Play balance

[spacerumsfeld]

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

The Allies beat the turtle by holding St. Vith until the 21st. I agree that if you are able to do this as the Allies, you will beat the turtle as well.

[s_nkarp]

Let me pose a hypothetical question: if players were bidding for sides would that make experienced Axis players think hard before turtling (making it something rare); or would bidding encourage it?

[wargamer11]

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

The Allies beat the turtle by holding St. Vith until the 21st. I agree that if you are able to do this as the Allies, you will beat the turtle as well.

Hahaha ... the real life Allies obviously benefited from both an incompetent opponent AND ridiculously good luck! I'd like to see how they do in a tournament against expert players!

[wargamer11]

Let me pose a hypothetical question: if players were bidding for sides would that make experienced Axis players think hard before turtling (making it something rare); or would bidding encourage it?

I'd have to think more about the answer to your question, but I do think incorporating VP bidding into the game would be a very cool feature. Explaining it in documentation to those not familiar with it would be tricky, but your documentation in the game thus far gives me confidence that you guys are up to the task.

[spacerumsfeld]

Let me pose a hypothetical question: if players were bidding for sides would that make experienced Axis players think hard before turtling (making it something rare); or would bidding encourage it?

I don't think that question can be answered a priori. You could make an argument that players would push harder to try and overcome the VP deficit they had bid. Or you could make an argument that they would see an exit as problematic and try for the turtle victory. You simply need empirical data.

One thing the bid system wouldn't address is the flow of the counterattack. Not that you necessarily need to change that.

[jarg1]

Let me pose a hypothetical question: if players were bidding for sides would that make experienced Axis players think hard before turtling (making it something rare); or would bidding encourage it?

I like bidding as a means of allowing players of different skill levels to play, but I don't think it is going to change German turtling behavior much. I would think a typical bid might give the Allies another turn or two to counterattack before the Germans met the victory conditions, and that is certainly helpful. However it doesn't change the situation that allows turtling in the first place. As I've stated before, the core problem is that a German player can gather enough points for victory without contesting the western part of the map. Take away St Vith (or perhaps Spa) as a points location and the German will feel a lot of pressure to continue west, and if that is too many lost VPs for the German you could even lower the victory point levels for the Germans and still reduce the incentive to turtle.

[JeffC]

I have only played vs the computer. Unfortunately, as the Germans if you try to reach the Meuse and not do Turtle, the play balance seems terribly stacked against the Germans. A few bad combats (even one) or a few 180 minute impulses and your chances go down significantly. In contrast, I have never lost as the Allies. These are my experiences playing the main Bulge scenario with the main 4 AIs.

Edit: while I usually win the games by VPs when I go for the Meuse, I do not feel like I win them in a historical sense. I rarely get in force across the Meuse and although pile up VP to win, in a few days after the end of the game would get rolled up back to the Reich so it seems like a hollow victory. Maybe that is the best the Germans could have hoped for in real life anyway and I understand the game has to allow the Germans to win.

[Yojimbo252]

Bidding isn't the answer.

It may make a particular game 'balanced' in the sense that either player now has a relatively equal chance of winning but it doesn't solve the real issue which is the Axis defence strategy is much more powerful than trying to cross the Meuse, which is boring to play as and against.

Relying on bidding is also an inelegant way of trying to balance a game in my opinion. It may work fine amongst experienced players for tournament purposes for example, but for newer players that have little idea of how much a side is 'worth' it can be counter productive.

It might also complicate the matchmaking system.

[RyanAK]

Hey, gang. New member and game owner, and this is my first post, so take this with a grain of salt. I've only owned BotB for a few days, and have only played vs. the AI so far (anyone want to match up? I'd love to play as the Allies.), but it's been slow at work for a week and I've had time to study the balance thread. And the game map. And I know a bit about the historical battle. So maybe ya'll won't discount my comments entirely.

From what I'm reading over and over in this thread is that there only seems to be a balance issue if the Axis forms the mid-map defensive line. The turtle. Do you all feel that the game is balanced if this strategy is not employed? That is, if the Axis player pushes to the Meuse as in the historical battle, does the game then feel balanced?

If this is only an issue with one particular strategy that isn't being defeated, I'd say that there needs to be an incentive for the Axis player to move to the western part of the map, as many of you have stated. It's hard to accept an Axis victory in the Battle of the Bulge when all the Germans accomplish is a bump.

I've read all the suggestions on possible fixes (IF a fix in necessary) and I'm extremely impressed with Shenandoah's responses. The one comment that keeps hanging in my mind is the "Fuehrer is Furious' idea. While this is a game and not a simulation, the Axis strategy was to get to Antwerp. And that requires pushing to, and then across the Meuse. As the defensive turtle "bump" is unsatisfying in the game, it surely would have been infuriating to the the Fuehrer.

