Play balance

[Yojimbo252]

We have enough data from 1.2 to draw some conclusions on balance for BotB (the main scenario, excluding variants) as the game stands: the Axis is winning ~54% of the time in GC play. This doesn't feel too lopsided from a pure balance perspective, but conceals the "fun" factor lost through turtling.

Following RyanAK's idea, we're currently thinking of the following to give the Axis the incentive to adopt a play style likely to produce a dynamic game:
1) The Axis cannot win until a unit has ended an Allied impulse adjacent to the Meuse (without consideration to supply).
2) The Allies automatically win at the end of the 28th if the Axis has never had a unit adjacent to the Meuse at the end of an Allied impulse (also without consideration to supply).

Thoughts?

Sorry but I don't like the idea as I find 'You must do this or lose' objectives too restrictive in a Strategy game which can seriously kill replayability as it narrows variety.

If players want to explore various strategies they should be allowed to do so. If one is found to be too strong or undesirable it just needs to be toned down, not eliminated completely.

Conditions can also be exploited in ways that weren't originally intended, look at how the Axis currently exploits the early triggering of the British by avoiding the Meuse entirely. Do you think incorporating more conditions like the above will resolve that?

If I was playing Axis with the above conditions I still would avoid the Meuse entirely before the 26th so as not to bring in the British early. Play a standard Axis turtle as per usual and leave a unit within one move of the Meuse in some inconsequential corner of the board. Prior to the 28th the unit touches the Meuse only for the purposes of avoiding the auto defeat condition. Have the additional conditions really changed anything?

Sorry if I come across as frustrated but a number of good suggestions have been put forward that I think will resolve the issue like removing the triggering of the British condition and allow them to enter the game on a date (or date range) that is earlier than the 26th so they actually have an impact on the game even if the Axis decides to play conservatively and tweak the Eastern VPs and/or thresholds.

If SS feel there are flaws or issues with the above Nick let's hear them. If not why are SS still searching for other alternatives?

[s_nkarp]

If I was playing Axis with the above conditions I still would avoid the Meuse entirely before the 26th so as not to bring in the British early. Play a standard Axis turtle as per usual and leave a unit within one move of the Meuse in some inconsequential corner of the board. Prior to the 28th the unit touches the Meuse only for the purposes of avoiding the auto defeat condition. Have the additional conditions really changed anything?

Sorry if I come across as frustrated but a number of good suggestions have been put forward that I think will resolve the issue like removing the triggering of the British condition and allow them to enter the game on a date (or date range) that is earlier than the 26th so they actually have an impact on the game even if the Axis decides to play conservatively and tweak the Eastern VPs and/or thresholds.

If SS feel there are flaws or issues with the above Nick let's hear them. If not why are SS still searching for other alternatives?

Tweaking VP values for objectives AND tweaking VP thresholds AND tweaking British release is a lot of moving parts that impact all players. Overall, the statistics on balance for game center games is very good. The proposal was intended as a focused solution that would minimize disruption for the majority of players unaffected by turtling: "First do no harm!"

I'm not so confident that the Axis can casually defer reaching the Meuse until the 26th and then expect to be able to end an Allied impulse adjacent to the Meuse - even waiting until the 23rd is often tricky. While often possible, such an approach would inject enough risk into the turtle to make it just another strategy.

I agree in general that "do it or else" requirements are not ideal: but the Meuse (and beyond) was actually the Axis objective, so making it a requirement feels more natural than artificial. A less rigid approach (Ros Herman's idea) is to score 1 VP for the Allies each turn until the Axis has reached the Meuse. For typical games that's 3-5 VP, about right for average balance; for a turtle it pushes the crisis back from ~Dec 25 until 27/28, giving them 2 more days of counterattack, including some British participation.

[Yojimbo252]

Overall, the statistics on balance for game center games is very good. The proposal was intended as a focused solution that would minimize disruption for the majority of players unaffected by turtling: "First do no harm!"

Taking broadbrush statistics can lull you into a false sense of security. Whilst it may be true that overall that stats present the view that the game is balanced, when you strip out the inexperienced or casual play, Race to the Meuse games, playing in the right spirit rather than playing to win, etc and you're left with experienced players who are playing to win by employing the Axis turtle I would suggest that those win % would look more like 90/10. It's the main reason I've stopped playing.

I'm not so confident that the Axis can casually defer reaching the Meuse until the 26th and then expect to be able to end an Allied impulse adjacent to the Meuse - even waiting until the 23rd is often tricky. While often possible, such an approach would inject enough risk into the turtle to make it just another strategy.

