"balanced forces in historical gaming " Topic

As I've been reading up on the various battles, a question has come up for me.

Coming from more tournament and competitive gaming systems, such as GW, there is often a need for creating relatively balanced forces to allow for as level a playing field as possible and to avoid cries of min/max forces.

This makes sense, to some extent, in a fantasy and science fiction settings; however, how does that play out in historical wargaming.

What if a particular force was actually elite, better trained, etc. etc. than their opponent? How do you balance game play so that its an entertaining game and not just an exercise in futility for the other person?

Do most people play scenario driven games versus point-based pick-up games to avoid this very issue?

Or, is that not really even a concern in the historical wargaming community … more cooperative play than competitive play?

Just curious as I enter this different world of wargaming.

"What if a particular force was actually elite, better trained, etc. etc. than their opponent? How do you balance game play so that its an entertaining game and not just an exercise in futility for the other person?"

Good sportsmanship? Not being obsessed with an imaginary concept of 'balance'?

We had campign systems and scenario generation systems which could call for force ratios with one side having more points than the other.

the key in these situations to to have objectives which are realistic and reflective of the size of the forces involved. Delaying actions, encirclements and inflicting losses are all vital.

Points systems never seem complex enough to accomodate all armies, though they're good for a SWAG. A person who is really familiar with the rules can adjust the victory conditions to reflect practicable results based on scenario conditions. For historical scenarios, basing victory conditions on actual results is an interesting way to make your game more pertinent. Most folks agree that Austerlitz was a decisive French victory, so tailoring the marginal, draw, and enemy victories could be based on that.

The reason most historical games are played at a particular guy's house is that he puts together "interesting" scenarios what everyone has a good time. That is not to say they are always "fair" or "balanced".

mjc

Force balance and scenario balance are different things.

The competitive games like the GW stable (including WAB and WMA), Warmachine, Flames of War, and the DBx family tree tend to see force balance as all important, often relegating limited objectives and advantageous terrain to the realm of "fortunes of war".

Looking at the many and various accounts of battles, we see repeated references to positions, conditions, and objectives that enhance or detract from the success of the forces of men. These all tend to get short shrift in the competitive games, while they become dominant in the games that are so often used to model historically documented battles.

I find that the two sides of wargaming don't really understand each other, which doesn't help.

As long as the event being played incorporates an understanding of position, condition, and objective and how those will influence the forces at hand, the forces *can* be unbalanced and still provide a good game.

And lets face it, the objective is a good game.

With regard to "balanced forces", I believe that each figure has a points-value, this value being different according to the troop-type, and thus two quite different forces can be assembled which nevertheless have exactly the same total value; no doubt many members will give specific details. However, if he had the choice of accepting or refusing an engagement, a real historical commander would surely decline to commit his forces unless he were confident that he had an advantage. You can see how a small force of regulars (high individual points-value) might be forced into combat by a vast number of irregulars (low individual points-value), thus making a "balanced" game – in terms of points, if not numbers – historically credible, whether we're considering Colonial Wars or something like a small detachment of French stragglers in Russia, 1812, against a large party of Cossaques, but with regard to troops which are fairly even in quality and approximately equal in numbers, the odds are that each side would observe the other and concentrate on not being out-manouevred. With regard to "unbalanced" games, well, you could always set objectives for each player, even if these are no more than "hold the bridge/village/crossroads for at least six turns" or "escape with at least 25% of your unfortunate command", and use this as a means of having a competition rather than a walk-over.

"Or, is that not really even a concern in the historical wargaming community … more cooperative play than competitive play? "

It varies from one group to another, some people like points based competitive games, other people like to do different things.

My personal preference is to play historical engagements with the historical OOBs and terrain and ideally the players having the same objectives as their historical counterparts, and then just sort of see what happens. I also like to play games with a team of players vs umpire(s) rather than the more traditional head-head format, makes it much easier to do hidden movement and you can have a command structure etc.

As long as you have a reasonable idea of what constitutes 'success' than balance in the forces etc is a moot point. Many historical engagements were far from balanced, this is particularly true of moderns, although as you go up the level of representation the force disparities become less pronounced.

I do points based stuff too (like AK47), but less so these days, scenarios all the way and ideally scenarios linked by some sort of campaign. We've just finished the 'Siege of Tarnopol' campaign produced by TAC Publications, and a series of less balanced engagements it is hard to imagine, good scenarios though, nail biting to the end.

