Page 1 of 1
Play Balance Question
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:02 am
by 76mm
Having played a couple Barbarossa games and currently reading the Annual 98, it seems clear that, especially in the global scenarios, a good player with mop the floor with a clueless noob. I'm curious what sort of handicapping was used with the board game, which of those are envisioned for inclusion in MWiF, and whether any new balance mechanisms are being contemplated.
I've seen references to tweaking resource levels, Victory Point levels, maybe a few others, but I was wondering whether players have considered giving weaker layers an additional action or two (in other words, in a land action, give the weaker player +1 rail and +1 air actions, etc.). Seems like this might be more useful to new players than a few more resources? Could also work for the AI...
RE: Play Balance Question
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:17 am
by Jimm
ORIGINAL: 76mm
Having played a couple Barbarossa games and currently reading the Annual 98, it seems clear that, especially in the global scenarios, a good player with mop the floor with a clueless noob. I'm curious what sort of handicapping was used with the board game
Alchohol!
RE: Play Balance Question
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:29 am
by Magpius
Good question; Great answer.
Which player gets the booze?
RE: Play Balance Question
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:10 pm
by LiquidSky
The game is self-handicapping as you are supposed to bid for countries. WiF is not really a two player game, and a rather poor solitaire game.
The bidding is based on numbers of Victory cities required for winning. As a fun result, there is usually allied 'friction' between the Germans/Italians and USA/CW. Friction that is sadly missing in a solitaire/2 player game.
RE: Play Balance Question
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:58 pm
by brian brian
ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
The game is self-handicapping as you are supposed to bid for countries. WiF is not really a two player game, and a rather poor solitaire game.
The bidding is based on numbers of Victory cities required for winning. As a fun result, there is usually allied 'friction' between the Germans/Italians and USA/CW. Friction that is sadly missing in a solitaire/2 player game.
The victory conditions really are designed for multi-player. In some groups, players on a side will compete for individual victory...there can also be friction between the Western Allies and the Russians, when the West invades the Baltic or the Balkans and ends up in front of the Russians...
in other groups, the sides cooperate completely, with no thought to individual victory
RE: Play Balance Question
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:38 pm
by AxelNL
ORIGINAL: 76mm
Having played a couple Barbarossa games and currently reading the Annual 98, it seems clear that, especially in the global scenarios, a good player with mop the floor with a clueless noob. I'm curious what sort of handicapping was used with the board game, which of those are envisioned for inclusion in MWiF, and whether any new balance mechanisms are being contemplated.
I've seen references to tweaking resource levels, Victory Point levels, maybe a few others, but I was wondering whether players have considered giving weaker layers an additional action or two (in other words, in a land action, give the weaker player +1 rail and +1 air actions, etc.). Seems like this might be more useful to new players than a few more resources? Could also work for the AI...
some optional rules are better for one or the other. That could help in that respect. Otherwise one could agree voluntarely on a build point cap.