Ok, whether we feel it may be easy or hard for the Axis to do it's an aside. My point is the condition isn't forcing the Axis to play an open and aggressive strategy where they are genuinely attempting to reach and cross the Meuse as quickly as possible and exit via the objective spaces towards Antwerp, it's just a rule forcing the Axis player to touch the Meuse at some point in the game. After they do that they can retreat back into their defensive shell again if they wish to avoid contact with the British.

I agree in general that "do it or else" requirements are not ideal: but the Meuse (and beyond) was actually the Axis objective, so making it a requirement feels more natural than artificial.

SS obviously took a conscious decision to permit players to win via the accumulation of victory points and allowed players the freedom to devise strategies to gain those VPs by whatever method they choose. If an Axis player wants to win simply through the annihilation of Allied units and control of key on map objectives, they can do so without crossing the Meuse. I like that because it gives the player freedom to play how they want to.

The current issue is not that the Axis can win even though they don't reach the Meuse, the issue is it's far too easy to win without reaching the Meuse. So I prefer not to have a rule that states you may not use that strategy ever again because that takes away choice, I simply want it made more difficult to win by those means. That's where getting rid of the British triggering condition comes in. There's no incentive for the Axis to avoid the Meuse as the British will arrive on a certain date (or date range) earlier than the 26th irrespective of what the Axis do, so the Axis at the very least might as well get to the Meuse to activate their OKW reserves and open up the possibility of the Meuse objectives.

In this way you are not upsetting balance for those games where the Axis is already playing in the right spirit and goes for the Meuse, only where the Axis employs the turtle and avoids it completely. And you're doing it in a way where you're not forcing anyone to do anything by taking away choice, you're just incentivising.

A less rigid approach (Ros Herman's idea) is to score 1 VP for the Allies each turn until the Axis has reached the Meuse. For typical games that's 3-5 VP, about right for average balance; for a turtle it pushes the crisis back from ~Dec 25 until 27/28, giving them 2 more days of counterattack, including some British participation.

I don't mind that idea in principle as it incentivises the Axis player to go for the Meuse but it greatly increases the slippery slope if things go badly for the Axis early on. If they genuinely go for the Meuse (again already playing the game in the right spirit) and get some bad dice or whatever early on and fail to reach it (without taking substantial risks) it's only going to get a whole lot worse the longer the game goes on. You may as a result have more Axis players quitting mid game rather playing it out to see if the Allies can successfully launch a counterattack because that ongoing VP penalty is going to hit them hard over an entire game. You may find this is effectively the same as the auto rule above where if the Axis don't reach the Meuse they lose.

This goes back to what you were saying about "First do no harm!".

[RyanAK]

I agree in general that "do it or else" requirements are not ideal: but the Meuse (and beyond) was actually the Axis objective, so making it a requirement feels more natural than artificial.

I agree with this sentiment. I always try to determine what a particular battle from history, at it's core, is about. The Battle of the Bulge was about the attempted Axis breakthrough to the Meuse and beyond. My belief is that the thing which was central to the historical battle should be central to the game, or it isn't a game on the battle.

Personally, I've been lucky and have mostly drawn Axis opponents on Game Center who drive for the Meuse. When a player plays this way, it feels like I'm playing a wargame about the Battle of the Bulge. When an Axis opponent turtles, it just feels like I'm playing a strategy game that happens to be on a map of the Ardennes.

R

[Yojimbo252]

I agree in general that "do it or else" requirements are not ideal: but the Meuse (and beyond) was actually the Axis objective, so making it a requirement feels more natural than artificial.

I agree with this sentiment. I always try to determine what a particular battle from history, at it's core, is about. The Battle of the Bulge was about the attempted Axis breakthrough to the Meuse and beyond. My belief is that the thing which was central to the historical battle should be central to the game, or it isn't a game on the battle.

Personally, I've been lucky and have mostly drawn Axis opponents on Game Center who drive for the Meuse. When a player plays this way, it feels like I'm playing a wargame about the Battle of the Bulge. When an Axis opponent turtles, it just feels like I'm playing a strategy game that happens to be on a map of the Ardennes.

R

So what's your stance on an Axis strategy that touches the Meuse at some point in the game and then retreats back and turtles with no real intent to breakthrough to reach Antwerp?

If the desire is to force Axis players to breakthrough to the Meuse and beyond and not allow the Axis to win simply via the annihilation of Allied units and holding of key on map objectives, why not just make the auto defeat condition where the Axis fails to get at least 1 unit off the board? Simply touching the Meuse to my mind from a historical viewpoint is neither here nor there.

