Slitherine

2:1 is the basic formula I have for balancing a historical wargame. By that I mean that I try to balance the game in such a way that the historical victor has a better chance of winning the battle in a game between two evenly matched players. So this means that if you want to "reverse history" then you have to come up with something a little bit special.

Is this a reasonable approach to take with a scenario? What do people think (players and scenario-builders)?

Thanks for your input, chaps.

The alternative to my 2:1 approach is to ignore the historical context and just set the troops up with their normal values (as in the DAG games). I think this is just as valid an approach as my 2:1 but it does mean that certain historical scenarios will just not work as well e.g. Ancrum Moor 1545 and Pinkie Cleuch 1547.

Max? Tony? Gaius Marius? What do you think?

Just saw this topic when browsing for old scenarios.

I think it really depends on the particular battle in question. I think your approach is correct if we are dealing with historical battles that were fought between "even" commanders, where none of the commanders made any big blunder or came up with an wonderful tactic.

However, then we have those historica battles wher ethe forces were quite even and victory was gained through elements that are hard to simulate directly in FoG - better leadership, cavalry units that got out of control in pursuit, orders not getting delivered, commanders killed by a lucky shot...
Good examples of that would be Raphia 217 BCE where the forces were quite even, the battle decided by more of a fluke of fate and Ccommand and control issues (Ptolemaics gaining C&C over their victorious wing faster than the Seleucids over thir victorious wing). I think in this case, the FoG scenario of Raphia should be much more balanced than 2:1 (even if we do give the Ptolemaics advantages like commandrs with greater command range etc).

Somewhat similar would be Hastings, where both sides it seems were pretty evenly matched and the final outcome hanged in the blance for hours, until the battle was decided pretty much by luck - Harald getting himself killed by a lucky shot, despite Wilhelm being in more danger throuought the battle.

An even more vivid example of this would be Cannae, where even Roman historians agree taht Rome had a serious numerical advantage and that it was superior tactics and leadership that won the battle for Carthage. Again, this might be tricky to simulate in FoG. We an give Carthage better command ranges, and place the Carthaginian starting flanks position in such a way as to gve them some advantage. Still, giving carthage a "2:1" style advantage here would require us to go against historical facts and giving them larger troop number or higher quality troops than the sources say they actually had.

Then we have historical battles that ended up as pretty much of a draw, where both sides claimed victory of some sort or where the scale of the victory was very slim. A good example of that would be Fornovo. Giving any side a "2:1" style advantage here wouldn't be tru to th facts.

stockwellpete wrote:2:1 is the basic formula I have for balancing a historical wargame. By that I mean that I try to balance the game in such a way that the historical victor has a better chance of winning the battle in a game between two evenly matched players. So this means that if you want to "reverse history" then you have to come up with something a little bit special.

Is this a reasonable approach to take with a scenario? What do people think (players and scenario-builders)?

2:1 difference on numbers?

Pete, you have frequently included some additional rules and indications in posting new scenarios, e.g. Agincourt where the French knights have operational restrictions concerning the woods surrounding the English forces. Other similar restrictions have been keeping certain units from moving until a break point level has been reached. These additional rules are very useful in trying both to enhance historical accuracy and achieve balance. A more drawn out option would be to post two versions of a given scenario by the same author: one designed for historical accuracy and another one gamed for playability. Neither would be perfect of course, given the format limitations already mentioned above, but presenting the antithesis along with the thesis could produce a nice synthesis, eventually. May Hegel forgive me (I don't care what Marx thinks)

Sabratha wrote:Just saw this topic when browsing for old scenarios.

I think it really depends on the particular battle in question. I think your approach is correct if we are dealing with historical battles that were fought between "even" commanders, where none of the commanders made any big blunder or came up with an wonderful tactic.

However, then we have those historica battles wher ethe forces were quite even and victory was gained through elements that are hard to simulate directly in FoG - better leadership, cavalry units that got out of control in pursuit, orders not getting delivered, commanders killed by a lucky shot...
Good examples of that would be Raphia 217 BCE where the forces were quite even, the battle decided by more of a fluke of fate and Ccommand and control issues (Ptolemaics gaining C&C over their victorious wing faster than the Seleucids over thir victorious wing). I think in this case, the FoG scenario of Raphia should be much more balanced than 2:1 (even if we do give the Ptolemaics advantages like commandrs with greater command range etc).

Somewhat similar would be Hastings, where both sides it seems were pretty evenly matched and the final outcome hanged in the blance for hours, until the battle was decided pretty much by luck - Harald getting himself killed by a lucky shot, despite Wilhelm being in more danger throuought the battle.

An even more vivid example of this would be Cannae, where even Roman historians agree taht Rome had a serious numerical advantage and that it was superior tactics and leadership that won the battle for Carthage. Again, this might be tricky to simulate in FoG. We an give Carthage better command ranges, and place the Carthaginian starting flanks position in such a way as to gve them some advantage. Still, giving carthage a "2:1" style advantage here would require us to go against historical facts and giving them larger troop number or higher quality troops than the sources say they actually had.

Then we have historical battles that ended up as pretty much of a draw, where both sides claimed victory of some sort or where the scale of the victory was very slim. A good example of that would be Fornovo. Giving any side a "2:1" style advantage here wouldn't be tru to th facts.

I don't disagree really, Sabratha. I started this thread over a year ago and at that time I was really only attempting scenarios where the sides were fairly evenly matched. So the "2:1" idea was just a way of making sure that the historical victor had a slight advantage in the battle - and approaching it in this way meant that I was less likely to produce a historical scenario where I had erroneously favoured the losing side. Since that time of writing I have become a lot more ambitious in the range of scenarios that I build - and now I am quite confident about taking on more difficult battles.

