History VS Game Balance #2

[Luskan]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Well whatever else I may be, I can make a point and be civil,
and NOT use personal attacks.

He could have been referring to me!
Although if that was the case Raver would have called me something worse than an idiot!

[Von Rom]

WiTP will/should be the mega Pacfic War game that should be an all-time classic for many, many years to come.

There are both historical and what-if possibilities:

A) This game should address all the historical realities of the war. To achieve this, there should be historical scenarios allowing victory for both sides through:

1) points;

2) doing better than in reality;

3) holding/taking bases longer than historically;

4) inflicting greater losses than historically;

5) time limits to achieve objectives


B) But also allow for all the what-ifs of history (such as scenarios that are similar in UV) :

The Japanese could:

1) achieve earlier/greater production bonuses;

2) withdraw most of their forces from China to pursue a southern approach;

3) share research with Germany (in fact a Japanese sub was carrying the blueprints/parts for a ME-262 late in the war);

4) have caught ALL of the US aircraft carriers at Pearl thus leaving the Japanese unmolested for quite some time;

5) etc, etc. . .

Both very historical scenarios and endless what-ifs are possible.

As has been noted previously, please provide us with a superb scenario editor, and you will see no end to the number of historical and what-if scenarios

Can't wait. . . *wipes drool from chin*

Cheers!

[Tanaka]

Although it needs a few minor tweaks here and there I think the Matrix team has done a great job in balancing history and playability in UV. Im sure they will do an even better job in WITP!!!

[pasternakski]

Well, Nancy, there they go again. Fellas, now we have three concepts going at the same time where we used to have only two. Let's ruminate a little (and pardon my digression, if you can).

History is staisfactorily presented by a wargame when the conditions that faced the commanders are either what actually existed or that, within reason, could actually have existed. This, since the inception of simulation gaming, has been the lodestar of design. This has nothing to do with either play balance or playability.

Most historical situations that can be "wargamed" are unbalanced from a "can I win?" point of view. Germany could have blasted through the Western Allies' lines at the end of 1944 and captured Antwerp, cutting off almost half of Eisenhower's forces in a "new Dunkirk" pocket and forced peace on the Western front. Not likely, but possible. The annals of history are filled with such tantalizing possibilities. What if Alexander had caught the odd arrow in the noggin before crossing the Hellespont? If Jesus had been bitten on the foot by some deadly vermin or other, where the he11 (so to speak) would Christianity be now?

We play these games because we enjoy being able to influence, through our own brilliance (or dullness) the outcome of historical events (or the events of "future history," as Robert Heinlein might express it). We are participating voyeurs. We want to see what happened and exert our power over it in order to change that historical outcome. If the outcome were always the same, if the conditions always the same, we would not play (and designers would not design).

So, in order to have fun, we need balance. I remember the old Avalon Hill game "France 1940." What worse subject for a wargame could there be? Ah, but it was the "historical possibilities" that the designers built in that made it a game, along with victory conditions that allowed you to measure your performance by comparison to what the historical command figures were able to accomplish. Yes, the Dyle Plan was rubbish. But, in this game, you could put yourself into an impossible strategic situation and measure your worth by what you could accomplish given the sh1t sandwich you were handed. Think of Leonidas at Thermopylae. If you caved in on the first day because of the odds you faced, how great were you? If, on the other hand, you could hold out and discover the traitor before he was able to lead the Persians through the mountain passes to cut you off, think of how long and sweetly your name might have been sung.

How do you balance a game? You impose intelligently crafted victory conditions against which the commanders can measure themselves. But, more importantly, you present those commanders with a situation steeped in its own history. That does not mean, of course, that every element has to be exactly as it was on the day the battle, campaign, or war commenced. What it means is that the designer (and it is the designer who must, ultimately, make this decision) has intelligently evaluated the history, come to conclusions about what was within the bounds of reason, and presented alternative scenarios and conditions that challenge the players within the historical frame of reference.

It is at this point that I have my greatest disagreement with those who want to incorporate wildly speculative elements into game design. I don't want a WITP that reaches back to 1899 and alters the fabric of history so that Pacific war in 1941 can be fought with oddball equipment under fantasy world political conditions. Yes, that would be a great game, and I would love to play it, but that is not what WITP is. WITP from its inception has been a game that seeks to recreate the strategic (and often operational) challenges facing Japanese and Allied high command as they coped with the world situation of the late 30s and early 40s. That's the game I want to buy. I do agree that a freewheeling editor might be a fun thing to include, but, if the game as a historical simulation suffers because this has to be available, I say, "Forget it."

Playability is nothing to the point here. Playability addresses game mechanics and the facility with which they allow the players to accomplish the various tasks they must accomplish in order to play the game. A game that fails to allow the players to understand how to play it is just that - a failure.

Whew. Certainly got my money's worth out of this post, didn't I?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by pasternakski
Well, Nancy, there they go again. Fellas, now we have three concepts going at the same time where we used to have only two. Let's ruminate a little (and pardon my digression, if you can).

History is staisfactorily presented by a wargame when the conditions that faced the commanders are either what actually existed or that, within reason, could actually have existed. This, since the inception of simulation gaming, has been the lodestar of design. This has nothing to do with either play balance or playability.

Most historical situations that can be "wargamed" are unbalanced from a "can I win?" point of view. Germany could have blasted through the Western Allies' lines at the end of 1944 and captured Antwerp, cutting off almost half of Eisenhower's forces in a "new Dunkirk" pocket and forced peace on the Western front. Not likely, but possible. The annals of history are filled with such tantalizing possibilities. What if Alexander had caught the odd arrow in the noggin before crossing the Hellespont? If Jesus had been bitten on the foot by some deadly vermin or other, where the he11 (so to speak) would Christianity be now?

We play these games because we enjoy being able to influence, through our own brilliance (or dullness) the outcome of historical events (or the events of "future history," as Robert Heinlein might express it). We are participating voyeurs. We want to see what happened and exert our power over it in order to change that historical outcome. If the outcome were always the same, if the conditions always the same, we would not play (and designers would not design).

So, in order to have fun, we need balance. I remember the old Avalon Hill game "France 1940." What worse subject for a wargame could there be? Ah, but it was the "historical possibilities" that the designers built in that made it a game, along with victory conditions that allowed you to measure your performance by comparison to what the historical command figures were able to accomplish. Yes, the Dyle Plan was rubbish. But, in this game, you could put yourself into an impossible strategic situation and measure your worth by what you could accomplish given the sh1t sandwich you were handed. Think of Leonidas at Thermopylae. If you caved in on the first day because of the odds you faced, how great were you? If, on the other hand, you could hold out and discover the traitor before he was able to lead the Persians through the mountain passes to cut you off, think of how long and sweetly your name might have been sung.

How do you balance a game? You impose intelligently crafted victory conditions against which the commanders can measure themselves. But, more importantly, you present those commanders with a situation steeped in its own history. That does not mean, of course, that every element has to be exactly as it was on the day the battle, campaign, or war commenced. What it means is that the designer (and it is the designer who must, ultimately, make this decision) has intelligently evaluated the history, come to conclusions about what was within the bounds of reason, and presented alternative scenarios and conditions that challenge the players within the historical frame of reference.

It is at this point that I have my greatest disagreement with those who want to incorporate wildly speculative elements into game design. I don't want a WITP that reaches back to 1899 and alters the fabric of history so that Pacific war in 1941 can be fought with oddball equipment under fantasy world political conditions. Yes, that would be a great game, and I would love to play it, but that is not what WITP is. WITP from its inception has been a game that seeks to recreate the strategic (and often operational) challenges facing Japanese and Allied high command as they coped with the world situation of the late 30s and early 40s. That's the game I want to buy. I do agree that a freewheeling editor might be a fun thing to include, but, if the game as a historical simulation suffers because this has to be available, I say, "Forget it."

Playability is nothing to the point here. Playability addresses game mechanics and the facility with which they allow the players to accomplish the various tasks they must accomplish in order to play the game. A game that fails to allow the players to understand how to play it is just that - a failure.

Whew. Certainly got my money's worth out of this post, didn't I?

Sounds to me like that is Pasternaski's definition of what a wargame is. Now, tell me why anyone is supposed to share it?
I certainly dont =)

Words like 'wildly speculative' are highly subjective. There is
no convincing evidence that 'his' version of alternative reality is correct.

What he is willing to buy, is moot. what matters is what SELLS.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Sounds to me like that is Pasternaski's definition of what a wargame is. Now, tell me why anyone is supposed to share it?
I certainly dont =)

Words like 'wildly speculative' are highly subjective. There is
no convincing evidence that 'his' version of alternative reality is correct.

What he is willing to buy, is moot. what matters is what SELLS.

"I" wish peepul wuld STOP attaking me =)

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by pasternakski
"I" wish peepul wuld STOP attaking me =)

That certainly isnt a quote of mine =)

and if you want people to not attack, possibly you should not attack.

[Aussie]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Sounds to me like that is Pasternaski's definition of what a wargame is. Now, tell me why anyone is supposed to share it?
I certainly dont =)

Words like 'wildly speculative' are highly subjective. There is
no convincing evidence that 'his' version of alternative reality is correct.

What he is willing to buy, is moot. what matters is what SELLS.

How can any version of alternative reality be correct - its events didn't actually happen, so there isn't really any evidence for it. You don't need to have pointy ears to see the logic in that.

I agree with Pasternaski's arguments, especially about keeping the 'wildly speculative' theme out of the game. If you did start the game in 1899, then there probably wouldn't be a war starting in the Pacific in 1941 anyway.

[Mike Scholl]

Because it strives to be a detailed game of THE War in the Pacific, the historical accuracy of the model HAS to come first.
If it doesn't accurately model the climate, terrain, equipment,
and logistics of the actual war,; it's a failure before it is ever
played. The goal is to provide the players with a chance to
"step into the shoes" of their historical counterparts and "test
their mettle", as it were. If their ships can sail forever without
re-feuling or re-fitting, it might be fun---but it's NOT a good simu-
lation of the War in the Pacific. GET ALL THE HISTORICAL DATA
SIMULATED AS CORRECTLY AS POSSIBLE FIRST. Then worry
about "playability"---which to me has more to do with the ease
of using the interface than who "won". In a game attempting
this much detail, playability isn't going to be high as opposed to say checkers or even the old Avalon Hill "wargames". It's the
price you pay for detail. BUT EVERY "CLICK OF THE MOUSE" THAT
MATRIX CAN ELEMINATE, EVERY 'EXTRA SCREEN' THAT CAN BE
COMBINED WITH SOMETHING ELSE, AND EVERY 'GRAPHIC TRICK'
THAT MAKES "SEEING THE PICTURE" EASIER ENHANCES THE
GAME'S PLAYABILITY. As to "winning", that comes last and is
a job of play balancing. How well did the weaker side do as
opposed to history and his opponent? Did the stronger side
suffer excessive casualties.., or make the best use of it's advantages. Personally, I've always preferred the Jack Radey
definition---"if one of you feels you beat the crap out of the other,
you probably won. Otherwise it's a draw." In this case, for the
Japanese player, it's more a matter of savoring your early
successes and the little "coups" of the later war---of reminding
your opponant of every "monkey wrench" you tossed into the
gears of the "Allied steam-roller".

[madflava13]

I think you hit it on the head Mike... I agree completely.

[Aussie]

I’ll second that

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
Because it strives to be a detailed game of THE War in the Pacific, the historical accuracy of the model HAS to come first.
If it doesn't accurately model the climate, terrain, equipment,
and logistics of the actual war,; it's a failure before it is ever
played. The goal is to provide the players with a chance to
"step into the shoes" of their historical counterparts and "test
their mettle", as it were. If their ships can sail forever without
re-feuling or re-fitting, it might be fun---but it's NOT a good simu-
lation of the War in the Pacific. GET ALL THE HISTORICAL DATA
SIMULATED AS CORRECTLY AS POSSIBLE FIRST. Then worry
about "playability"---which to me has more to do with the ease
of using the interface than who "won". In a game attempting
this much detail, playability isn't going to be high as opposed to say checkers or even the old Avalon Hill "wargames". It's the
price you pay for detail. BUT EVERY "CLICK OF THE MOUSE" THAT
MATRIX CAN ELEMINATE, EVERY 'EXTRA SCREEN' THAT CAN BE
COMBINED WITH SOMETHING ELSE, AND EVERY 'GRAPHIC TRICK'
THAT MAKES "SEEING THE PICTURE" EASIER ENHANCES THE
GAME'S PLAYABILITY. As to "winning", that comes last and is
a job of play balancing. How well did the weaker side do as
opposed to history and his opponent? Did the stronger side
suffer excessive casualties.., or make the best use of it's advantages. Personally, I've always preferred the Jack Radey
definition---"if one of you feels you beat the crap out of the other,
you probably won. Otherwise it's a draw." In this case, for the
Japanese player, it's more a matter of savoring your early
successes and the little "coups" of the later war---of reminding
your opponant of every "monkey wrench" you tossed into the
gears of the "Allied steam-roller".

'Correctly as possible' seems to be the biggest debate producer.
'Wildly Speculative' To Pasternaski that translates into
for example, wanting to build the Montana.
I would suggest that the addition of the Montana is NOT
wildly speculative.

If the game includes production(which supposedly it DOES)
Now you have a problem. Because I am pushing for build options.
There is no fun in simply building whatever the designer thinks the
historical builds were.

I can tell you right now, that Pasternaski does NOT wish to see that. He may SOUND resonable, but the last time this little topic came up he called me 'insane' for wanting that option.

If you give the players control of production, you just stepped
into 'wildly speculative'

Much as you may not want the debate, there will be one.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
Because it strives to be a detailed game of THE War in the Pacific, the historical accuracy of the model HAS to come first.
If it doesn't accurately model the climate, terrain, equipment,
and logistics of the actual war,; it's a failure before it is ever
played. The goal is to provide the players with a chance to
"step into the shoes" of their historical counterparts and "test
their mettle", as it were. If their ships can sail forever without
re-feuling or re-fitting, it might be fun---but it's NOT a good simu-
lation of the War in the Pacific. GET ALL THE HISTORICAL DATA
SIMULATED AS CORRECTLY AS POSSIBLE FIRST. Then worry
about "playability"---which to me has more to do with the ease
of using the interface than who "won". In a game attempting
this much detail, playability isn't going to be high as opposed to say checkers or even the old Avalon Hill "wargames". It's the
price you pay for detail. BUT EVERY "CLICK OF THE MOUSE" THAT
MATRIX CAN ELEMINATE, EVERY 'EXTRA SCREEN' THAT CAN BE
COMBINED WITH SOMETHING ELSE, AND EVERY 'GRAPHIC TRICK'
THAT MAKES "SEEING THE PICTURE" EASIER ENHANCES THE
GAME'S PLAYABILITY. As to "winning", that comes last and is
a job of play balancing. How well did the weaker side do as
opposed to history and his opponent? Did the stronger side
suffer excessive casualties.., or make the best use of it's advantages. Personally, I've always preferred the Jack Radey
definition---"if one of you feels you beat the crap out of the other,
you probably won. Otherwise it's a draw." In this case, for the
Japanese player, it's more a matter of savoring your early
successes and the little "coups" of the later war---of reminding
your opponant of every "monkey wrench" you tossed into the
gears of the "Allied steam-roller".

