Early Game Meta Analysis

A place to debate and share game or general military strategy/tactics.
kwok
Posts: 1072
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Early Game Meta Analysis

Postby kwok » 24 Jun 2017, 01:57

Hi all,

I made something to help me balance my own CoH2 mod, I thought it'd be cool to share my tool with BK. It's a grid built on game theory that helps explain why certain equilibriums and metas occur. If you want to read more about the academics behind game theory you look up concepts like ESS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... e_strategy) or Nash Equilibrium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium).

What my grid does is calculate advantages in a 1v1 unit-type matchup. The players' unit choices create the coordinates on the grid. The X coordinates are determined by Player(-1) choices, while the Y coordinate is chosen based on Player(1)'s choice. Each of the player's choice is assigned a value with modifiers that calculate the probably advantages of the match up. The more negative the calculated outcome is, the greater chance that P(-1) has to winning. Meanwhile the more positive the calculated outcome is, the greater chance P(1) has in winning.

Game Theory Grid, feel free to play around with it:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Take for example, if you go to my sheet in the cells A3 and B3 set the players as P(1)= WM vs P(-1)=US...
You will get a grid down below that will light up blue for where WM has an advantage and red for where US has advantage. Naturally, if the WM player chooses infantry and the US player chooses AT then the WM player will have an advantage; that coordinate will turn blue with a positive number.
Because Bk early game (especially on low resources) is a bit like a game of rock paper scissors, you would typically see an equal amount of red and blue cells with the occasional white meaning no one has advantage (like AT vs AT, a very defensive game). But, BK also has nuances that make the calculation more interesting. For example, PE vehicle power in the early game is greater than US, therefore the PE vehicles get a greater weight if PE chooses a vehicle opening. Or an even hotter topic lately, allegedly the CW AT is superior to all other AT. These nuances modify the grid in ways that could possibly create equilibriums or near equilibriums (what I labeled as "likely match ups").
In the WM vs US grid, you can see the "likely match up" based on my preliminary assignment of modifiers to be a WM AT vs US inf (pak38 vs rifle opening maybe...? That's pretty popular today isn't it...)

This grid only gets more accurate if the modifiers I assign are accurate. I created a survey to let you guys decide what the value of units that I will aggregate and update the grid with. This way we can visualize game openings for both experienced and new players to analyze and build their own strategies. If this works, we can always work together and can apply this tool to other aspects of the game.

Faction Value Survey:
https://goo.gl/forms/k3WlnKY5IFpwCkiA3

EDIT:
DISCLAIMER!!!!
This BKNC forum isn't meant to be a place to talk about balance. I realize that even though I use this tool to balance my mod... I wanted to bring it here to talk about strategies and game analysis. How we can explain to other players why some strategies work and don't work. If you want to use this tool to help out in your balance debates, by all means go ahead but please have mercy on this forum and keep those claims in the balance & suggestions forum. I know it is so hypocritical of me to say because I made this tool to solve balancing for me... but I did not build the tool to balance BK.

kwok
Posts: 1072
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Early Game Meta Analysis

Postby kwok » 10 Jul 2017, 17:47

Hi, wanted to share what kind of info I found from the surveys so far.

In a WM vs US scenario, WM has advantage (by a magnitude of 10pts).
In a WM vs CW scenario, CW has advantage (by a magnitude of 1pts).
In a PE vs US scenario, PE has advantage (by a magnitude of 14pts).
In a PE vs CW scenario, PE has advantage (by a magnitude of 3pts).
NOTE: These points of magnitude are weighted aggregations of survey results.

The following below are the suggested first units based on the data that will either give you the most advantage or increase your chances of survival (with some notes made by survey takers and myself included):
As WM the strongest/safest unit to build first is an AT gun.
  • As a WM player, it looks like the AT gun is the strongest opening likely due to its ability to naturally counter early game vehicles like jeeps and dingos as well as its repeating HE shots.
  • I personally consider this a very passive opening because you lose the ability to chase units for the kill if you have a good engagement. But, the AT guns fast build time and power to control a sector definitely gives you a lot of flexibility to help carry your advantages over to the mid-game
As PE the strongest/safest unit to build first is a vehicle.[/list]
  • I looks like the PE vehicle openings absolutely dominate US players and still give advantage over CW players.
  • I think most people think of the scout car as a first unit, but personally one of my favorite starts is with the 20mm opel blitz. If it gets the first shots, its autocannon makes for a great 360 defensive gun.
As US the strongest/safest unit to build first is an infantry unit.
  • Ever since the garand buff suggested by Warhawks many patches ago, the US riflemen made a huge comeback in the competitive scene.
  • Strangely, it seems that despite PE having such a prevalent vehicle opening, the data says that US AT is so bad that it is worth more to make infantry instead of AT at the start against PE. Maybe it also suggests that getting that early infantry to outcapture the PE before the vehicles come, then making AT is stronger than making AT right away?
As CW the strongest/safest unit to build first against WM is an infantry unit.
  • CW early game inf is the strongest inf hands down, so they immediately counter any inf thrown at them (save for walking into an MG42...).
  • This opening against WM seems to make sense since the toughest vehicle WM has early game is the schwimmwagon. A well placed infantry unit by the CW should stop a schwimm. Building an ATboys against a schwimm is likely over allocating resources to a lesser threat, especially if the prevailing strategy for WM players it to make an AT gun
As CW the strongest/safest unit to build first against PE is AT.
  • With the initially slow capture speed of CW and the onslaught of powerful PE vehicles, it definitely makes sense that CW players start with AT boys. By making the AT boys early, the AT can lock down a center before vehicles can roam free, giving CW a chance of map control in the early game.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 18
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Early Game Meta Analysis

Postby Walderschmidt » 27 Sep 2017, 12:44

Are there any changes to this for the latest patch?

Also, I submitted my entry to the survey.

Also, for Wehr, PE, and US, you just say the strongest unit to build is "X", whereas CW, the answer changes depending on the faction against which one fights.

Does that mean that for Wehr, the AT gun is optimal opening against both US and CW? And same for PE and their vehicle opening?

Wald


Return to “General Discussions on Strategy and Theory”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest