Play balance

[Yojimbo252]

The ironic thing, I've found, is that the better you play as the Allies in the early game -- delaying the Axis, blocking their advances -- the more likely it is your opponent will go with this defensive strategy which means almost certain loss. I'm almost thinking it's better to risk an early Meuse crossing loss and tempt your opponent into advancing, because playing against the defensive Axis position with no Brits is just slow death.

I couldn't agree more.

In the past few games as Allies I've intentionally left an opening for the Axis to win by crossing the Meuse. In one game it backfired because of some incredible Axis dice (9 hits scored in a single attack to eliminate 2 full strength elite Inf defending in Huy giving them the breakthrough) and I lost on the 19th. It might seem gamey but those are the kind of risks the Allied player needs to take to make a game of it.

"It creates an imbalance not between the axis and allies but an imbalance in the axis strategies where one is certainly dominant over the others that involve touching the Meuse."

I agree with the 2nd half, but it is also worth pointing out that if the Axis largely refrains from attacking and conserves his forces, he may well in fact outnumber the Allied forces (without the British) that are supposed to conduct an offensive against him.

True but the point I'm making here is not whether the game is balanced between the Axis and Allies. It's that whilst the condition remains, you won't be able to balance the game between the Axis strategies.

For example, let's say it's generally accepted that the game is biased towards Axis and we want to resolve that. The simplest method would be tweaking the VP thresholds such that both sides have a relatively even chance. The problem the condition introduces is that if you tweak the VPs such that the Allies have an even chance against an Axis defensive strategy (because it's arguably the strongest) you may be making it very difficult for the Axis to win with an aggressive strategy.

Balance the VPs to even the Allied chances vs an Axis aggressive strategy and you make winning with an Axis defensive strategy too easy, which is arguably the case now.

[s_nkarp]

I really appreciate this discussion, guys: good detail and a lot of thought.

The tournament is in its third round. I have asked that careful records be kept, so we'll have facts to deal with balance.

But the issues you guys raise are deeper than that: motivating good axis players to take the chances that make for a fun game. Two ideas I'm batting around:
1) Increase victory thresholds by ~5 AND give a one-time VP award of ~8 the first time the Axis touches the Meuse.
2) Release the Brits on the 2nd turn after touching the Meuse, rather than immediately (otherwise the penalty for hitting the Meuse late in the game is too severe).

Thoughts?

[Yojimbo252]

1) Increase victory thresholds by ~5 AND give a one-time VP award of ~8 the first time the Axis touches the Meuse.

It's a slightly convoluted solution and whilst the condition remains which effectively gives control of when the Brits arrives to the Axis, it can be manipulated.

For example, the Axis still play their defensive strategy with no real intention to cross the Meuse to avoid triggering the British early. Just as the 26th arrives they rush a unit forward that was waiting in the wings in some obscure position with no strategic importance (Bouillion for example) to grab the 8VPs.

2) Release the Brits on the 2nd turn after touching the Meuse, rather than immediately (otherwise the penalty for hitting the Meuse late in the game is too severe).

That doesn't really address the problem of the Axis avoiding the Meuse entirely.

I was wondering Nick what your thoughts were to the following suggestion and if you foresaw any problems...

Remove the Meuse triggering condition for the British completely so they will always be able to cross the Meuse on a fixed date (or variable date range if you want to randomise it slightly over a given period to create a bit of uncertainty).

[s_nkarp]

The Brits are released automatically on the 26th already. We could try it earlier, I suppose.

[Yojimbo252]

The Brits are released automatically on the 26th already. We could try it earlier, I suppose.

That's the proposal as the 26th is too late but it's important the early triggering condition is removed for the reasons mentioned previously.

Say fixed date of 24th or perhaps variable date range of 23rd / 24th / 25th with percentage chance of say 30% / 40% / 30%.

[AikiPhil]

I've been reading this thread carefully and it's really interesting. I'm currently in the on-going tournament and I had one observation that I think might slightly invalidate findings from the tournament: because the tournament games are two-way, one game as axis and one as allies it changes the dynamics of things. Playing as axis I can 99% guarantee myself a win. Like many players I've yet to lose a single game as axis. By turtling, either voluntarily or due to a slow start on the 16th it is remarkably difficult for the allied player. However, turtling is a long-game strategy. Winning this way will put me at severe risk in a tournament game that when my opponent plays as axis he goes aggressive and gets an early win. The net result being that I then lose. Because of this added risk it makes me much more inclined to go aggressive as axis than I probably otherwise would in a single game. In essence the game plays far better when you HAVE to play both sides than when you only have to play one side. By knowing that you must play both sides it greatly discourages turtling.

