"Army Balance Question" Topic
7 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Utter Drivel Message Board Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleNeed some low-pressure clamps?
Featured Workbench ArticleScratch-builders often need basic wood shapes. Here is what is available inexpensively at the dollar store.
Featured Profile ArticleOur Man in Southern California once again reports on GenCon California-style...
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Night Owl II | 26 Feb 2014 11:09 p.m. PST |
I'm working on some homebrew skirmish rules and have come to an interesting crossroad. If two armies are exactly matched (like chess for instance, minus the first move wins 51% of the time) this would mean the game is played from a strategy perspective? Yes? If the armies are unbalanced (like Warhammer for instance – no hate or love – just an example) well, we know that wouldn't be much fun as the more powerful army would win most of the time. OK, now add dice as a determining factor. This mixes things up a little bit. I see, hear, read a lot about how "this game is too random" or "this game is broken" but if the armies were exactly the same would it be boring? In other words, if I have two skirmish factions facing off each consisting of a fighter, an archer, a mage, and a healer each with exact stats would this provide a more strategic game than if the factions were customized to fit their specific races? If I bring in dice how much strategy will be compromised? If I don't bring in dice how much fun and/or chance will be compromised? Obviously, the key to success would be each race having unique stats that balance/counterbalance the other races. This is not an easy task to accomplish. Can it be done? What do players like more? Your thoughts? Thanks, Night Owl |
Andy ONeill | 27 Feb 2014 2:54 a.m. PST |
Victory conditions can differ. Scenarios and terrain can even things out. Lists don't need to have points. |
advocate | 27 Feb 2014 3:12 a.m. PST |
Have a look at Saga (a skirmish game based in the Dark Ages). The factions are very different. Some of the match-ups for some of the scenarios will give an ubalanced game; but on the whole, it is fair to all sides. This was only achieved by a LOT of playtesting. As to not using dice (or some other randomiser). You will have to ensure that people have enough decision points in the game so that it is not easily solved. |
Lupulus | 27 Feb 2014 5:25 a.m. PST |
If the armies are unbalanced (
) well, we know that wouldn't be much fun as the more powerful army would win most of the time. I disagree. Provided that strategy and/or tactics work somewhat properly it could still be fun. If you were to set up a chess game where a few of the black pieces were missing, the game would be more difficult but a skilled black player would still be able to beat a less skilled opponent. Find the right balance of skill/missing pieces and you would still end up at 50/50 win ratio. |
OSchmidt | 27 Feb 2014 6:38 a.m. PST |
Dear List My rules, "Oh God! Anything but a six!" allow for unbalanced games within a certain framework. But many of them are EXACTLY equal on he sides. This however is NOT a skirmish game, but a full army game. Dice rolls, preferences and choices of the players, and perceptions always yield wildly different games and there is no difference in sides. Even when one side is heavily superior in material there is never a guarantee it will win or be a walkover. The odds even in these cases seem to be 50/50. HOWEVER! Victory conditions are NEVER determined on casualties. The victory conditions are "Strategic Terrain" the occupation of which gets you 1 point at game end," "Strategic Unit" (Headquarters, Line of Retreat, and Camp, which if you occupy you get one point at game hend (max of 6 3 for each side), CRITICAL CASUALTY- If you destroy or capture an enemy unit you roll a die and if the roll is 5 or a 6 you get one CRITICAL CASUALTY marker which is yours for the whole battle and counts 1 point towards victory. Finally there are ALLOWEABLE ACTIONS. For example if you are fighting a "Delaying Action" and you can withdraw from the field at some point, you reduce the enemy victory point total by two. If you are doing a recon in force you can do the same. In the first case, if you've been beat up all game and the enemy has racked up some points, there is a time where you can withdraw and by reducing him by two, lower his VP total to 0 while you might still have three or four. In the Recon in Force, if you rack up enough points you can again reduce him by two. It sounds crazy to explain, but if you see it in action you'd see how it works. Plus the event deck also allows you opportunities -- for example, a "Portrait" moment-- if you can when this card is drawn come up with a snappy quote or an ide for something memorable and it's agreed upon (by allplayers) then you can get victor points for it. |
Dan 055 | 27 Feb 2014 8:43 a.m. PST |
Player decisions – and the dice, are what make even the most evenly balanced forces into an interesting contest. The dice can mix things up more than just "a bit". Balanced forces, with good rules, will not be a problem. "May you play in interesting games". |
Night Owl II | 27 Feb 2014 9:49 a.m. PST |
Thank you all for your replies. Aoniell – good point about scenarios and terrain rebalancing things, I had not considered that. Advocate – again, preset scenarios may be the factor I'm looking for. Lupulus – excellent argument. I think of what's called "handicap" in the game of bowling where one player is issued extra points at the beginning of the match to stand a better chance of placing against a more skilled player. Oschmidt – you mention bringing in an event deck which at first look would further randomize conditions, however, if done correctly could actually bring balance. Interesting. Dan 005 – Yes, I agree the human factor should be one of the more important components. So after reading some feedback I feel better about randomness. It isn't necessarily a bad word! If done right a player would not feel as if he's playing against both an opponent and the dice. I suppose without it that most gambling games wouldn't be as popular as they are. Again, thank you for your input and conversation. Thanks, Night Owl |
|