GS Game Balance
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:40 pm
It has always seemed to me (and maybe this is why some of the buddies I know who originally bought the game no longer play) that CEaW and GS by their nature are imbalanced. By this I mean:
>If the units were all scripted, turn by turn I knew what I would receive and what my opponent would receive, the game could be very closely balanced, like many of those old Avalon Hill games. (Yes, even The Longest Day was balanced!) But since we are free to purchase what we prefer, this makes the balancing much more difficult. Such is the nature of the beast, n'est-ce pas? Makes it more interesting and personal too. It makes the game much more difficult for those poor souls like me who have no clue what to do after they tour Paris or to know what to expect as possibilities. But the team seems to have balanced things mostly so that despite these points I still muddle my way through a good game.
>The team has done I think an amazing job at balancing all the myriad factors. The penalty for British units leaving England and the limits on build numbers in particular.
They reacted to the early invasion of Italy move. The French Armistice hasn't seemed to throw things off.
The latest with the Morris discarding Britain and Brit planes in Russia seems to have caused a stumbling. But could we not have this strategy revealed and discussed as the AARs are being played, so that ideas can be tossed and any imbalance could hopefully be balanced? I don't particularly care that the strategy can be proven. I accept that. But to have to sit and wait, twiddling appendages, for another month or two or more to reach the end and be able to then say, yup, imbalance, and then have to start thinking on ways to fix the concern seems to me to be the wrong way to approach it.
>If the units were all scripted, turn by turn I knew what I would receive and what my opponent would receive, the game could be very closely balanced, like many of those old Avalon Hill games. (Yes, even The Longest Day was balanced!) But since we are free to purchase what we prefer, this makes the balancing much more difficult. Such is the nature of the beast, n'est-ce pas? Makes it more interesting and personal too. It makes the game much more difficult for those poor souls like me who have no clue what to do after they tour Paris or to know what to expect as possibilities. But the team seems to have balanced things mostly so that despite these points I still muddle my way through a good game.
>The team has done I think an amazing job at balancing all the myriad factors. The penalty for British units leaving England and the limits on build numbers in particular.
They reacted to the early invasion of Italy move. The French Armistice hasn't seemed to throw things off.
The latest with the Morris discarding Britain and Brit planes in Russia seems to have caused a stumbling. But could we not have this strategy revealed and discussed as the AARs are being played, so that ideas can be tossed and any imbalance could hopefully be balanced? I don't particularly care that the strategy can be proven. I accept that. But to have to sit and wait, twiddling appendages, for another month or two or more to reach the end and be able to then say, yup, imbalance, and then have to start thinking on ways to fix the concern seems to me to be the wrong way to approach it.