I do have a lot more observations that I'd like to share after the tournament has finished, many of which reinforce comments other posters have made. But as many have said, it's going to be a significant challenge to adjust the game in such a way that it doesn't throw things out too much. Some of the very best games I've had have gone all the way to the wire and these usually occur when both players play in the 'spirit' of the game. I love this game but must confess that I've steadily been losing a bit of interest due to some of the highlighted problems.

Phil

[Yojimbo252]

I've been reading this thread carefully and it's really interesting. I'm currently in the on-going tournament and I had one observation that I think might slightly invalidate findings from the tournament: because the tournament games are two-way, one game as axis and one as allies it changes the dynamics of things. Playing as axis I can 99% guarantee myself a win. Like many players I've yet to lose a single game as axis. By turtling, either voluntarily or due to a slow start on the 16th it is remarkably difficult for the allied player. However, turtling is a long-game strategy. Winning this way will put me at severe risk in a tournament game that when my opponent plays as axis he goes aggressive and gets an early win. The net result being that I then lose. Because of this added risk it makes me much more inclined to go aggressive as axis than I probably otherwise would in a single game. In essence the game plays far better when you HAVE to play both sides than when you only have to play one side. By knowing that you must play both sides it greatly discourages turtling.

That's a very good point and not something I would have considered not being in the tournament.

I do have a lot more observations that I'd like to share after the tournament has finished, many of which reinforce comments other posters have made. But as many have said, it's going to be a significant challenge to adjust the game in such a way that it doesn't throw things out too much. Some of the very best games I've had have gone all the way to the wire and these usually occur when both players play in the 'spirit' of the game. I love this game but must confess that I've steadily been losing a bit of interest due to some of the highlighted problems.

I completely agree that my most enjoyable games have been where the Axis player 'does the right thing' and attempts to cross the Meuse. These games are much more likely to go the distance with tension all along the way.

I actually think the solution proposed won't throw things out very much at all. All it will do is encourage players to play in the spirit of the game (as you rightly put it) by taking away any incentive for the Axis to avoid the Meuse.

If the Brits are going to come at a date earlier than the 26th irrespective of what the Axis does, the Axis player might as well maximise their points by pushing to and across the Meuse as well as securing as many of the OKW reserves as they can.

[boone737]

Oh, no. I'm convinced the game is broken.

I have good result as Allies only against an inexperienced Axis or extremely good luck. And if luck is the game, then the Axis turtles. At that point, I have to go back to luck and hope I can reduced the Axis points by more per day than he gets by turtling. Not a good prospect, but doable.

A smart Axis will be able to cross the Meuse and be able to cover the flank in the event of "bait". They just need time. More "broken".

Something's gotta give.

[jarg1]

I'll throw in a few observations, though probably nothing new.

First, I'm not sure if this is related, but I notice that when I choose auto-match, inevitably I get the Allies if I'm not prompted to select a scenario and side. Does this indicate that most players that create new games prefer the Germans? I suspect so, and I have to think the great prospect of victory enters into the decision. Personally I find this interesting as I enjoy the challenge of playing the Allies. But I have to admit some frustration when all too frequently losing to German players who I regard as, at best, my equals in skill. Then again, perhaps I just overestimate my own abilities.