"Coming from more tournament and competitive gaming systems, such as GW, there is often a need for creating relatively balanced forces to allow for as level a playing field as possible and to avoid cries of min/max forces."

There is no such thing as a "balanced force" or a "balanced sceanrio" except in the contrived case of two exactly equal forces (equla in terms of OOB that is) fighting on terrain that is a mirror image on each half of the board.

"With regard to "balanced forces", I believe that each figure has a points-value, this value being different according to the troop-type, and thus two quite different forces can be assembled which nevertheless have exactly the same total value"

Not in any of my games they don't. All points systems are inherently broken, IMHO.

I've always had more fun with scenario driven games, not point balanced ones. There is something kind of fascinting playing a game where you know you are outnumbered/outgunned and seeing how long you can hold out.

if you play games like general de brigade most games will be prety balanced if you work from an historic OOB.

most units will be Line with some Vetran and mabye one unit with guard or elite status.

so unless you will fight with the Imperial guard division vs some dismounted cossacks, you probebly won't have to worry about balance.

I found that my britsh force had two strong battalions one guard and one elite, so to make sure the french didn't get over run, I gave them an imperial guard battalion and some heavy cavalry.
the french now have better cav and more heavy artillery, but the britsh still have slightly more infantry and slightly better infantry.
they are not mirror forces, but both have their strenghts and weaknesses.
so it's up to the player to handle thier forces better then the opposision and to use the terrain to their atvantage

I pretty much agree with Mike. Focussing too much on balance is a mugs game; for some many real-life situtations "go down kicking" is as good as you can manage.

The trick is either (1) develop victory conditions that quantify "kicking" or (2) relax and enjoy the process.

I play mostly scenerios such as Grant's; I do calculate points but only to have a rough guage on alignment of the scenerio units with my game units. Many of my WWII games are based on horse and musket scenerios.

Many times, for me anyway, it's not to beat the other player when I'm on the side with the significantly smaller force (though that's a big boost to one's ego), it's to do better than my historical counterpart did or accomplish more than my mission objective.

Yes, we all want to win, but it's how one goes about defining a "win" that sets the tone for a game.

We rarely use points for any of our historical games. Hypothetical and historical scenarios are the norm. Balancing is rarely difficult. You can always have more troops march on to the tabletop if things look a little lopsided.

Thanks,

John

For me, the most exciting and enjoyable historical games have had the following:
- Players who know and accept the rules.
- Scenario based on historical information (elements of __ units against elements of ___ unit, season, location, general understanding of the condition & objectives of the participants).
- Double blind (hidden set up, descriptions of what troops see & hear provided privately to the players as the game progresses, forces appear and disappear from the table based on who can see what).
- A very good game master.
- Victory conditions (historically based) expressed in terms of time, forces destroyed or remaining, control of key terrain, or specific event. (hold _ for _ hours, blow the bridge at _ before _, get two companies of _ past _ within _ hours, don't lose more than _% of your _ type units, don't let the enemy reach _, destroy at least _ enemy _ units).
- Points used only if needed to help keep things straight if the players want to select units from a list of units that were available in the fight.
- time…a couple of days to plan the event and enough time to set up and execute the game.

as an example, here's a summary of a game that I found enjoyable:
WWII eastern front, summer, Germans on the defense.
I've the Germans, I have to keep the Soviet hordes from crossing a certain line, with a certain amount of force, for a certain number of turns.
I have enough points to buy different types of units that would have been available (realistically available…I don't think I had single tank). I could buy an infantry unit with some support elements (about a battalion's worth), and engineer heavy unit, or a recon unit with supporting fires.
I knew the enemy out numbered me by at least five to one but I didn't know if he was tank heavy, infantry heavy, etc.
My opponent knew that he was to fix and destroy me while simultaneously getting some part of his force past a certain line by turn whatever…but he had to find me to destroy me.
We set up our forces (off board), confirmed the set up with the GM and started.
turn 1 GM (to me): Your elements at this location see dust clouds in this area, they report the sound of engines and tracks here, and you observe artillery falling here, here and here,…
This goes on for a couple of turns until my troops finally "see" the enemy and I have a chance to call fires etc.
I don't remember the final outcome of the game but I didn't change the course of the war…I don't think I ever had to expose all of my troops either. I do remember the genuine excitement in the game room as we "commanded" our forces to meet our higher HQ's intent.
The GM for that game was Tony Echevaria. I don't know if he still games or not but he was a very good GM (and he's a fine historian).