[Sonny]

I would go for historical realism rather than historical accuracy. The feel of being there rather than the exactitude of having the numbers be extremely accurate. There is going to be a ton of compromises because of game scale - accuracy will suffer.

Game play is the thing. I can understand that the idea of a simulation (history) is appealing and there are obvoiusly many on the forum who want to see if they can win the war as the Japanese (but not with all the "restrictions" which the Japanese had) etc. But look at it this way, how many people here have played a complete PBEM game of UV? Complete = until Dec 31 1943. Don't see many hands raised. And the few hands that are raised, can you say it was with the historic settings? Didn't think so. So what makes you think that adding another year and a half to the game where the Japanese do not stand a chance (if historical accuracy is preserved) will get you any more game play? People have better things to do with their life (like start another WitP game) than try to savor their little coups in June of 1945.

Don't want to see a game where the odds of winning the war are 50-50 but reasonable chances to win the game being 50-50 is not too bad a thing. My fear is that there would need to be too many loopholes/problems in VP calculations the closer to historical accuracy you get.

Not advocating having the ability for the Japanese to develop the A-bomb or anything like that. If there needs to be an "Argonaut" in the game to make it a better game then that is o.k. - I can live with that as easily as I can live with Midway not happening in UV (i.e. non-historic scenarios).

[byron13]

Well, Luskan, would you agree that realism and game balance are not mutually exclusive?

[Luskan]

Byron: Certainly they aren't mutually exclusive.
However there will always be those that disagree on what is accurate and what isn't. I wanted to have a numerical representation of how many people valued one over the other.

I would like a game with the scope to allow me to still have something to do as the IJN in the later parts of 1944 and early 1945. I don't want to have "finished" with any critical input into the game and just keep returning turns for the USN to obliterate me.

Equally I don't want to see the IJN invading Australia, leap frogging to take a few west coast american ports and then polishing off China with a few handy brigades and a banzai charge or two.

As long as there is something in the middle, with enough room for mistakes on both sides to come to a thrilling conclusion:
IE. My Scn17 with Admiral Arctic. There has only been 1 major CV battle and it was inconclusive. His damaged CVs went back to tokyo and never returned. However in spite of that, we're down to 11/43, there are less then 2000 points seperating us and I am striving to take any base I can - although I don't have enough transports, and barely enough troops (yes, as the allies I have just about run out of INF units).

The entire game has come down to the wire and it ahngs in the balance. My tiny, damaged fleet against his fortifications and troops. Has been pretty epic - enough so that we're swapping sides and replaying as soon as it is over. Has been a great thrill to watch my victories and defeats.

The reason UV only modelled 18 months of the war is that it was considered pointless for the IJN to continue into 1944. I want enough flexibility in the game for me to be a good player as the IJn (but not incredibly brilliant) and extend my fighting chances into 1945.

Winning on points is ok (victory points wise) but winning on points because you're last CV ambushed an invasino TF in 1945 on its way to Okinawa, or your BBs closed with the invasion tf at Leyte and blasted those allied divisions to oblivion . . . that is what we're talking about. I don't want to loose on points because I lost Iwo Jima and the B29s end the game etc.

If I had to be honest, i'd say that the present UV game balance is pretty close - maybe 40% IJN to 60% USN chances to win (no one is going to tell me that it is easier to win as the IJN right????). This is easily fixed by changing committment levels or doing the "ignore midway" scenarios. Just wanted to make sure the balance remains (and you'll note by the poll numbers - as I'm sure Matrix has) that gameplay vs history is pretty even, if you count votes for spanking Raver as votes for gameplay).

[mbatch729]

Originally posted by pasternakski

We play these games because we enjoy being able to influence, through our own brilliance (or dullness) the outcome of historical events (or the events of "future history," as Robert Heinlein might express it). We are participating voyeurs. We want to see what happened and exert our power over it in order to change that historical outcome. If the outcome were always the same, if the conditions always the same, we would not play (and designers would not design).