So how could the game simply and effectively incentivise the Axis player to push west, to keep the game fun, strategically exciting, and in touch with history? And without many intrusive rules changes? As I look at the map, and understand the reluctance to touch the Meuse because of the British release, I start to see a second line form on the map. When I look at the map of the historical battle, and how far the Germans were able to advance, I see a similar line. Just as there is the possibility of an Early Axis Auto Victory by having a supplied area west of the Meuse at the end of the day Dec. 16 - Dec. - 19 (the first line, already implemented in the game), what if there was an Auto Axis Defeat for NOT reaching a certain position in the western part of the board by a certain date? A second map line. This would incentivize the westward movement of the Axis player, and hopefully limit the turtle. It may be that all other scoring could be left in place, since this mandatory goal would keep the battle (and VPs) fluid.

Here's the historical situation on Dec. 26.


I can see a new line formed on the game map from Ouffet, through Huy, down through Marches, Rochefort, Bertrix to Boullion. If the Axis do not control one of these areas while maintaining supply by Dec. 26 (Dec. 24th may work better...), the Allies have stopped the offensive, and the Axis lose.


Just food for thought...

Ryan

[Meridian99]

I like the idea. Personally, when I see a German player who likes to turtle up I just avoid him/her from there on. Games are about having fun, not just winning. If I get a turtle player in tournament play that's a different issue all together. But I like your idea.

[s_nkarp]

We have enough data from 1.2 to draw some conclusions on balance for BotB (the main scenario, excluding variants) as the game stands: the Axis is winning ~54% of the time in GC play. This doesn't feel too lopsided from a pure balance perspective, but conceals the "fun" factor lost through turtling.

Following RyanAK's idea, we're currently thinking of the following to give the Axis the incentive to adopt a play style likely to produce a dynamic game:
1) The Axis cannot win until a unit has ended an Allied impulse adjacent to the Meuse (without consideration to supply).
2) The Allies automatically win at the end of the 28th if the Axis has never had a unit adjacent to the Meuse at the end of an Allied impulse (also without consideration to supply).

Thoughts?

[RyanAK]

First, I gotta say that the more I play the game, the more impressed I become at the real achievement that Battle of the Bulge signifies. The willingness of Shenandoah to engage the community for suggestions shows a willingness to continually improve their work, and can only mean good things to come. It's an extremely mature first offering... not surprising considering the quality talent that has been gathered in Philadelphia. I also think it's quite a brave first game, one that I hope is just the first in what will be a long and profitable life for the company.

I think your interpretation of my idea sounds just about right. A couple of thoughts: 1) Touching the Meuse releases the British, so the Axis player will need to time his push to the river with regards to the overall tactical situation. A good thing! 2) "adjacent to the Meuse at the end of an Allied impulse" gives the Allies an opportunity to throw the Germans back. Another good thing! 3) My first thought on putting a unit on the Meuse without consideration of supply was that it may see Axis players sacrificing a single unit towards the river while the rest turtle. Maybe not, but I can see it happening. But then, an effective counter would be to cut supply for that unit while the unit is still short of the river, so the Germans would need to maintain supply for that unit at least until it landed on the Meuse. That does provide just the right amount of strategic planning needed and risk that should be felt by the Axis player trying to reaching the Meuse. So, methinks, another good thing!

Overall, this added victory condition does incentivise the Axis to push to the Meuse, which should add the historical strategic design to the game and keep the battle dynamic. Once on the Meuse, the Germans can choose to push across and on to Antwerp or pull back to a mid-map defensive line. I think the game is balanced in all but the turtle scenario, and this would go a long way to at least delaying that tactic by the Axis. No way to know yet, but my feeling is that no other adjustments to VPs would be necessary.

It's also a great that Shenendoah wants to keep the 'fun' in the game, which is just as important as anything in a... game.

Best,
R

[rddfxx]

Back to the historical situation, the Allied high command was split over where and when to launch a counteroffensive. Montgomery, once given operational command in the crisis, would have opted to pull the entire defense north of the Meuse to regroup before turning on the Germans, but he really couldn't push Hodges that far. To get to the point, releasing the Brits to sally forth south of the Meuse in response to an hyperhistorical German success, i.e. reaching the Meuse in force, is seriously counterhistorical. Rather, it was the German failure to advance (at least on a broad front) that took the wind out of Monty's sails and drew the Allied counteroffensive south and east of the Meuse. I would look for a BotB solution to turtling in an earlier release of the Brits south of the Meuse if the Germans have failed to press the offensive home, i.e. they haven't scared the Americans nor Monty himself into the withdraw and regroup north of the Meuse counterplan. So the challenge is defining the early Brit release condition. So the roleplaying idea for the Germans is some form of the "Fuhrer is furious"; for the Allies, it is "Monty takes heart".

