Play balance

[sa_gibson]

For those of you looking to create some artificial balance in BOTB, join us over at QT3. Our scoring system discounts the sitzkrieg, treating Axis victories without touching the Meuse as a draw. Seems to be working!

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk ... el-Tourney

Yes, you can balance the game using multi-game results or as in this case using an outside scoring system. But most players, myself included, don't do much if any tournament play. I'd still like to see some balance changes to the BoB scenario, or if not new scenarios that incorporate some of the ideas mentioned here.

Me, too, but I'm not sure they see it as a priority.

Why not give the league a try? The first-round commitment was to play 6 games over 6 weeks against 3 opponents. As the roster grows, we're grouping players into leagues of 3-5 players so the commitment will never grow beyond that. At the end of each round, some players are elevated to the next higher league while others are relegated to the next lower one, and we start again. And no turtling - Axis players must attack the Meuse or face no better than a draw.

[Jarling]

Those players I find it interesting to play with I add as friends, and then play doubleheader, i.e. one match each as the Axis.

Another thing: Though it's not completly comparable, noone holds it against chess that the two sides is quite imbalanced ...

I've matched against Jarling 74 on game centre. May it be you? If we had matched and you had had me as friend, I would like to have two to three games as the allied with you instead of "one match each as the Axis".

With whom do you play chess?

I sent you a PM, but yes I'll play you (that loss still bugs me!)

But to stay with the topic: My point (and others of course!) with playing both sides and counting that as one game is that you then only play the other player, and that "arbitrary" winning conditions and imbalance is put aside.

[Weids]

Briefing: (refer to a previous post by Weid for detail)
1) On the 21th, two(2) units will be out of fuel instead of one(1).
2) AFTER 21th, this fuel supply condition will continue until a unit reaches or have reached Meuse. Note that fuel check starts on 21th.

Regarding the second point, instead of reaching the Meuse, it might be better defined by reaching any VP location adjacent to the Meuse.

[s_nkarp]

Hi All,

After lengthy deliberation, with particular consideration to all the thoughtful posts in this thread, we've decided not to adjust the game for balance. There are several reasons:
1) Metrics from actual Game Center for the BotB campaign play show 52% Axis victories vs. 48% Allied victories. While I agree that, for truly expert players, the game's balance is off, for the vast majority the game is about as even as we could hope for. Contributors to this thread are really the elite, who have given the game more detailed analysis and play than just about everyone else. It would be a shame to fix the game for a narrow sliver of players while throwing it off for the rest.
2) Most of the players on this thread have independently come up with good solutions, especially for tournament play.
3) There is anything but consensus about "the right fix". There have been many good ideas proposed, but a significant group dislikes each -- so even among the group a fix would be intended to help, many would find it a step backward.
4) Once I'm very familiar with a game, changes throw me off, making the game less appealing. I'd hate for "old hands" with Bulge to have that experience and be turned off the game.

I know this is a bit of an anti-climax after all the debate and discussion, but I really think it's the right answer. I hope people disappointed by the decision will understand that it was carefully reached.

Meanwhile, you'll soon have new games in the system to explore. Moscow is quite rich in interesting situations, and El Al will be a true "gamer's game", rewarding precision and careful planning in a way that should really appeal to the people who've followed this thread. Please write me if you'd like to get in on testing.

Sincerely,
Nick
nick (at) shenandoah-studio (dot) com

[jarg1]

Hi All,

After lengthy deliberation, with particular consideration to all the thoughtful posts in this thread, we've decided not to adjust the game for balance. There are several reasons:
1) Metrics from actual Game Center for the BotB campaign play show 52% Axis victories vs. 48% Allied victories. While I agree that, for truly expert players, the game's balance is off, for the vast majority the game is about as even as we could hope for. Contributors to this thread are really the elite, who have given the game more detailed analysis and play than just about everyone else. It would be a shame to fix the game for a narrow sliver of players while throwing it off for the rest.
2) Most of the players on this thread have independently come up with good solutions, especially for tournament play.
3) There is anything but consensus about "the right fix". There have been many good ideas proposed, but a significant group dislikes each -- so even among the group a fix would be intended to help, many would find it a step backward.
4) Once I'm very familiar with a game, changes throw me off, making the game less appealing. I'd hate for "old hands" with Bulge to have that experience and be turned off the game.