And some thoughts on how the balance relates to the simulation properties of the game. I'm no expert on the actual battle, and admit I may misunderstand what I have read in Wiki articles on various aspect of the actual battle, but BoB seem to guarantee a historical outcome is nearly impossible, and that Allies in the game will always under perform their historical counterparts. For example, according to one article "The battle for Elsenborn Ridge was a decisive component of the Battle of the Bulge, deflecting the strongest armored units of the German advance." In fact it never fell. Good luck with that one Allied player, assuming the territory by that name in the game is the same as the historic location. As the Allies, I just hope some of the units in that area survive long enough to retreat west. St. Vith was evacuated on the 21st. Hard to believe if all you know about the actual battle is what you've seen in the game, I think. Of course everyone knows Bastogne also held despite being a German priority. Again, it's possible in the game, but only if the German decides he can live without it, but in my experience any competent German player can take Bastogne even if the Allied player also throws everything he can spare that way. Surrounded units in Bastogne are going to die, not reply "Nuts". The best the German army actually managed in the real battle was to advance to somewhere in the area listed as Marche, or possibly Dinant, which they reached on the 23rd. Interestingly enough, in game terms that is a rare event, mostly because the better, and therefore more common German strategy is to take the easier, more valuable, and smarter gains in the north, and the gains and disruption of Allied reinforcements in the south. I guess we should be happy the real German generals didn't think of that one! Part of the problem they encountered was that the US engineers were destroying bridges rendering rivers uncrossable. I'm not aware of any way to do that in BoB, though I can certainly remember more than a few instances when it might have been helpful. Which brings me to the British entry. I know that historically they were held at the Meuse, but I don't think the game takes into account the context. They stayed there because the Allied command feared the German would do much better than they actually did. I would speculate that had the need or opportunity arisen to use them in another way, they would have been released earlier, for example if the Germans decided to stop the offensive and start building defensive lines. Regarding Allied air power, I read that the game developers actually dialed it down because the Germans were losing so badly with stronger air modifiers. Hard to imagine, as the only time I get to massacre the Germans is if they are sub-par players. But in any case, in reality once Allied air came into play, the Germans essentially lost the use of anything mechanized. And that was without the support of any ground units. I don't think this idea is reflected in game play at all. So how does any of this relate to balance? I know that BoB isn't really a simulation, but I suspect some of the historical realities could be used as inspiration for changes that better balance the game.

[Yojimbo252]

A very detailed post.

An interesting insight into the British and one that lends support to the concept that they shouldn't be held back when the Axis are not making advances towards the Meuse, quite the opposite.

Although I'm not disagreeing with the general consensus that allied airpower has been toned down in the game, I think it's ok for now. It does have an impact and if we were to increase its effectiveness even more along with tweaks to the Brits etc, we may find we've gone too far and the Axis get crushed during the second half of the game which wouldn't be much fun either.

In terms of the bridges, isn't that represented in some part by the bridge interdiction rule?

[jarg1]

In my opinion, the bridge interdiction rules do not represent the destruction of bridges but rather the tactical advantage of defending a choke point. When the bridges were destroyed, armor was actually prevented from moving into areas for the course of the battle since there wasn't enough time to make repairs. Here's another Wiki quote regarding the battle demonstrating the impact (as well as that of airpower earlier in the battle):

"Capitalizing on his success and not wanting to lose more time, Peiper rushed an advance group toward the vital bridge at Trois-Ponts, leaving the bulk of his strength in Stavelot. When they reached it at 1130 on 18 December, retreating U.S. engineers blew it up in their faces. Peiper detoured north towards the village of La Gleize and Cheneaux. At Cheneaux, the advance guard was attacked by American fighter-bombers, destroying two tanks and five halftracks, blocking the narrow road. The group got moving again at dusk at 1600 and was able to return to its original route at around 1800. Of the two bridges now remaining between Kampfgruppe Peiper and the Meuse, the bridge over the Lienne was blown by the Americans as the Germans approached."

Regarding airpower, as I stated before I know BoB isn't a simulation. Everything I mentioned was meant as possible material for game tweaks.

[Yojimbo252]

I think the fact that only 1 unit can cross a river per impulse and the defender getting the +1 modifier represents the choke point effect of bridges. The interdiction to my mind is the denial through bridge obstructions, destruction and so on although I do accept its an abstract way of representing this but given the scale of the game I think it's reasonable.

I agree adjusting the air power is a further way of tweaking balance but I'd like to see the effect of resolving the British first as that may be all that's required.

[jarg1]

I think the fact that only 1 unit can cross a river per impulse and the defender getting the +1 modifier represents the choke point effect of bridges. The interdiction to my mind is the denial through bridge obstructions, destruction and so on although I do accept its an abstract way of representing this but given the scale of the game I think it's reasonable.

I agree adjusting the air power is a further way of tweaking balance but I'd like to see the effect of resolving the British first as that may be all that's required.

The way the game differs from actuality is that units can pass over rivers freely once they have been crossed, and they can always be crossed. That wasn't the case in the battle. But I'm certainly not advocating a specific change. This was just one thought.

I think as a practical matter the designers are limited in what they can change without major revisions to the code. The British timing is probably fairly easy. Which reminds me, I wonder why German commandos are randomized, but the weather and British release aren't?

[Yojimbo252]

I think the assumption is that at a division level and the size of the region represented, even if a particular bridge is 'taken out' another way across the river is eventually gained whether its pontoon crossings or a natural crossing. But that's coming from a very general military viewpoint. I don't know whether the specifics of this particular battle support my assertion.

Regarding the variable nature of some aspects I agree with you.

