Matrix Games Forums

I've seen a great deal of debate on a number of games along with the realistic results (read historical between the lines) and this has always amazed me. Play balance only truely exists in chess and checkers. Nearly any wargame is unbalanced to an extent.
And then you add the "non-historical" play of a given side and you get results that are "extreme". Only to be complained about by someone arguing that they aren't realistic and in line with historical results.

So, I'm curious just what is technically considered play balance ?

ORIGINAL: scout1

I've seen a great deal of debate on a number of games along with the realistic results (read historical between the lines) and this has always amazed me. Play balance only truely exists in chess and checkers. Nearly any wargame is unbalanced to an extent.
And then you add the "non-historical" play of a given side and you get results that are "extreme". Only to be complained about by someone arguing that they aren't realistic and in line with historical results.

So, I'm curious just what is technically considered play balance ?

For me, and I believe all opinions on this topic are personal, it means both sides can win.

Most historical war games start with one side having an advantage and the other side getting stronger as the game progresses. Some examples:
Gettysburg 1st day -> 2nd day
Shiloh
American Civil War 1860 -> 1864
Marengo
Austerlitz
Napoleon in Russia
North Africa 1940 -> 1942
Battle of the Bulge
Germany - USSR 1941 -> 1944

I am sure everyone can add other examples.

The side that starts with an advantage has to exploit that advantage quickly, or else the other side's reinforcements will tip the balance. The side that starts at a disadvantage has to put up a tenacious defense until help can arrive, and then make use of that help effectively in order to throw the other side back to from whence they came.

The ideal of play balance is that the better player wins, regardless of which side he is playing. By the way, white has a marked advantage in chess and black in checkers. Neither one of those contests is perfectly equal.

For me, play balance has two meanings.

First, that the victory conditions are such that each player has a fair chance to win the game (even if that only means surviving long enough).

Second, and more importantly, play balance means that a decision made will have a similar result in the game as it will in real life. Good play balance means that there will be no places where an unrealistic (in real world terms) decision will be made by a player because it will work in the game.

It is often hard to know if a decision is 'gamey' or is just a good decision that never got made in the real world. For example, I have always heard that if Hitler had let Rommel do what Rommel wanted to do, D-Day would have been a failure. (Reportedly, Hitler refused to release some reserves because he believed that Normandy was only a feint.)

Does this mean that with good defense, Europe can never be successfully invaded? Or does this mean that it shoud just be very hard? These questions are hard to answer definitively.

In my 27 years as a gamer, I have often seen a situation where one group played a game and felt that it was horribly imbalanced. Another separate group playing the game also felt it was horribly imbalanced -- but in the other direction. (Remember, we didn't always have internet forums to compare strategies on ). When the two groups finally got together and played, they found out all kinds of things.

The point is, balance does not always have to mean the game should come out the same way the real world conflict came out. It does have to mean that players are forced (by the likey results) into decisions that would have been reasonable in a real world environment.

I am not sure "true" play balance can ever be achieved in MWiF. Every player has strengths and weaknesses and a programmer just can not account for the infinite possibilities. It took decades to write algorithims for chess and that has 32 pieces and an 8x8 board.
Food for thought... MWiF has how many peces and how many hexes....

However a reasonable AI can be built most likely; but, will over time become even more beatable as we learn its strengths and weaknesses.

Unless... Mr OKeets can randomize the AI behavior among several levels of play for each country in which case we have increasd the number of potential behaviors dramatically.

Say 8 countries with 5 behaviors each (1 to 5 stars(BGen to Gen of the Army))

Maybe a someone could calculate the total number of combinations here. Now that would create a game with a lot of variety.

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I am not sure "true" play balance can ever be achieved in MWiF. Every player has strengths and weaknesses and a programmer just can not account for the infinite possibilities. It took decades to write algorithims for chess and that has 32 pieces and an 8x8 board.
Food for thought... MWiF has how many peces and how many hexes....

However a reasonable AI can be built most likely; but, will over time become even more beatable as we learn its strengths and weaknesses.

Unless... Mr OKeets can randomize the AI behavior among several levels of play for each country in which case we have increasd the number of potential behaviors dramatically.

Say 8 countries with 5 behaviors each (1 to 5 stars(BGen to Gen of the Army))

Maybe a someone could calculate the total number of combinations here. Now that would create a game with a lot of variety.

3075 units at last count, but after we add the Cruisers in Flames and Convoys in Flames units it should be somewhere around 3900. There are also a lot of units created during play: convoys, oil points, build points, factories, pilots, fortifications. I am allowing for 8000 units total - but that includes provisions for units from Politics in Flames, Patton in Flames, and America in Flames.

70,200 hexes.

China counts as two major powers for many purposes. There are over 230 named geographic areas.

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Say 8 countries with 5 behaviors each (1 to 5 stars(BGen to Gen of the Army))

Maybe a someone could calculate the total number of combinations here. Now that would create a game with a lot of variety.

390,625 combinations

Play Balance and playability can often mean different things to different people. It is truly difficult to create a game that has a strong level of realism combined with playability. WiF does achieve this and my hopes are certainly that MWiF will also strike this balance.

