Play balance

[jarg1]

... most games contain flaws that are not always immediately apparent.

But, my question is ... is a group of people complaining "I can't figure out how to win when my opponent does X" really a "flaw" at all ... let alone one that warrants changing the game to prevent (or blunt the impact of) X? Should we be looking to rule changes to counter strategies that confound us?

To quote from the excellent Qt3 article: "stop declaring games balanced or imbalanced until you’ve played it a lot longer than you think you need to figure that out."

I'd add that you need not only have played it "a lot longer", but against a lot of more differing opponents, and using a lot more differing strategies, than you think you need to figure it out.

I'm not sure which evidence you are referencing as some of the design team have stated they don't have good statistics on game balance (though the latest patch is supposed to rectify that).

I refer to this post: http://www.shenandoah-studio.com/Forum/ ... t=80#p1790

You can argue that this data is not "good" or is not proof of anything. But I feel the burden of proof is on those that say the game is imbalanced, and that data is objective data that runs counter to what one would expect to see if the anecdotal arguments of imbalance were true.

Maybe the new data to be gathered will provide more conclusive evidence in either direction.

I have also read the article, but it appears we got something completely different out of it. The author concluded that his original review was incorrect in stating Bob is balanced, and it was only after much more play that he realized it is not. You agree with his conclusion, that the game should not be fixed, but your reasons seem to differ. He thinks it cannot be balanced without a major change to the game mechanics (a point with which I disagree) whereas you seem to disagree that there is anything that needs to be fixed.

The only data presented is essentially meaningless to this discussion. It is for all the scenarios and it doesn't breakdown the circumstances of wins and losses, such as when they occur or the skill level of the opponents. Bad data is no more useful than no data.

I have played BoB a lot. I usually win with either side, though I find it easier with the Germans, and more specifically, I have not found a reliable counter to the turtle, nor have I been defeated when I turtle with the Germans. I believe that is a common experience among veteran players, but I don't present that as proof. What I do know is that nobody has been able to demonstrate a strategy that works against the turtle without heavy reliance on luck, and furthermore, I also find the game is much less interesting when this strategy is used, which in itself I feel would justify any game tweaks that remove or reduce the likelihood of the Germans turtling.

Anyway, I appreciate that you like the game as it is. I also enjoy the game immensely. I just happen to think it can be improved.

[jarg1]

"We did play the game A LOT before shipping, with a large number of energetic and capable testers. As you point out, strategies and counters evolve. I've probably played the game as much as anyone, and it wasn't until February that I felt that I understood the strategic fencing well enough to conclude with confidence that the game had balance issues."

Ok... but the next part needs to be included for context.

Specifically ...

"Those issues really only show if both players are expert"

I'd be interested in exactly what balance issues he feels he saw, and more interestingly, what exactly constitutes an "expert".

However, from reading the rest of his post, I suspect nkarp wants to see what the more advanced data that will be gathered in the next version of the game will show before doing anything based on the anecdotal evidence of imbalance.

It would be ideal if the game were balanced for all levels of play, but having moved on past the basics myself, I selfishly would like it to be balanced most particularly among experienced players. You're right that the quote doesn't specify the balance issues, but the German mid map defensive line is the one strategy I have heard multiple references to, and the one which I also find most troubling.

[wargamer11]

After reading this entire thread, particularly the official replies of folks from Shenandoah, I'm confident they will look at this in a data-driven manner and do what is best for this game. It's their baby after all.

That's good enough for me.

I can't say that I am convinced by the arguments for imbalance presented here, but I am convinced of the passion for this game in those that presented them - and in that we are in full agreement.

[Meridian99]

In the new update the British are released when axis troops reach the Meuse or on the 26th of Dec. Was the 26th stipulation present before the update? Don't remember it but I might be wrong.

[jarg1]

In the new update the British are released when axis troops reach the Meuse or on the 26th of Dec. Was the 26th stipulation present before the update? Don't remember it but I might be wrong.

Yes, the British were always released on the 26th if the Meuse had not been previously reached.

[Meridian99]

Thanks. Wanted to make sure it was an attempt to fix the turtling issue.

[wargamer11]

I have not found a reliable counter to the turtle, nor have I been defeated when I turtle with the Germans. What I do know is that nobody has been able to demonstrate a strategy that works against the turtle without heavy reliance on luck

Ok, so I read the Quarter to Three article carefully a couple more times, and I definitely agree that the German "turtle" is a very tough nut to crack.

However, in this article, and in all the discussion on here about "the turtle" I've seen, there is a great deal of discussion about how hard it is to get through it, but scant little about potential Allied strategies for preventing it from forming.

Even in the article, we arrive at the 26th with no real consideration for what the Allies did or didn't do to allow the situation to get so intractable.

I certainly don't have the answers, but was there an exhaustive discussion on some site where possible Allied "turtle-prevention" strategies (not rule changes) were offered and tried?

Was as much energy and discussion spent on trying to defeat the turtle, or prevent it from forming, as appears to have been spent in this thread on formulating and lobbying for rule changes?