I know this is a bit of an anti-climax after all the debate and discussion, but I really think it's the right answer. I hope people disappointed by the decision will understand that it was carefully reached.

Meanwhile, you'll soon have new games in the system to explore. Moscow is quite rich in interesting situations, and El Al will be a true "gamer's game", rewarding precision and careful planning in a way that should really appeal to the people who've followed this thread. Please write me if you'd like to get in on testing.

Sincerely,
Nick
nick (at) shenandoah-studio (dot) com

Hi Nick, I enjoy the game as is, most of the time, but perhaps your team would consider further scenarios that incorporate some of the ideas that have been mentioned, for example the shift of the VP values further west to encourage German aggressive play. It was already done in Endgame, but a full length scenario with the same layout would be even better I think. I also think a limited random start to clear weather would make for interesting situations. Otherwise I am greatly looking forward to the new games.

Scott

[sa_gibson]

Hi All,

After lengthy deliberation, with particular consideration to all the thoughtful posts in this thread, we've decided not to adjust the game for balance.

Hi Nick. I appreciate the response and more or less concur with the reasons you laid out. BOTB is a spectacular game and can be played in ways that offset the balance issues, and I'd certainly prefer to see effort expended on new games of the same caliber. Thanks for being open to player feedback. I'm really looking forward to more great games from Shenandoah. You guys have brought operational level war gaming back to life, at least for me.

Scott

[Weids]

Hi All,

After lengthy deliberation, with particular consideration to all the thoughtful posts in this thread, we've decided not to adjust the game for balance. There are several reasons:
1) Metrics from actual Game Center for the BotB campaign play show 52% Axis victories vs. 48% Allied victories. While I agree that, for truly expert players, the game's balance is off, for the vast majority the game is about as even as we could hope for. Contributors to this thread are really the elite, who have given the game more detailed analysis and play than just about everyone else. It would be a shame to fix the game for a narrow sliver of players while throwing it off for the rest.
2) Most of the players on this thread have independently come up with good solutions, especially for tournament play.
3) There is anything but consensus about "the right fix". There have been many good ideas proposed, but a significant group dislikes each -- so even among the group a fix would be intended to help, many would find it a step backward.
4) Once I'm very familiar with a game, changes throw me off, making the game less appealing. I'd hate for "old hands" with Bulge to have that experience and be turned off the game.

I know this is a bit of an anti-climax after all the debate and discussion, but I really think it's the right answer. I hope people disappointed by the decision will understand that it was carefully reached.

Meanwhile, you'll soon have new games in the system to explore. Moscow is quite rich in interesting situations, and El Al will be a true "gamer's game", rewarding precision and careful planning in a way that should really appeal to the people who've followed this thread. Please write me if you'd like to get in on testing.

Sincerely,
Nick
nick (at) shenandoah-studio (dot) com

Hi,

Although, this may be a bit of anti-climax, but I wish to add something quick and important.

Nick has mentioned 4 points as reasons not to propose a fix of this game, BotB. Since Nick would certainly welcome some fair remarks, so I'd like to make comment with respect to the points starting with the second one.

For 2) "Most of the players on this thread have independently come up with good solutions, especially for tournament play".
Neither the good solutions nor the tournaments influence many players. Hence, the majority of players are playing without sufficient aids.

For 4) "Once I'm very familiar with a game, changes throw me off, making the game less appealing. I'd hate for "old hands" with Bulge to have that experience and be turned off the game".
Changes keep the game alive, and players interested.

For

1) Metrics from actual Game Center for the BotB campaign play show 52% Axis victories vs. 48% Allied victories. While I agree that, for truly expert players, the game's balance is off, for the vast majority the game is about as even as we could hope for. Contributors to this thread are really the elite, who have given the game more detailed analysis and play than just about everyone else. It would be a shame to fix the game for a narrow sliver of players while throwing it off for the rest.

