Play balance

[rbeyma]

I think one opportunity the game has when its gets a revision is to fix the mindset of the players. For me at least, most games I play as the Germans I'm thinking, let me make sure I don't lose because I should be able to get the VPs and coast to victory with good defensive positions. My mindset with the Allies is, I need to figure out a way to break the German line and get an offensive going later. The Germans only need 25 VPs to win, and they always get there without considering German losses. So it becomes, lets make sure I don't lose too many units.

Historically, I think everyone knows that the ball was in the German court to make something happen and break the Allies line. The game doesn't feel that way among experienced players, its the opposite. The Allies are the ones looking for a successful attack somewhere, and the Germans are looking to contain things.

I think the solution to this problem is the make VPs harder for the Germans to get close to the start line, and reward them more for going far and penetrating further.

[cosarara]

I think the solution to this problem is the make VPs harder for the Germans to get close to the start line, and reward them more for going far and penetrating further.

Don't agree: the way the game is now structured there is no problem for the German player to penetrate the thinly held allied lines early on.
In the way you propose you just put an historical mindset on the German player, but you don't balance the game, in order to do the latter we need a bidding system.

Time to improve the GAme Center options.

[s_pixelgeek]

Given the aim of the game and the scenarios perhaps a solution is to make the lack of control of any zone on the Meuse be an instant loss for the Germans?

[blahblah3502]

Given the aim of the game and the scenarios perhaps a solution is to make the lack of control of any zone on the Meuse be an instant loss for the Germans?

I like this solution!
maybe "across the Meuse" not just on the Meuse?

[Yojimbo252]

Given the aim of the game and the scenarios perhaps a solution is to make the lack of control of any zone on the Meuse be an instant loss for the Germans?

I like this solution!
maybe "across the Meuse" not just on the Meuse?

That seems a bit too deterministic.

I don't have a strong opinion at this moment whether the victory conditions need adjusting in order to change mindsets. But if the goal is to encourage the German player to act more aggressively in trying to cross the Meuse and exit the Northwest part of the map then I'd suggest the simplest solution is to increase the VP thresholds required for an Axis win and also increase the VPs awarded for having Axis units in supply on the other side of the Meuse and/or exit the map.

As the points awarded for eliminated units and holding towns/cities just got less valuable relative to the Meuse objectives Axis players will naturally value achieving the latter more highly.

[s_pixelgeek]

I don't have a strong opinion at this moment whether the victory conditions need adjusting in order to change mindsets. But if the goal is to encourage the German player to act more aggressively in trying to cross the Meuse and exit the Northwest part of the map then I'd suggest the simplest solution is to increase the VP thresholds required for an Axis win and also increase the VPs awarded for having Axis units in supply on the other side of the Meuse and/or exit the map.

As the points awarded for eliminated units and holding towns/cities just got less valuable relative to the Meuse objectives Axis players will naturally value achieving the latter more highly.

I think the idea is to punish players for not acting aggressively not to make it more difficult for players that already do.

[Yojimbo252]

I think the idea is to punish players for not acting aggressively not to make it more difficult for players that already do.

It's not actually making it more difficult for players that already play aggressively because as mentioned the VPs awarded for the Meuse objectives would be increased.

What it's doing is making the capture Bastogne / Verviers sit and hold strategy less viable because the VPs awared for cities remains the same against the increased VP thresholds.

[rddfxx]

I think a simple solution would be reduce or time out VPs for objectives on the eastern half of the map, especially St Vith and Bastogne. For example, the historical German "Long Solution" objectives, the Meuse, Liege, and (good grief) Antwerp were set by Hitler. The game's objectives seem to be weighted more heavily towards the German generals' prefered "Short Solution" . VPs for St Vith and Bastogne ought to be accrued for only a short period, perhaps allowing the Germans to earn points early, then terminating additional accruals by Dec 20th or 21st. So the idea is to set a timetable for VPs, at least on the eastern and southern edges, so the German must drive for these objectives early, then onwards to the actual Wacht am Rhein goals.

[rddfxx]

But this would done via options switches.

[rbeyma]

This may be a personal preference as much as anything, but I think too many options switches would divide the community into factions of who plays what options. The beauty of this game is in its accessibility and simplicity. A few options that change and its a different game. And while I as an individual would like some of the options being proposed, the effect it would have on the community as a whole in creating a barrier to matchmaking and extra work in becoming familiar with all the different options is undesirable.

[s_nkarp]

Agree. We want to avoid variants, both because it complicates strategy discussion and because each branch multiplies what's required for proper testing. It also forces US to make decisions and prioritize, rather than taking the easy way out.

[s_ron42na]

This may be a personal preference as much as anything, but I think too many options switches would divide the community into factions of who plays what options. The beauty of this game is in its accessibility and simplicity. A few options that change and its a different game. And while I as an individual would like some of the options being proposed, the effect it would have on the community as a whole in creating a barrier to matchmaking and extra work in becoming familiar with all the different options is undesirable.