...and one could move how many units a turn? [X(]

Norden

I think a game has play balance when you sit down to start a new game and it is not difficult to decide who plays which side.

WiF achieves this and even provides a bidding system and a variety of options to achieve perfect balance.

I think a game has play balance when you sit down to start a new game and it is not difficult to decide who plays which side.

WiF achieves this and even provides a bidding system and a variety of options to achieve perfect balance.

Ummm, Cheeshead?

With all due respect, I do not feel trying to figure out the bidding points and which options weigh more than others is "simple". [:'(]

I allows experienced players, who are playing opponents they are experienced playing with/against, to try to balance out the victory calculations in the end, but a noob is not going to know how hard it is to play the CW versus a player he has not played before, especially using options he has not tried before... (What a run-on sentence...)

quote:

I think a game has play balance when you sit down to start a new game and it is not difficult to decide who plays which side.

WiF achieves this and even provides a bidding system and a variety of options to achieve perfect balance.

Ummm, Cheeshead?

With all due respect, I do not feel trying to figure out the bidding points and which options weigh more than others is "simple".

I allows experienced players, who are playing opponents they are experienced playing with/against, to try to balance out the victory calculations in the end, but a noob is not going to know how hard it is to play the CW versus a player he has not played before, especially using options he has not tried before... (What a run-on sentence...)

You make a good point about the situation when an experienced player takes on a newbie. Ideally, in this situation, the experienced player should take it upon himself to set up the game in a fair manner, guide the newbie through some initial, obvious errors, and make it an enjoyable experience for all. I experienced the opposite of this last summer when I played an experienced player who "ate my lunch." He asked for optional rules that gave him a HUGE advantage and silently watched me stumble all over myself during the first two years of the game. The result: I resigned in the summer of 41. In all fairness, I did benefit greatly from this experience...the college of hard kocks...but the premature end to a game could have been prevented with a little coaching and some fair and balanced options from the start.

There is no way for a newbie WiF player to make good bids or choose the right options until you have played at least one game through 1942. I'm currently playing into 1943 for the first time and my wisdom in such matters as bids and options has increased exponentially. So I agree with you in that sense...play balance in WiF also depends greatly on the experience of the players.

I have only played CWiF once, had a bad time with a crash when Vichy France was created. I am concerned at all the talk in some of the forums about the scraping of units during the set up and the need to set up units at the outset of the game. Does any one know if there will be a preset set up, including this scrapping of units, included in MWiF?

Mr. Okeets is much better at pointing/searching towards specific threads and post numbers, but yes.

At this time, there are plans to include an AI (for solo play) that will also be tapped for strategy hints and tutorials. At least, this is what my spotty memory recalls...

You make a good point about the situation when an experienced player takes on a newbie. Ideally, in this situation, the experienced player should take it upon himself to set up the game in a fair manner, guide the newbie through some initial, obvious errors, and make it an enjoyable experience for all. I experienced the opposite of this last summer when I played an experienced player who "ate my lunch." He asked for optional rules that gave him a HUGE advantage and silently watched me stumble all over myself during the first two years of the game. The result: I resigned in the summer of 41. In all fairness, I did benefit greatly from this experience...the college of hard kocks...but the premature end to a game could have been prevented with a little coaching and some fair and balanced options from the start.

John,
I'm sad you felt this way about out game last summer I enjoyed it even though as you said Russia looked quite doomed after the initial onslaught. I would play the options we used as either side, it was definately not my intention that they should give either side any advantage.
I certainly didn't pull any punches and played a game as well as I could, to not do that wouldn't feel right and would not be honest against my opponent.

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
I certainly didn't pull any punches and played a game as well as I could, to not do that wouldn't feel right and would not be honest against my opponent.

Reminds me of the chess game I intentionally lost to my nephew (he was around 7 at the time). It's the only chess game I ever intentionally lost and it was one of the hardest things I ever had to do.

The "college of hard kocks"? That's a pretty tough school I'd wager.

Nicklas, you have to be a little nicer to new players.

The players should determine play balance (this would include the AI).

There are three factors that would define play balance:

(1) The skill of the players.
If your skill level drastically exceeds your opponent you will not have balanced play.

(2) Who plays which Major Power.
If you assign a less skilled player a Major Power that requires more play knowledge than they have you will not have balanced play.

(3) Random chance.
Luck may help or hinder in any scenario regardless of skill.


Adjust the players to the game not the game to the players.

There are almost 70 options in the game choose which ones according to who will play what. Choose them to help the players that need help the most and you should achieve a balanced game.

As it has been stated before the RAW FE are the rules being used to design MWiF.

Play balance...

Is that where you carry stacks of counter trays and hope you don't slip on the spilled drinks?

Plsy balance is knowing the exact time to let the cat lose on the table full of counters [:D]

ORIGINAL: ieamlot

I have only played CWiF once, had a bad time with a crash when Vichy France was created. I am concerned at all the talk in some of the forums about the scraping of units during the set up and the need to set up units at the outset of the game. Does any one know if there will be a preset set up, including this scrapping of units, included in MWiF?

The tutorials should cover this and I expect the game will also ship with some presets for the regular scenarios. Steve certainly has taken the difficulty of scrapping units for a new player into consideration.