Maybe there was, convincingly so, and I need to get on board. If so, I'd be interested in reading such a discussion.

[jarg1]

I have not found a reliable counter to the turtle, nor have I been defeated when I turtle with the Germans. What I do know is that nobody has been able to demonstrate a strategy that works against the turtle without heavy reliance on luck

Ok, so I read the Quarter to Three article carefully a couple more times, and I definitely agree that the German "turtle" is a very tough nut to crack.

However, in this article, and in all the discussion on here about "the turtle" I've seen, there is a great deal of discussion about how hard it is to get through it, but scant little about potential Allied strategies for preventing it from forming.

Even in the article, we arrive at the 26th with no real consideration for what the Allies did or didn't do to allow the situation to get so intractable.

I certainly don't have the answers, but was there an exhaustive discussion on some site where possible Allied "turtle-prevention" strategies (not rule changes) were offered and tried?

Was as much energy and discussion spent on trying to defeat the turtle, or prevent it from forming, as appears to have been spent in this thread on formulating and lobbying for rule changes?

Maybe there was, convincingly so, and I need to get on board. If so, I'd be interested in reading such a discussion.

I'm not aware of any in depth discussions about that subject. So I'm going to start another thread to gather ideas.

[s_nkarp]

Balance for players of all levels of skill can be tuned, without annoying people who know and like the current rules, through bidding.

Play value - fun - is harder. The game is at its best, IMHO, when the Axis stretches out and both sides are off-balance. We designed Endgame to achieve this, resulting, more games than not, in frequent, difficult choices and battles with strategic drama.

There have been several good suggestions in this forum to encourage the Axis to take the extra risks mid-game needed to achieve this. I expect we'll test out a few approaches when the data from 1.2 and the Quarter to Three tournament come back (and will ask contributors to this discussion to help playtest). For the interim, love any feedback on Endgame's balance (happy to reimburse the cost of the IAP to prior contributors to this thread -- send a note to nick (at) shenandoah-studio (dot) com).


>The ability to view a complete move-by-move replay of a game that can also be viewed by others.

This is, in fact, a feature that we're working towards. Gathering in-game data for it is easy; the tricky part is a good interface.

[Yojimbo252]

For the interim, love any feedback on Endgame's balance (happy to reimburse the cost of the IAP to prior contributors to this thread -- send a note to nick (at) shenandoah-studio (dot) com).

That's very decent of you.

I'll purchase it tonight and will provide feedback after I've got a few games under my belt.

[wargamer11]

Thanks for the post Nick.

After participating in this discussion only recently, I've grown convinced that the if the Germans form the turtle, the game becomes a drag and difficult for the Allies.

However, I'm not quite ready to shed my stubborn belief that more can be done by the Allied player prior to the turtle forming to prevent it from becoming such a problem.

I have the feeling that Bastogne is the key. If the turtle can be cracked or prevented, it seems that the Allies holding on to Bastogne with its roads and river-free access to clear terrain at Lullange, and then threatening the entire German supply line, is where the strongest threat to the turtle lies.

After all, the "real life" Allies didn't lose Bastogne ... Maybe that's how they beat the turtle!

Perhaps the Endgame scenario, where the Allies still have Bastogne, will allow this to be explored ... And I'm also hopeful that your more advanced game result data will be able to show what the Allied success rate is in games where Bastogne doesn't fall.

[Yojimbo252]

I have the feeling that Bastogne is the key. If the turtle can be cracked or prevented, it seems that the Allies holding on to Bastogne with its roads and river-free access to clear terrain at Lullange, and then threatening the entire German supply line, is where the strongest threat to the turtle lies.

http://www.shenandoah-studio.com/Forum/ ... =466#p1882

[sa_gibson]

Is there something else he's written that I've missed that is more of a "concurrence" regarding imbalance?

Well, he wrote this:

*We did play the game A LOT before shipping, with a large number of energetic and capable testers. As you point out, strategies and counters evolve. I've probably played the game as much as anyone, and it wasn't until February that I felt that I understood the strategic fencing well enough to conclude with confidence that the game had balance issues." (Emphasis added)

[wargamer11]

Is there something else he's written that I've missed that is more of a "concurrence" regarding imbalance?

Well, he wrote this:

*We did play the game A LOT before shipping, with a large number of energetic and capable testers. As you point out, strategies and counters evolve. I've probably played the game as much as anyone, and it wasn't until February that I felt that I understood the strategic fencing well enough to conclude with confidence that the game had balance issues." (Emphasis added)

Yes, that was pointed out and discussed above.

[sa_gibson]

Is there something else he's written that I've missed that is more of a "concurrence" regarding imbalance?

Well, he wrote this:

*We did play the game A LOT before shipping, with a large number of energetic and capable testers. As you point out, strategies and counters evolve. I've probably played the game as much as anyone, and it wasn't until February that I felt that I understood the strategic fencing well enough to conclude with confidence that the game had balance issues." (Emphasis added)

Yes, that was pointed out and discussed above.