From my experience, I'd say most ancients, medieval and WW2 players use points systems most of the time to play (relatively) balanced pick-up games, and only occasionaly play scenarios. The points system attempts to takes into account the relative effectiveness of the troops involved (including weapons, armour and troop training and quality). Some points systems do this very well (especially if they have been extensively playtested). Others do not do it so well.
Most Napoleonic players, on the other hand, do not use points systems and generally play scenarios rather than balanced pick-up games (hence most rules don't have points values). Generally Napoleonic players tend to be less competetive and more interested in recreating historic battles, seeing what happens if certain decisions are made, rather than just trying to beat the opponent.

I agree with much of what has been said above but I would like to add an observation that is VERY important as you move to add Historical Wargaming to your existing Fantasy Gaming.

I do Fantasy Gaming as well (both WFB & W40K) with my kids so I understand how it works and the strong motivation to WIN a game. No problem with that.

My point is that in Historical Gaming the same motivation is often present amongst Tournament players but most of the rest of us find WINNING not quite as important as the experience itself. The enjoyment of the figures, the variety of units, nice terrain, the success of correct tactics, the sheer spectacle of Napoleonic actions in all their glory – these are the elements from which to draw satisfaction. You'll find as you get into the period that you might be participating in a large group game and be placed in charge of an Austrian Corps on a wing – no one will expect you to win with them but if you can carry out one glorious charge with the Blankenstein Hussars or hold the Bridge for 2 hours with just the 3rd Jagers or storm the Granary with the Puteani Grenadier Battalion then that will be an immense satisfying achievement and you'll accrue much glory amongst your peers.

The same thing does exist in Fantasy Gaming but in my experience it is the heart and soul of historical gaming.

As a result "balanced" forces are not such a requirement.

Nick

Balance is unimportant. Meeting engagements between equal forces can be boring. Fair is boring. Any scenario that you set up should have an expected outcome. You can explain that to the players or explain it after the fact.
At Gencon one year I set up a huge Russia 1941 micro-armor scenario. I gave the Soviets everything I had, T28s, T26s, T35s, T34s, KV1s, artillery, Infantry, bridgelayer tanks. The Germans had a couple companies of light tanks, one company of Mk IIIs and some AT guns. I chose the experienced players for the outnumbered Germans, and the new players and walk ups for the Russians. The carnage among the Soviets was enormous. When it was over I explained to the new players that they shouldn't feel bad, because they had done exactly what the recently purged Soviet officer corps would have done in 1941. Everyone was satisfied.
Another scenario I highly recommend is to deploy overwhelming forces in a rear area and do a dawn suicide attack by elite troops. Tell the Panzergrenadier or Soviet Guard commander that all his forces are expendable, they have to destroy as many of the enemy as possible before they are overwhelmed. The attackers have the rush of destroying the enemy before they can fully mobilize, and the defender has the satisfaction of ending the game. Ironically, although I have done this scenario numerous times, no one has ever fought to the last man. When they see the situation getting hopeless they invariably try and get a few men out to fight another day. It is truly interesting to watch the effects on the players as the tide of battle swings from one side to the other.

"My point is that in Historical Gaming the same motivation is often present amongst Tournament players but most of the rest of us find WINNING not quite as important as the experience itself. The enjoyment of the figures, the variety of units, nice terrain, the success of correct tactics, the sheer spectacle of Napoleonic actions in all their glory – these are the elements from which to draw satisfaction. You'll find as you get into the period that you might be participating in a large group game and be placed in charge of an Austrian Corps on a wing – no one will expect you to win with them but if you can carry out one glorious charge with the Blankenstein Hussars or hold the Bridge for 2 hours with just the 3rd Jagers or storm the Granary with the Puteani Grenadier Battalion then that will be an immense satisfying achievement and you'll accrue much glory amongst your peers."

This is VERY nice to hear. Even though I've played GW stuff, this is more my style and approach … so, it seems I'm at least starting to head in the right direction.