The weather is a tricky one. Ordinarily I would agree with you. However in this particular game it plays a significant role and a day's delay could have a dramatic effect that would impact balance. I think it's probably best for the game if it remains a constant. The way I look at it the weather is partially accounted for by the variable nature of the number of impulses per day but in a more general representation of 'varying conditions'.

[jarg1]

I think the assumption is that at a division level and the size of the region represented, even if a particular bridge is 'taken out' another way across the river is eventually gained whether its pontoon crossings or a natural crossing. But that's coming from a very general military viewpoint. I don't know whether the specifics of this particular battle support my assertion.

Regarding the variable nature of some aspects I agree with you.

The weather is a tricky one. Ordinarily I would agree with you. However in this particular game it plays a significant role and a day's delay could have a dramatic effect that would impact balance. I think it's probably best for the game if it remains a constant. The way I look at it the weather is partially accounted for by the variable nature of the number of impulses per day but in a more general representation of 'varying conditions'.

Actually as far as the weather is concerned, I wasn't thinking of delays, I was thinking of the possibility of earlier clear weather. When the large reinforcements arrive on the 22nd, I find myself having to wait a turn for the weather to improve before trying to launch my (often futile) counterattacks. The possibility of clear weather earlier could help the Allies by adding further uncertainty to the German plans.

Another thought which occurred during a game today is that it might be helpful, not to mention logical, if players could bank unused replacement points. This isn't a big change, but it would slightly favor the Allies since they get more, and therefore in theory, and in my experience, are more likely to find themselves with nothing to replace. I have had the same thing happen as the Germans however, though less often.

[Miguel_TSS]

I had a similar thought about replacements. But, on the other hand, if my replacements are getting wasted, I'm either doing really well, or not attacking enough. Though... my tactics have been called... antagonistic... by some ^.^

[jarg1]

I had a similar thought about replacements. But, on the other hand, if my replacements are getting wasted, I'm either doing really well, or not attacking enough. Though... my tactics have been called... antagonistic... by some ^.^

As the Allies, you don't necessarily get many opportunities to make useful attacks until the midgame, and if the German is sniping with panzer groups, which I find is a common tactic for players who have no intention of trying for the Meuse, their targets often don't survive long enough to benefit from replacements.

[CEC1]

I think the play balance works really well and I would hesitate before changing the VPs. I play by auto-match and win 90% of my games as Axis or Allied. When you come up against an experienced player it is a great struggle; some of my best games have been when the Axis go for the Meuse and partially succeed or are backed off. They then go into defence mode and the game can go down to the wire. The victory conditions as the Axis try and retire with dignity with their army intact work really well.

So I don't think the VP limits are broken. Rather than changing the VP needed for victory, you just need to discourage an extreme defensive mentality from the outset. I have yet to encounter this, but see how it could be done. It seems to me you can prevent this most simply by altering the level of Axis victory (and associated praise on the victory screen).

For example:

1 Decisive Victory - Axis win by Christmas Day (this usually requires reaching the Meuse and/or smashing a lot of US forces). CONGRATULATIONS - YOU MAY HAVE CHANGED THE COURSE OF THE WAR

2 Marginal Victory - Axis win after Dec 25 despite the British reinforcements being triggered BEFORE Dec. 22. YOU HAVE SUCCEEDED IN DISRUPTING ALLIED PLANS. HOWEVER, YOU WILL LIKELY DELAY EVENTUAL DEFEAT ONLY BY A FEW MONTHS

3 Pyrrhic victory - Axis victory after Dec 25 but British reinforcements triggered AFTER Dec. 22 or not at all. YOU HAVE HAD A MARGINAL EFFECT ON THE WAR EFFORT BUT NOT WORTH THE COST OF DENUDING THE EASTERN FRONT OF TROOPS.

In a tournament 1, 2 or 3 points could be given as appropriate for Pyrrhic, Marginal or Decisive Victories.

I think all Allied victories could be 2 point wins as their play is so reactive.

[jarg1]

I think the play balance works really well and I would hesitate before changing the VPs. I play by auto-match and win 90% of my games as Axis or Allied. When you come up against an experienced player it is a great struggle; some of my best games have been when the Axis go for the Meuse and partially succeed or are backed off. They then go into defence mode and the game can go down to the wire. The victory conditions as the Axis try and retire with dignity with their army intact work really well.

So I don't think the VP limits are broken. Rather than changing the VP needed for victory, you just need to discourage an extreme defensive mentality from the outset. I have yet to encounter this, but see how it could be done. It seems to me you can prevent this most simply by altering the level of Axis victory (and associated praise on the victory screen).