I also initiated a thread called something like "Recreating history or making a good wargame" which also addressed these issues, particularly with respect to more one-sided battles. My approach here is to definitely try and make a good wargame rather than to re-create a massacre or a rout. For example, in my Homildon (Humbleton) Hill scenario of 1402, the Scots do have a chance to win, even though the real battle was a disaster for them. Similarly, they do have a chance at Flodden just over a hundred years later even though they suffered another very heavy defeat there. So these type of scenarios do have a "fictional", or a "highly subjective" element to them. Personally speaking, I do not think that re-creating routs is a particularly useful, or entertaining, exercise - the replayability factor is probably zero.

Fedem wrote: 2:1 difference on numbers?

No - 2 out of 3 chance of winning, Fedem.

ZeaBed wrote:Pete, you have frequently included some additional rules and indications in posting new scenarios, e.g. Agincourt where the French knights have operational restrictions concerning the woods surrounding the English forces. Other similar restrictions have been keeping certain units from moving until a break point level has been reached. These additional rules are very useful in trying both to enhance historical accuracy and achieve balance. A more drawn out option would be to post two versions of a given scenario by the same author: one designed for historical accuracy and another one gamed for playability. Neither would be perfect of course, given the format limitations already mentioned above, but presenting the antithesis along with the thesis could produce a nice synthesis, eventually. May Hegel forgive me (I don't care what Marx thinks)

Yes, I agree. The use of historical rules certainly does help to balance a scenario - and I think that 99% of players will quite happily abide with the restrictions you place on movement or whatever. Scenario players are usually very keen on their history and like the "what if" element that you can sometimes build into scenarios.

Marx said that capitalism was an increasingly crisis-prone stage of human history, didn't he? Not wrong, was he?

Hi Stockwellpete, now i understand a lot of things. Now its clear for me why i lost or won so many onlinescenario so clearly.

If i had known this before i alway playd a paired game. This is the one and only way to have a realistic result.

So i think i must apollogise to ian for his "not ballanced " game.

In people general we go a totally different way, we always try to have chances to win 1 by 1. And in every wargame i playd through the last years
its the same. To play a game where i know i have no chance to win is a new, and i must confess, strange thing to me.
But why not, now i know how it works and i will use to it, thanks for information.

But there is a problem from my few. Some scenariodesigners does the ballance 1 : 1 and some 2 : 1 like you.
If the ballance is not written down in the scenariointro singleplayers like me does not know which difficultsettings the best for the game.

Micha wrote: In people general we go a totally different way, we always try to have chances to win 1 by 1. And in every wargame i playd through the last years
its the same. To play a game where i know i have no chance to win is a new, and i must confess, strange thing to me.
But why not, now i know how it works and i will use to it, thanks for information.

I think you misunderstand, Micha. In percentage terms (%), 2:1 means roughly 55-45, or maybe 60-40. All my scenarios are for multi-player and both players have a reasonable chance to win. I do not make one-sided scenarios where one player has no chance to win.

Yes, i really missunderstood.
But sorry my english is not the best, i was a lazy english student. My old english teacher would laugh in his grave
if he could hear me.

stockwellpete wrote:

ZeaBed wrote:Pete, you have frequently included some additional rules and indications in posting new scenarios, e.g. Agincourt where the French knights have operational restrictions concerning the woods surrounding the English forces. Other similar restrictions have been keeping certain units from moving until a break point level has been reached. These additional rules are very useful in trying both to enhance historical accuracy and achieve balance. A more drawn out option would be to post two versions of a given scenario by the same author: one designed for historical accuracy and another one gamed for playability. Neither would be perfect of course, given the format limitations already mentioned above, but presenting the antithesis along with the thesis could produce a nice synthesis, eventually. May Hegel forgive me (I don't care what Marx thinks)

Yes, I agree. The use of historical rules certainly does help to balance a scenario - and I think that 99% of players will quite happily abide with the restrictions you place on movement or whatever. Scenario players are usually very keen on their history and like the "what if" element that you can sometimes build into scenarios.

Marx said that capitalism was an increasingly crisis-prone stage of human history, didn't he? Not wrong, was he?

And there must be factoring in of the relative reliability/unreliability of historical records on ancient and medieval battles, which further complicate matters. Regarding Marx's crisis-prone view of history, I think he could have said that of just about all human endeavor and human-made systems, as per also Arnold Toynbee. Look at Communism and the Euro system. But that's another scenario building system.

ZeaBed wrote: And there must be factoring in of the relative reliability/unreliability of historical records on ancient and medieval battles, which further complicate matters.

Yes, that's very true. Even for later medieval battles, such as some of those in the War of the Roses (1455-87), they are still not sure of the actual sites of some of the battles. They think now they have identified where Bosworth Field (1485) took place, but Barnet (1471) is still open to question.

stockwellpete wrote:

ZeaBed wrote: And there must be factoring in of the relative reliability/unreliability of historical records on ancient and medieval battles, which further complicate matters.

Yes, that's very true. Even for later medieval battles, such as some of those in the War of the Roses (1455-87), they are still not sure of the actual sites of some of the battles. They think now they have identified where Bosworth Field (1485) took place, but Barnet (1471) is still open to question.

Yep, we have the same thing with many medieval battles here in central Europe. Big 14th and 15th battles (Grunwald for example) are usually well described and weknow where they took place. But 13th century or earlier are notoriously unreliable, in many cases modern historians come up with very different battle sites and numbers.