So, in order to have fun, we need balance.

EGAD! A Pasternakski post I agree with. I must have had too much of the beer being recommended in another thread. :p

But seriously, well-stated points I whole-heartedly endorse. Bravo Zulu.

[Von Rom]

I agree with most opinions: I want the core game and most "pre-built" scenarios to be very historical. I am both a history buff and a wargamer.

On the other hand, WiTP NEEDS to come packaged with a scenario editor; a friendly, superb, intuitive, scenario editor.

The collective wargaming community contains a great deal of knowledge and insights in most historical battles/weapons systems. The scenario editor will not only allow for gamer corrections, but it will also allow for the many possible "what-ifs" of history.

This is not just wild speculation. The very real, historical alternatives in history are many:

1) What if on the morning of the Battle of Waterloo, it did not rain and Napoleon attacked the British when he had planned?

2) What if Hitler had not been delayed in the Balkans in 1941 and attacked the USSR earlier?

3) What if ALL the American carriers had been at Pearl on December 7, 1941 and were destroyed?

4) What if the Japanese had sent another strike against Hawaii to destroy the shore installations and oil facilities?

5) What if Japan had attacked the Soviet Union when Hitler had pleaded with them to do so?

The above examples are not wild speculation. In fact many historians have debated these alternative ideas and more for years. Many wargamers have also thought of gaming scenarios that contained these historical alternatives.

The historical scenarios will be there to be played and enjoyed; while the scenario editor will allow wargamers the opportunity to craft alternative, but very historical, "what-ifs". Most games that have a long shelf life, also contain scenario/campaign editors.

Personally, any wargame that attempts to strait-jacket me into playing only one narrow version (the historical outcome) of history is not only limited in playability, but it also denys the wargamer the opportunity to see historical events in their many different flavours and outcomes.

In UV the two most played scenarios are #s 17 and 19, both historical "what-ifs"; yet are very real possibilities.

Such is the outcome of historical events when they often hinge on a decision that has multiple choices. . .

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Von Rom
I agree with most opinions: I want the core game and most "pre-built" scenarios to be very historical. I am both a history buff and a wargamer.

On the other hand, WiTP NEEDS to come packaged with a scenario editor; a friendly, superb, intuitive, scenario editor.

The collective wargaming community contains a great deal of knowledge and insights in most historical battles/weapons systems. The scenario editor will not only allow for gamer corrections, but it will also allow for the many possible "what-ifs" of history.

This is not just wild speculation. The very real, historical alternatives in history are many:

1) What if on the morning of the Battle of Waterloo, it did not rain and Napoleon attacked the British when he had planned?

2) What if Hitler had not been delayed in the Balkans in 1941 and attacked the USSR earlier?

3) What if ALL the American carriers had been at Pearl on December 7, 1941 and were destroyed?

4) What if the Japanese had sent another strike against Hawaii to destroy the shore installations and oil facilities?

5) What if Japan had attacked the Soviet Union when Hitler had pleaded with them to do so?

The above examples are not wild speculation. In fact many historians have debated these alternative ideas and more for years. Many wargamers have also thought of gaming scenarios that contained these historical alternatives.

The historical scenarios will be there to be played and enjoyed; while the scenario editor will allow wargamers the opportunity to craft alternative, but very historical, "what-ifs". Most games that have a long shelf life, also contain scenario/campaign editors.

Personally, any wargame that attempts to strait-jacket me into playing only one narrow version (the historical outcome) of history is not only limited in playability, but it also denys the wargamer the opportunity to see historical events in their many different flavours and outcomes.

In UV the two most played scenarios are #s 17 and 19, both historical "what-ifs"; yet are very real possibilities.

Such is the outcome of historical events when they often hinge on a decision that has multiple choices. . .

****! WitP is gonna cover a lot more than I imagined!!:D

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by Sonny
****! WitP is gonna cover a lot more than I imagined!!:D

But no Napoleon or German scenarios - hehe :p