[sa_gibson]

Back to the historical situation, the Allied high command was split over where and when to launch a counteroffensive. Montgomery, once given operational command in the crisis, would have opted to pull the entire defense north of the Meuse to regroup before turning on the Germans, but he really couldn't push Hodges that far. To get to the point, releasing the Brits to sally forth south of the Meuse in response to an hyperhistorical German success, i.e. reaching the Meuse in force, is seriously counterhistorical. Rather, it was the German failure to advance (at least on a broad front) that took the wind out of Monty's sails and drew the Allied counteroffensive south and east of the Meuse. I would look for a BotB solution to turtling in an earlier release of the Brits south of the Meuse if the Germans have failed to press the offensive home, i.e. they haven't scared the Americans nor Monty himself into the withdraw and regroup north of the Meuse counterplan. So the challenge is defining the early Brit release condition. So the roleplaying idea for the Germans is some form of the "Fuhrer is furious"; for the Allies, it is "Monty takes heart".

I think the Endgame scenario suggests a different alternative which is perhaps more historically correct - reduce the victory point values for objectives in the East (St. Vith, Bastogne, Spa) while increasing the VP values for objectives on the Meuse. Force the Axis player west to gain points, per the historic objectives. And perhaps tinker with the late game victory thresholds to make turtling somewhat less likely to succeed.

[rddfxx]

I've been carrying the torch for reducing VPs in the east for months. But releasing the Brits when the Axis touch the Meuse is the ahistorical situation I was pointing out. Rather, getting to the Meuse should delay or inhibit release of the Brits, since a stronger Axis performance would have provided impetous to Monty's preference for fighting north and east of current BotB map. Indeed, it was his longterm goal to pivot the entire Allied effort to the northern plain.

[jarg1]

I've been carrying the torch for reducing VPs in the east for months. But releasing the Brits when the Axis touch the Meuse is the ahistorical situation I was pointing out. Rather, getting to the Meuse should delay or inhibit release of the Brits, since a stronger Axis performance would have provided impetous to Monty's preference for fighting north and east of current BotB map. Indeed, it was his longterm goal to pivot the entire Allied effort to the northern plain.

I also think a reduction in the eastern VPs is the best solution and would really like to see a scenario that tries this approach. An earlier British release might improve play balance but it would probably increase the incentive for the German to play defensively. If the British release is an attempt to mirror the historic thinking, then if anything they shouldn't be released as long as the Germans are across or threatening a crossing of the Meuse. On the other hand, you could see how the British might have been sent east if the Germans offensive had stalled earlier.

[rddfxx]

I should think the early release of the Brits would be triggered by German defensive play. The trick is figuring out the appropriate trigger.

[jarg1]

I should think the early release of the Brits would be triggered by German defensive play. The trick is figuring out the appropriate trigger.

I don't see the necessity of an early British release if the VP value is shifted west, although I could see randomizing the release so that it might occur a day earlier or later. And I could also see preventing a release as long as a German unit was adjacent to the Meuse on either side. The Endgame scenario further restricts the British release, but the VP values pressure the German to stay engaged past Bastogne, and it works pretty well IMO. Of course it is a somewhat simplified mechanism to simulate the actual Allied policies. I am sure that if a lone German division had penetrated to the Meuse but the rest of the German army was in retreat or fortifying a good distance to the east, that the British might have been send to pursue with just a covering force left to deal with the stragglers.

[rddfxx]

There is certainly no reason to pile on counterincentives to turtling. I like using VP based incentives the most. The bit about the Brits is really a comment on one aspect of the campaign that the standard game probably gets wrong. Historically, the Brits were released around the 26th not because the high water mark of the Axis offensive reached approximately the area of Dinant, but rather because the Axis offensive had collapsed/was collapsing miles behind that spearhead, and the operational initiative had switched to the Allies -- our game's magical Dec 23rd. And as I have been arguing, the fact the spearhead reached proximate adjacency to the Meuse likely postponed British participation, not accelerated it. I have not played Endgame, but I am currently playing a standard campaign game against a formidable and very aggressive, veteran Axis player who is uncharacteristically turtling to see firsthand what the hubbub is all about. In the absence of scoring incentives, the Brits would be very helpful offseting the Axis positional advantage. In our game, the Allied counteroffensive hit the ground on the 22nd, but can only get so much traction with the units at hand; we've all been there, and having read Bruce's QT3 article, we know the score.

[Dogrel]

The Germans do have an advantage early but they get to a high water mark mid game the slowly disintegrate. I think the game is well balance especially with mixing different generals, that's very good. However, a well played German always wins the race to the Muse scenario, or lets say 95% of the time.
All in all, I say we'll balance. One could tweak it with points for certain goals at certain turns but......
H.