As someone that just listed options as something I'd like to see, I think you raised some good counter points. (now I have to go back and rethink my earlier comments...)

[thedudeabidez]

"Historically, I think everyone knows that the ball was in the German court to make something happen and break the Allies line. The game doesn't feel that way among experienced players, its the opposite. The Allies are the ones looking for a successful attack somewhere, and the Germans are looking to contain things."

Not always, but that can be the case. The Germans have the chance to smash the Allies early on, but if they have bad dice or a short 16th/17th, they can certainly move into turtle mode and make the Allies try to fight for it. I just beat an opponent that way, holding only Bastogne and St. Vith, and I must say it doesn't feel like much of a win. Then again, he did lose 19 points of units by the 21st. If the German doesn't make a credible threat to the Meuse, however, he cedes the initiative to the Allies, and with a bit of luck, they can make him pay. I've only lost to as the Allies to aggressive Axis players, never to the defensive-oriented ones.

One idea I had was for the full-game through the 28th option: both players have "real" victory conditions. The Germans must cross the Meuse and exit the map with at least one unit. The Allies must push the Germans back to their start lines by the end of the 28th. Failure to achieve either would result in a point tally for victory, or perhaps a draw. This would certainly encourage all-out play. Maybe keep the score hidden until the end to discourage players from constantly counting points. Though even if points were being counted, if I were the German, I would try as hard as possible for the auto if I knew the game was definitely going through the 28th.

I wouldn't say the above is a perfect solution, but it might be a good starting point. Thoughts?

[s_nkarp]

The classic problem with Bulge games is that the Axis quits just as it's getting fun for the Allied player. After the weather turns the Germans know they're not getting any new breakthroughs. So we need to give both players a chance to win even after a true historic win is impossible. Some players might continue just to deny the Allies a win, or to draw, but many would not.

That being said, we may have tuned it so that it is too alluring for the Axis to turtle -- time will tell

[s_Mylo]

Tweak the VPs making it harder for the Axis to win. It should be fairly tough for the Germans to win a BOtB game, and not 'balanced'. If you're up for the challenge, play the Germans. If you're not, play the Allies. The stats SHOULD show about a 35% win rate for the Germans for a BOtB game.

Mylo

[blahblah3502]

Tweak the VPs making it harder for the Axis to win. It should be fairly tough for the Germans to win a BOtB game, and not 'balanced'. If you're up for the challenge, play the Germans. If you're not, play the Allies. The stats SHOULD show about a 35% win rate for the Germans for a BOtB game.

Mylo

I like this idea but it sounds to me it should be a separate, higher difficulty mode. Otherwise, with only one mode and using the not-balanced version, from the beginner's (assume no knowledge of the history of the battle either) point of view, the Germans are easier and fun to play at the start but (they later find out ) much harder to win with; while the Americans are boring and frustrating to play with for the beginner at the start and only if they persist does the newbie discover its easier to win as the Allies. So the setup might be off-putting for beginners


So I suggest a "Balanced Mode" (50-50 as things as are now) and a separate "Veteran" Mode (Mylo's 35% win rate for Germans)

[s_Mylo]

Is it possible we are not giving 'beginners' enough credit for being reasonably intelligent and interested enough to learn a little bit about the actual battle ? BOtB has done an excellent job of providing background information right in game, they don't even have to look for it. New players have to know that BOtB is not a game of.....my green army men against your tan army men on the livingroom floor...don't they ? If BOtB strives to be balanced, it ceases to be a BOtB game. ....it becomes Axis vs Allies in the Ardennes.

Mylo

[Yojimbo252]

As mentioned previously I think a simple solution is to increase the VPs awarded for the Meuse objectives relative to simply holding towns/cities (tweaking the upper VP thresholds if necessary).

This way you can still maintain a 50/50 chance of winning as either Axis or Allies to keep the game balanced but it will make it relatively harder for the Axis to win simply by turtling. Not impossible, just harder which therefore provides a bigger incentive for Axis to play more aggressively which in turn creates a more fluid and (in my opinion) exciting game.

Isn't this the best of both world?

[blahblah3502]

I was wondering if bumping up the effects of Allied airpower after the weather has cleared might be a useful option.
At the moment, it seems muted to me vs. what I understand the historical impact was like. Maybe a bump up to the hitroll bonus and/or a few random air attacks on individual Axis units not in deep forest each day for a chance of a -1 strength unit hit?

[s_nkarp]

Heh, Allied airpower was originally more powerful than it is. We toned it down to give the Axis more options in the later game.

Anyway, if we get compelling evidence from tournaments that one side is winning a disproportionate number of games (in the last few rounds, where all players should be experienced) then we'll take action of some sort. I think everyone can agree that we don't want to be monkeying with the rules and victory conditions too often!