A Question of Balance.

[bob48]

Quite often, when perusing various gaming sites, such as BGG and CSW, I often notice people asking questions about how well 'balanced' a game is. I can understand game designers talking about 'balance' since a game that is too much biased against one side or another would likely be a bit boring.

Now, many of us will have played games, especially with mini's, where the rules stipulate that sides each are assigned a number of points from which to choose units from a given list, or a points value agreed between players. Therefore, its up to the players to choose a force suited to achieve whatever objective that player need to achieve.

However, when the game in question is a map-and-counter type game, especially one that is about a historical action/ battle/campaign/war and where perhaps the question of balance really does not apply. I think this is especially true as we get down the 'scale' to tactical level, when to my way of thinking, its very much up to the player to see how well he can do with whatever forces are available to him (or her).

I guess that to some extent, it depends on why we play games in the first place. Sure, its always nice to 'win', but for me, and most of the people I play with, the whole point is to see how well a game system 'replicates' the event it portrays, at least, to the extent that any game can do such a thing, and, does it 'feel right' and produce a result which is not wholly ahistorical. More to the point, was it enjoyable to play and have a nice narrative flow, with, hopefully, interesting bits due to the brilliance/stupidity of the players and vagaries of the dice.

Thus it is that when I read such things, I figuratively bite my tongue and refrain from replying, although my initial reaction is to ask why they consider it to be important - why do they play games if not to explore the possibilities of what that game has to offer. Just play the bloody game and find out!

My less patient and charitable self just wants to beat them repeatedly about the ears with a rolled-up copy of the ASL rules, but I fear I may strain something if I tried that............

So, if you insist on playing a 'balanced' game, maybe consider Chess, or Checkers, or Shogi.


...is it just me, or am I getting to be a crabby bugger in my old age................?

[bayonetbrant]

I think there are a lot of ways to achieve "balance" other than just making the participants symmetrical.

One way is thru the victory conditions.

If you're playing the Texans at the Alamo, you will get your ass kicked.  The numbers are just not on your side (ditto Little Big Horn)

BUT you can achieve a balanced game with unbalanced sides in how you manipulate the VCs, right?

The Texans have no chance of winning the battle at the Alamo, but they might have a chance of winning the game if you scale the VCs based on how long it takes for Santa Anna's army to take down the defenders.  If they do it in under 10 turns, it's an overwhelming victory for the Mexicans, but if it takes up to 14, it's only a marginal victory.  And if it takes more than 22 turns, it's a massive Texans victory b/c they were able to delay the Mexican Army long enough for the rest of the Texas forces to unite into a single column to march of Santa Anna's army.


That's just one example of how I think you can put *game* balance into an historical situation that - as Bawb rightly points out - rarely is "balanced"


Remember, if you find yourself in a "fair" fight with the enemy, you screwed up!

[trailrunner]

As Brant points out, balance can be introduced by defining winning as doing better than your side did historically, either in terms of time or territory (or other measures, such as number of enemy destroyed, or resources captured).

One of the consequences of a time basis is that it might force you to play more aggressively than you would otherwise.  For example, an ASL scenario may be six turns, and you have to capture a key building, or destroy an enemy gun, but it doesn't matter how many casualties you take in the process.  That may force you to push hard, with a complete disregard for casualties as long as you meet your objective.  Or, if it's the last turn, and you have one more building to capture, and the building is protected by one squad and one MG, you just bum rush everything you have at the building, leaving broken squads littering the street.  I played a game once where I had to get some units off through a specific hex.  It was the last turn, and the hex was guarded by a gun or something.  But I just sent squad after squad towards the hex hoping that one would make it through unbroken.

Is it realistic?  Is it gamey?  I don't know and I don't care.

On the other hand, if you're doomed from the beginning and don't have much chance, it can be a drag.  I played another ASL game recently where I had to capture a large building.  I had to be very aggressive from the beginning, and hope the dice were on my side.  Well, I was properly aggressive, but the dice were just average, and I couldn't get any momentum going.  Turned into a bit of a slog.  Turns out that in 3 plays recorded in ASL scenario archive, the side I had lost all 3 games (it was a new scenario).  Oh well, I probably won't be playing that one again, but no big deal and I still had a fun day playing.

[bayonetbrant]

there are times where the historical outcome wasn't the 'mean' or 'expected' result

Cowpens springs immediately to mind, but one could argue that Von Manstein's Backhand Blow was an outlier result, too

[Putraack]

there are times where the historical outcome wasn't the 'mean' or 'expected' result

Cowpens springs immediately to mind, but one could argue that Von Manstein's Backhand Blow was an outlier result, too

I'd argue the extent of the German advance into Russia, 1941, was either an outlier or the best result that could have been (resasonably) predicted!