[sa_gibson]

Tweaking VP values for objectives AND tweaking VP thresholds AND tweaking British release is a lot of moving parts that impact all players. Overall, the statistics on balance for game center games is very good. The proposal was intended as a focused solution that would minimize disruption for the majority of players unaffected by turtling: "First do no harm!"

That's a fair point, but you could try just one. The Axis player will score 10+ VP for St Vith over the course of the game. Eliminate those VPs, and the success rate for the turtling strategy would certainly decline. Why not try it? It's simpler than your suggestions, and it doesn't involve any kludges. I suppose it's possible you'll unbalance the game in the other direction, but so what? It's already unbalanced, and you can't fix it without trying something.

Please don't get me wrong - I love this game. But it could use more balance.

[Yojimbo252]

That's a fair point, but you could try just one. The Axis player will score 10+ VP for St Vith over the course of the game. Eliminate those VPs, and the success rate for the turtling strategy would certainly decline. Why not try it? It's simpler than your suggestions, and it doesn't involve any kludges. I suppose it's possible you'll unbalance the game in the other direction, but so what? It's already unbalanced, and you can't fix it without trying something.

Please don't get me wrong - I love this game. But it could use more balance.

My thoughts entirely.

[Weids]

Hey all. I have been owning this game since December last year; An expert's advice will never be neglected, right?

I suggest, 1) On the 21th, two(2) units will be out of fuel instead of one(1).
2) AFTER 21th, this fuel supply condition will continue until a unit reaches or have reached Meuse. Note that fuel check starts on 21th.
If the Axis does not touch the Meuse, the Allied can still fight back without the British, and this is more fun than only reducing victory points. Plus, Meuse may be easier to defend (two units out of fuel on the 21th regardless), and the Allied will potentially have more available units to possibly better defend key spaces whose control are critical for certain strategies . Moreover, it allows for more versatile tactics, and more flexible playing style because of the increased importance of chance which is already great. The good thing is that the allied may be able to counter attack without the release of the British.

Ideas?

[rddfxx]

I am quite satisfied with the current game balance because playing as the allied is fun and challenging, and I don't care if I lose. I don't lose much against expert players even.

Ha! I have my doubts about the expertise of your opponents

[Yojimbo252]

In fact, to be very personal, I am quite satisfied with the current game balance because playing as the allied is fun and challenging, and I don't care if I lose. I don't lose much against expert players even.

How do you know the players you're beating as Allies are 'experts'?

I don't think this is a perfect idea. The Allied could win very early. This is potentially dangerous for inexperienced players, otherwise this is a easy solution.

I feel like we're playing 2 very different games. Against an experienced Axis player I don't think there is much risk of the Allies winning very early even with this change. I think the issue with the change is that it makes it very difficult for the Axis to win games that are played in the right spirit but go the distance, ie. late game.

I suggest, 1) Two(2) units will be out of fuel instead of one(1).
2) AFTER 21th, the severe fuel supply condition will continue until a unit reaches or have reached Meuse. Note fuel check starts on 21th.

I don't like the fact that rather arbitrary triggers are placed upon reaching the Meuse. It's already of strategic importance and there are VP conditions attached with crossing it and holding a line of supply to those units. I personally think that's enough.

The British being triggered seems arbitrary and in fact it's been discussed that the British historically were more likely to be released if the Axis were doing poorly rather than doing well to capitalise on the situation.

I don't fully understand the rationale behind the OKW reserves being triggered upon reaching the Meuse. Was Hitler less likely to commit these troops if the Axis were doing badly and the offensive was faltering? Perhaps someone can explain that one to me from a historical perspective as my knowledge on the subject is limited.

The ideas being thrown around on introducing more triggers just overcomplicates the game in my opinion. The Axis must reach the Meuse by a certain date or lose. Increased fuel shortages until the Axis reach the Meuse. It's all very gamey in my opinion.

Just eliminate the incentive to avoid the Meuse entirely, tweak the VPs (if necessary) and see how things stand.

The gameplay itself is beautifully simple. It's these added complexities around triggers that spoils things.

Anyway, I and others have made our thoughts pretty clear regarding this issue and it's been discussed for several months now. SS it's decision time.

[Weids]

Briefing: (refer to a previous post by Weid for detail)
1) On the 21th, two(2) units will be out of fuel instead of one(1).
2) AFTER 21th, this fuel supply condition will continue until a unit reaches or have reached Meuse. Note that fuel check starts on 21th.