At the beginning, when most players are new to the game, the Allied win more often. However, metrics have consistently shown that the Axis has a slight advantage over the Allied. This is an undeniable truth. With enough evidence pointing to this fact, it is certainly absurd to claim the opposite. I am astonished to see that the studio is content with the imbalance of its current product and simply moves on. How can one again trust the quality of the future products from this studio?

For 3) "There is anything but consensus about "the right fix". There have been many good ideas proposed, but a significant group dislikes each -- so even among the group a fix would be intended to help, many would find it a step backward".
It is the studio's responsibility to find "the right fix", we are just suggesting. Sometimes, the most simple one works the best.

Edit: Nevertheless, I am still more or less content with the imbalance of BotB because the balancing issue itself isn't enough to diminish completely the charm of a nicely designed game.

Weidong

[Weids]

We have been discussing BotB balancing issues on Qt3.

[Ralpher]

I think the play balance in the RFTM scenario is off more than the regular campaign and I think it is the German commandos that are a major cause for the imbalance. There ought to be an option to turn them off. Historically, they did not do that much disruption.

[thedudeabidez]

That's a shame to hear there will be no play balance fix. Against veteran players, I'd say the ratio of Axis to Allied wins is at least 10:1, probably worse. Recently I had a game against a very good Allied player where I accidentally hit Pass on the 17th and lost a turn, had terrible dice, and he still had to struggle to beat me by the 28th. I do get the idea that some sort of fix that didn't unbalance the game for less experienced players and also meets universal acceptance amongst the hardcore players would be best, but surely there must be something.

I still think a VP penalty for not reaching the Meuse by the 22nd would be ideal. This would also reflect the fact that the Axis historically was going all out to achieve this, something the Axis player in the game does not necessarily feel pressed to do. (Which leads to all those boring turtle defensive games.) How many VPs to dock would have to be determined during playtesting, but I'd start with 4-5vp and see how that works.

Another option would be to give the Allies VPs for occupying Axis eastern board edge starting areas at any point after the weather clears. It's quite common to see the Axis bending in his flanks to take advantage of the rivers and shorten his lines in the late game, while leaving huge gaps to the east (and Germany) in his front line, something no real world commander would have been able to do. Giving a point or two for holding any of these would make the Axis late game defensive position more difficult, and thus encourage him to fight more aggressively up front earlier on. If the Allied player has to hold Fosse or lose points, surely the Axis would need to hold Gemund or Bitburg.

[s_mikado]

Do you find the game challenging? I'm still yet to win any scenario except tutorials....

[daviddunham]

Race to the Meuse is actually more of an abstract game than a wargame, you don’t need to leave your forces in a great position to win.

Or do you mean the longer game?

[s_Jambo]

Just joined this forum to post this.

I noticed a few pages back one of the developers posting that after all the discussion they weren't going to do anything re play balance. Well, In my humble opinion that is a mighty shame. After playing this regularly with a friend and enjoying the experience we now feel the battle is 'solved' - An astute Axis player will win every time. We are now 10-0 Axis wins in our series and that's us done.

All the Axis need to do is blitz to the river where the allied player typically defends and then defend themselves. There is no need to push to the Meuse for extra points or to try to win the game early. The only outcome of this pointless exercise is to allow the Brits to enter the war early. Better to leave the Brits looking on from afar as the Allied player frutilessley tries to make a dent in the turtled Axis forces. By this stage Axis are accruing around 5 VPs per turn having done very little. Gone are the tactics and gone are any hopes of the Allies winning. They are forced to enter seriously lopsided battles to attempt to create a hole.

Of course, we all know this already and this thread clearly highlights that to get a good battle out of this game, you need a newbie playing the Axis, someone who will attempt to push for the Meuse to create the necessary opportunities for an Allied counterattack to succeed.

So, first post, and likely last re Bulge.

Drive to Moscow seems to have a better balance and is bigger in scale, and so we hope this won't be so easily 'solved'.

Rather than do anything to remedy this and make the game a joyous one for those experienced, we are being sold out to accommodate those blissfully ignorant newbies who manage to keep the stats somewhere near 50/50 on Game Center.

[knulle]

it would be nice if they would still support their games with little updates.