Agesilaus – awesome sounding scenarios. seems like both would be fun to play.

The only real downside with scenario based games is actually coming up with good scenarios, sometimes time is short and points etc just make it all so much easier to set a game up.

I enjoy the historical research involved in doing scenarios, and sometimes you come across real gems like the actual operations orders given to the commanders, or intel reports or whatever, but it can be a risky approach – when scenarios are good, they cane be really, really good, but when they are bad they can be awful. There are lots of very good published scenario books and guides though, which can be a real help if you are stuck for inspiration.

This makes sense, to some extent, in a fantasy and science fiction settings; however, how does that play out in historical wargaming.

I don't think it makes sense in any genre.

Balanced victory conditions make sense, ie, the force outnumbered 5-1 must hold for x turns to win the game while the attacker must capture objectives X, Y, Z within x tuns type of thing. But the concept of balanced forces is silly beyond belief.

What self-respecting historical or sci fi/fantasy commander is going to risk his forces by attacking anything without at least 3-1 odds? Unless it's a meeting engagement which are usually silly anyway and not as common as the number of lazy scenario designers would have you believe.
--
Tim

Balanced forces in historical gaming is somewhat a contradiction in terminology.

Usually, in real history, it simply did not happen.

IMO the last two posts don't apply to the ancients and medieval period (which covers by far the majority of historical wargaming in terms on number of years covered).
The type of battles most medieval and ancients wargamers play are large "set-piece" battles between significant sized armies. These typically were "meeting engagements" in that the two armies would line up opposite each other on a large plain and fight it out. "Attack – defence" type battles didn't generally happen …. well they did but they were seiges and so out of the scope of most wargames.
And most of these battles were reasonably balanced, in that both commanders would think they had a good chance of winning. If one side was significantly outnumbered then they could often avoid battle.
As we don't have exact OOBs for most of these battles then fighting a balanced game using points is as good a way of doing it as any other.
If I'm playing Rome vs Carthage and we each bring a 400 point army, then this will look and feel like a typical battle from the ancients period.

The other thing to remember is that we are playing games and we like them to be challenging, interesting and enjoyable. When I play WW2 I often play an encounter or meeting scenario. Two equal points armies move onto the table and try to take the hill or village in the middle. I know it's not particularly realistic, because most large WW2 battles would have been Attack – defense battles. However, it's a simple scenario to put together, and means both players get to manoeuvre their forces. I find attack – defense games can be quite boring for the defender as his forces just sit their in cover or defensive positions waiting for the attacker to move within range. There is very little manoeuvre on the part of the defender and it can just be a dice rolling exercise.

If one side was significantly outnumbered then they could often avoid battle.

And this still goes past the limits of the medieval period, too.

I find attack – defense games can be quite boring for the defender as his forces just sit their in cover or defensive positions waiting for the attacker to move within range. There is very little manoeuvre on the part of the defender and it can just be a dice rolling exercise.

The lack of manoeuvre on defenders part could be be reduced in certain periods by providing him with reserves that show up after X rounds and can be used for counter-attack.

Griefbringer

Yes, that's what I would often do, so the defender does get something to move. A sort of "relieve the defenders of the town" scenario.

In my experience, when a scenario is designed so that all of the players are actively involved in resolving the situation (that is, they all get to make decisions from time to time during the game, and then see the consequences) the players will never notice or care that they were badly outnumbered or outclassed and their position was hopeless from Turn 1. A well-written scenario is about Telling The Story, not about winning or losing.

To my knowledge, I have never written a balanced scenario, but I have rarely had a complaint on that account. Gamers who love history are just as content seeking glory in defeat as in victory.

"Fair"? Life is not "fair". War is not "fair". If you want "Fair", sell your miniatures and play checkers.

"and play checkers"

Of course, played perfectly, chess comes out as a draw:

link

"Unfair" situations produce drama, and sometimes even suspense. Too much balance is a formula for dullness.

"What self-respecting historical …"

Of course, there were those medieval commanders who insisted on issuing and accepting challanges to combats between the same number of knights on each side instead of getting on with the business of fighting a battle.

Respected by themselves and their peers. By history, not so much.

"The lack of manoeuvre on defenders part …"

Or by structuring the scenerio so he must maneuver to win. The frontier battles of the FPW come to mind. The French lost with a static defence, but might have won with an active one.