Since the Axis were not advancing, it would not capture fuel from the Allied, but losing fuel to the Allied. The fuel ran low because the panzers were repositioning up and down the front.


Edit: Not touching the Meuse is a strong indication/sign of, in the days that follow, vast fuel consumption, because of the long-distance travel behind the line, and limited ways of fuel resupply. Hence, critical fuel shortage for not touching the Meuse is not a punishment for the Axis, but, instead, it adheres somewhat to the situation that is likely to manifest if the Axis were to diverge from real history and go for a limited outcome. The players represent Adolf Hitler.

Edit: This fuel change makes reaching the Meuse from the South impossible without maximizing the advancing momentum, because the 21th is when the Axis attempts the crossing. Well...

[Yojimbo252]

Since the Axis is not advancing, it would not capture fuel from the Allied, but losing fuel to the Allied. The fuel ran low because its panzers were repositioning up and down the front.

I would have thought entrenching your armour in defensive positions would consume far less fuel than fighting a fluid blitzkrieg style campaign where you're driving your panzer divisions hundreds of miles into enemy territory.

But that to one side, surely it's easier to simply remove the incentive to avoid the Meuse than start layering more and more punishments in avoiding it until such point as the Axis player feels they're forced into the decision.

[Weids]

Since the Axis is not advancing, it would not capture fuel from the Allied, but losing fuel to the Allied. The fuel ran low because its panzers were repositioning up and down the front.

I would have thought entrenching your armour in defensive positions would consume far less fuel than fighting a fluid blitzkrieg style campaign where you're driving your panzer divisions hundreds of miles into enemy territory.

But that to one side, surely it's easier to simply remove the incentive to avoid the Meuse than start layering more and more punishments in avoiding it until such point as the Axis player feels they're forced into the decision.

Edit: Not touching the Meuse is simply a strong indication/sign of, in the days that follow, vast fuel consumption, because of long-distance travel behind the line, and limited ways of fuel resupply. Hence, Critical fuel shortage for not touching the Meuse is not a punishment for the Axis, but, instead, it adheres well to the situation that is likely to manifest if the Axis were to diverge from real history and go for a limited outcome. Be openminded!

[sa_gibson]

For those of you looking to create some artificial balance in BOTB, join us over at QT3. Our scoring system discounts the sitzkrieg, treating Axis victories without touching the Meuse as a draw. Seems to be working!

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk ... el-Tourney

[Dogrel]

I believe p,at balance is good. It seems to me that the player with game experience and skill usually wins, say 90%.

[thedudeabidez]

>The only real conformation I've seen from Shenandoah is that the data they have - as expressed in actual game results - shows the game is balanced.

Just a thought, but my view is that the more inexperienced players seem to be setting up many more games as the Axis than as the Allies. Experienced Allied players can indeed beat inexperienced Axis, so my guess is this is what's happening. If I take random game opponents off of Game Center these days, I almost always find the opponent has selected the Axis. What would be an interesting metric is to look at the Axis/Allied win-loss ratio amongst players with 50 non-AI games or more. In this category, my guess would be 75-80% Axis victories.

[thedudeabidez]

>treating Axis victories without touching the Meuse as a draw. Seems to be working

Yeah, I could definitely see this as a solution.

[jarg1]

For those of you looking to create some artificial balance in BOTB, join us over at QT3. Our scoring system discounts the sitzkrieg, treating Axis victories without touching the Meuse as a draw. Seems to be working!

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk ... el-Tourney

Yes, you can balance the game using multi-game results or as in this case using an outside scoring system. But most players, myself included, don't do much if any tournament play. I'd still like to see some balance changes to the BoB scenario, or if not new scenarios that incorporate some of the ideas mentioned here.

[Jarling]

Those players I find it interesting to play with I add as friends, and then play doubleheader, i.e. one match each as the Axis.
The winner is the one with the best result, meassured by the date with points as tiebreaker.

The result is fine aggressive blitz-krieg in the spirit of Guderian and no turtling, since winning as early as possible is the best longterm strategy.

Another thing: Though it's not completly comparable, noone holds it against chess that the two sides is quite imbalanced ...

[Weids]

Those players I find it interesting to play with I add as friends, and then play doubleheader, i.e. one match each as the Axis.

Another thing: Though it's not completly comparable, noone holds it against chess that the two sides is quite imbalanced ...

I've matched against Jarling 74 on game centre. May it be you? If we had matched and you had had me as friend, I would like to have two to three games as the allied with you instead of "one match each as the Axis".

With whom do you play chess?