I really mean is hunters vs. builders. Corps are likely to be mixed, but it's the strategies I was interested in balancing.

Basically, it comes down to this: what are the chances that the builders can create a defensible planet before the hunters find and destroy it? Each of the factors affect the balance in their own way.

Turns: Red income scales roughly linearly with turns, but planets don't really become productive for a fixed number of days. More turns favors red.

Universe properties: a larger universe means more places to hide, and lower warp density means more dead ends to probe, both of which favor blue.

Corp size: Blue income per player doesn't scale much with corp size, but cooperation greatly benefits reds. Allowing more than 2 players per corp is a huge boon to red.

Number of players/corps: More blues in the universe doesn't have much effect on the probability of any individual planet being found, but more reds does. Even if they're not sharing information, more hunters means less chance for blue. However, blues might be able to assist each other by gridding.

Cost of probes: Obviously, higher prices favor blue.

I tried to balance my edit around one 3-player corp of builders vs. one 3-player corp of hunters. My goal was to give both teams interesting decisions to make. I wanted red to have to decide how many turns to spend hunting and how many to spend cashing. And I wanted blue to have to carefully balance trading, building, and gridding. I don't know if I succeeded; to my knowledge, the edit has only been played once.

Oh, and I made this spreadsheet while I was figuring out my planets. In order to allow more turns, I shortened the construction times of the planets. I also tried to make each planet type interesting in some way. Class U were the super fuel producers, but their citadels could only reach L3. Class K had the best fighter production, but one of the longest citadel build times. Class O had the most valuable *mobile* production per colonist, but class H wasn't far behind and required fewer ports (and less movement) to offload a day's production. Etc.

Thanks for the input. One big difference in our thinking is red vs blue. I can see your point about hunters vs builders but my view is about the ability to cash. Blue has a low cashing ability in the beginning because they have to spend time building planets and ports, their only cash comes from PPT to start and it takes them awhile to build up to successful planet trading. While red has may options for making cash in the beginning (PPT, SST, SDT, and depending on the settings, Megarob) I didnt include WSST or WPPT or PSST as those are only used in truce games per say.

This difference in cashing ability at the start through the mid game is the reason there are mixed corps. The best way to balance this, I think, is a combination of move delay and steal delay.

Here is a basic break down of avg credits per turn in a game for the following cashing methods:

PPT = ~1500 - 2000 credits per turn



Check out this page if you want to see the math
Red cashing info is near the bottom of the page.

I will send you a copy of the edits as I get them done and you can have a look. Share them if you like them, or not... I would definitely like feedback. I am doing 2 low turn edits, 1 medium turn, and 1 unlimited, all on different themes

H

You could hurt red cashing by increasing the rob/steal factors, forcing them to spend more turns and credits boosting their XP. But I didn't try to change the fact that early red cashing will far exceed PPT. If it didn't, then what would be the point to playing red at all? Instead, I tried to adjust the other factors so that red is forced to spend the majority of their massive income on hunting, and still only have a 50/50 chance of preventing blue from getting a L4.

Adjusting move delay and rob delay wouldn't have any effect on cashing in a turns game.

Actually it does have an effect, you would have to test it to see what I mean. Any delay in playing makes the reds more vulnerable to being found by the blues from the other corp. You have to remember that reds will not be using turns except what it takes to cash. In a mixed corp the reds hide and cash while the blues build and hunt. Every red turn not used for cashing is lost cash. All bets are off once a mixed corp has mobile planets..

Hmmm... I see your point. I didn't consider that the builders might spend some turns hunting the hunters. But I think the effect would be minor.

Do you remember offhand how many turns it takes to furb per turn spent red cashing? In other words, if the two reds in a 3-player mixed corp run all their turns cashing, how many turns will the blue have left for hunting? Tweaking the rob/steal factors could also influence this. (Hmm... maybe we should suggest making the base bust rate adjustable.)

Another thing I didn't mention about my edit was that I set a daily time limit that allowed plenty of time to play all your turns, but prevented a 3-player corp from staying online all day. Reds could simply play their turns when the opposing corp isn't online, making the delays irrelevant.

I believe to balance any edit requires alcohol. If not by the author, then by the host.