You dismissed the statement as only applying to games between two experts. I'm not sure I understand that objection. If a game is 'not balanced' when two experts play it, how can it be said to be balanced?

As to the reported game statistics, I'm assuming they're right, but that they answer the wrong question. 'Race to the Meuse' may well be balanced (I suspect it is more so than the campaign game), but including statistics for RTTM as evidence for balance in BOTB doesn't make much sense. They're different games; to highlight just one difference, the Axis VP accumulation which is part of the balance issue in BOTB doesn't materialize in RTTM.

Look at tournament statistics - results from matched sets of games between experienced players. They invariably show a game advantage for the Axis player. For example, the current BOTB tournament on QT3 has 60 reported Axis wins, against only 26 Allied wins. This is an open challenge tournament where each player ultimately plays a matched pair of games against every other player. Same players, same level of expertise, but very different rates of success playing Axis vs. Allies. 14 of 19 players having winning records as the Axis, while only 2 players have winning records as the Allies. Earlier BOTB tournaments at QT3 show the same kinds of results.

If you think the problem is that these players all don't know how to play as the Allies, join the next tournament. ;^)

[wargamer11]

If you think the problem is that these players all don't know how to play as the Allies, join the next tournament. ;^)

I did enter the 64-player "Official QtT/Shenandoah Studio sponsored Battle of the Bulge Tournament" over on the "Quarter to Three" web site.

I'm in the finals, awaiting my opponent from the other semi-final match.



But, I think you misinterpret my position in this discussion. Perhaps you haven't read the entire thread from the point I entered it, or perhaps I haven't expressed it well enough. I don't think the issue is a problem because people play bad. I've been frustrated against a similar defense myself, and enjoyed winning by employing it as well. I'd just like to have a discussion about possible strategies for thwarting the turtle, rather than just skipping right ahead to changing the rules. That discussion has started in another thread here ... and maybe it can't be stopped and the best action is to alter the game. I admit, I don't know. But to this point, I haven't seen any discussion of trying - other than changing the rules or victory conditions.

[sa_gibson]

If you think the problem is that these players all don't know how to play as the Allies, join the next tournament. ;^)

I did enter the 64-player "Official QtT/Shenandoah Studio sponsored Battle of the Bulge Tournament" over on the "Quarter to Three" web site.

I'm in the finals, awaiting my opponent from the other semi-final match.



But, I think you misinterpret my position in this discussion. Perhaps you haven't read the entire thread from the point I entered it, or perhaps I haven't expressed it well enough. I don't think the issue is a problem because people play bad. I've been frustrated against a similar defense myself, and enjoyed winning by employing it as well. I'd just like to have a discussion about possible strategies for thwarting the turtle, rather than just skipping right ahead to changing the rules. That discussion has started in another thread here ... and maybe it can't be stopped and the best action is to alter the game. I admit, I don't know. But to this point, I haven't seen any discussion of trying - other than changing the rules or victory conditions.

OK, I understand. I think the discussion about trying to beat the turtle will be interesting, but I don't really expect it to produce results. Bruce's article does a great job of demonstrating that the combat rules necessary to balance the game in the first 6 days, render the game unbalanced in the last 6. In any game between two expert players, an Axis player determined to turtle will be nearly impossible to beat. He might be defeated by bad luck, or bad play; but the design of the game plays in his favor. That's what I mean by 'unbalanced'. My own view is, and has been, that as the Allied player, you have to beat the Axis player early, before the turtle can take shape. That takes skill, of course, but it also takes a lot of luck, in the form of atypical combat results and short Axis days. That's why experienced players still have losing records as the Allies against experienced players - skill and strategy are not enough to produce victory. The game's unbalanced.

[wargamer11]

I understand this thread is full of experienced players who have already made up their mind.

I hope they'll humor me ... at the very worst, we'll end up with even more evidence in support of their case.

And when I lose in the final match of the Qt3 tournament to an opponent who expertly deploys the turtle against me, I'll come back here for all the "I told you so's"

[wargamer11]

Bruce's article does a great job of demonstrating that the combat rules necessary to balance the game in the first 6 days, render the game unbalanced in the last 6.

I think Bruce's article does a fantastic job of showing that, given the way the game is currently structured, the turtle defense is essentially impregnable.

But what it doesn't discuss is if there is some strategy earlier in the game that the Allies can employ (assuming standard luck, and a competent German) that reduces the chances of the impregnable position forming.

I don't know. That's what I was hoping to discuss.

[wargamer11]

A repost from the strategy thread...

I will admit, it is really difficult to discuss mid-game strategies because it is hard to create repeatable, specific, mid-game strategies from the multitude of possibilities that can be seen in the first few turns ... even when we try to limit the discussion by making assumptions.

I've tried playing several games with myself to come up with repeatable, specific, Allied mid-game strategies to prevent the forming of the German turtle, and I confess I haven't been able to come up with anything that can be unarguably defended against claims of "bad German luck" or "bad German play", even if I don't personally believe either were a factor.

I may just have to concede defeat and turn the floor back over to the rule changers.