For example:

1 Decisive Victory - Axis win by Christmas Day (this usually requires reaching the Meuse and/or smashing a lot of US forces). CONGRATULATIONS - YOU MAY HAVE CHANGED THE COURSE OF THE WAR

2 Marginal Victory - Axis win after Dec 25 despite the British reinforcements being triggered BEFORE Dec. 22. YOU HAVE SUCCEEDED IN DISRUPTING ALLIED PLANS. HOWEVER, YOU WILL LIKELY DELAY EVENTUAL DEFEAT ONLY BY A FEW MONTHS

3 Pyrrhic victory - Axis victory after Dec 25 but British reinforcements triggered AFTER Dec. 22 or not at all. YOU HAVE HAD A MARGINAL EFFECT ON THE WAR EFFORT BUT NOT WORTH THE COST OF DENUDING THE EASTERN FRONT OF TROOPS.

In a tournament 1, 2 or 3 points could be given as appropriate for Pyrrhic, Marginal or Decisive Victories.

I think all Allied victories could be 2 point wins as their play is so reactive.

I like this idea though I'm not sure that holding the Germans to a lesser victory is going to feel very satisfying to many, particularly those players who don't read the end screen. Along the same lines maybe a tie results similar to that in Race to the Meuse scenario might be another possibility? And I'm glad that there are players who have found a way to win as the Allies 90% of the time, and would love to know the method to your successes. But for the rest of us, I think the perception is that the game favors the Germans. Although most of the games I have played are as the Allies, and therefore that is the side with which I am more familiar, and I like to think more skilled, I still find it much easier to win as the Germans.

[CEC1]

I think the play balance works really well and I would hesitate before changing the VPs. I play by auto-match and win 90% of my games as Axis or Allied. When you come up against an experienced player it is a great struggle; some of my best games have been when the Axis go for the Meuse and partially succeed or are backed off. They then go into defence mode and the game can go down to the wire. The victory conditions as the Axis try and retire with dignity with their army intact work really well.

So I don't think the VP limits are broken. Rather than changing the VP needed for victory, you just need to discourage an extreme defensive mentality from the outset. I have yet to encounter this, but see how it could be done. It seems to me you can prevent this most simply by altering the level of Axis victory (and associated praise on the victory screen).

For example:

1 Decisive Victory - Axis win by Christmas Day (this usually requires reaching the Meuse and/or smashing a lot of US forces). CONGRATULATIONS - YOU MAY HAVE CHANGED THE COURSE OF THE WAR

2 Marginal Victory - Axis win after Dec 25 despite the British reinforcements being triggered BEFORE Dec. 22. YOU HAVE SUCCEEDED IN DISRUPTING ALLIED PLANS. HOWEVER, YOU WILL LIKELY DELAY EVENTUAL DEFEAT ONLY BY A FEW MONTHS

3 Pyrrhic victory - Axis victory after Dec 25 but British reinforcements triggered AFTER Dec. 22 or not at all. YOU HAVE HAD A MARGINAL EFFECT ON THE WAR EFFORT BUT NOT WORTH THE COST OF DENUDING THE EASTERN FRONT OF TROOPS.

In a tournament 1, 2 or 3 points could be given as appropriate for Pyrrhic, Marginal or Decisive Victories.

I think all Allied victories could be 2 point wins as their play is so reactive.

I like this idea though I'm not sure that holding the Germans to a lesser victory is going to feel very satisfying to many, particularly those players who don't read the end screen. Along the same lines maybe a tie results similar to that in Race to the Meuse scenario might be another possibility? And I'm glad that there are players who have found a way to win as the Allies 90% of the time, and would love to know the method to your successes. But for the rest of us, I think the perception is that the game favors the Germans. Although most of the games I have played are as the Allies, and therefore that is the side with which I am more familiar, and I like to think more skilled, I still find it much easier to win as the Germans.

I think my success is more that I have played inexperienced Axis players. Looking at the wins, in some cases both Bastogne and Verviers were not taken. If this is the case you have to have a very strong drive going to the Meuse or you will eventually lose out. It is also possible to come unstuck if you drive on the Meuse and get some lead Panzers out of supply. But I agree that against an experienced player I would much rather take the Germans. On a separate note a key element that affects play balance seems to me to be if the Axis Commando raid appears on the 17th. 10 Arm can be frozen and Bastogne dealt with at leisure later in the turn, guaranteeing its fall without compromising the loss of Spa and the drive to the Meuse (with the subsequent capture of Huy by 1SS which I think is a game winner 80% of the time).