Balancing scenarios.

[larry marak]

Just wondering what you might be doing to balance a scenario that seems awfully tilted to one side (which may well be the historically probable result).

I like to use the published scenario as just a starting point in solo game play. I had Shad wondering what I meant by playing Ogre scenarios in PG a while back.

Looking at Bogdanovo (PG#1, also EF#90) there are a number of things you can do to give advantage to the defender (in this case the Soviets, who don't need any help), besides beefing up the order of battle.

Use hidden set up for all units in limiting terrain.
Use drumfire artillery plots on anticipated lines of advance.
Use leader characters
Require that the attacker set up first.

For the attacker (Wehrmacht)

Require that defender set up first and in the open
Use leader characters
Add a negative 1or 2 to increase the chance of ammo shortage for the defender in fog of war rolls.

And of course, manipulate the morale for either side.


What other balancing tricks do you try?

[zaarin7]

Well before trying any home made balancing to a scenario play it twice with the players switching sides. That way the skill level of the players should cancel out.

[larry marak]

Zaarin, the exchange places method works fine for giving each player one win and one loss, but both plays in a scenario that favors the Soviets (I'm thinking of Boganovo PG1/EF90) would be recorded as soviet victories on the patented PGhq balance meter, and thus very unbalanced. I'm looking at ways to make chances even for both players. Doug McNair often re-balanced scenarios by 1. changing length of game 2. altering victory conditions or 3. altering morale. I'm looking at other possibilities that are within the scope of standard and optional and special PG rules.

[campsawyer]

Larry,

It is hard to say what is going to rebalance a given scenario. You have outlined many, but just with a leader draw you can change a scenario, so I reluctant to rebalance just on plays alone. One idea I an toying with is for more morale based results rather than the trend toward massive step losses. Bloody yes, but over time it gets boring. The morale reduction is such a gem in the game I would like to see more of it.

[vince hughes]

Larry,

Balance is also a 'personal' thing.

There are plenty of AAR's on PGHQ that claim 'impossibility' for one side to win and yet .................. They do win. Funnier still, I have seen the same claim made when in fact the side that is being claimed can never win has won MORE times than the other side anyway ?? You would think that before writing down such a claim they would at least investigate previoys results. The fact they have not must make one leary of that person's ideas on how to 'balance' the scenario.

So balance claiming really is in many cases based on one's own experience in that scenario. However, there ARE some scenarios for example that might have a 16:1 win/loss ratio ... In that case, I do not think there is much argument, although it irks me when the person who got that 1 win has not AAR'd it ..... People want to know "How" !

One other problem is that with so many scenarios available, I only ever play a scenario once, meaning that 'balance' considerations are left in the wake of my dust as I move on elsewhere.

My final thought would be that when I also read peoples opinions on what would balance the scenario, I wonder if they have then gone onto play-test the claim. Usually it is just that, a claim and again, based on the scriber's personal experience of the one game with the scenario concerned.

Best way to check a semblance of balance is to look at the win loss ratio of scenarios played around 10 times or more.
5-5, 6-4 of course seem balanced. Even a 7-3 is on the cusp as a win there in the7 column may have been a last gasp one etc. However, 8-2, 9-1 etc then imbalance has to be suspected.

[zaarin7]

Over the last 20 years I play tested games that got published and those that weren't. I can tell you that finding the balance point, especially in historical based games, is the hardest part of play testing.

[waynebaumber]

Over the last 20 years I play tested games that got published and those that weren't. I can tell you that finding the balance point, especially in historical based games, is the hardest part of play testing.

As AP don't bother play testing scenario's that's not a issue

I agree that no scenario can claim to be unbalanced until its been played 10 times. Its a good job there have been not many scenario's played that many times as I believe that there would be a lot more "unbalanced scenarios" in the PG lexicon. However unbalance is more of an issue in FtF games which are very much in the minority in PG plays.

[vince hughes]

As AP don't bother play testing scenario's that's not a issue

What !

[larry marak]

Vince, how much Irish is Wayne?? Sounds like he enjoys life way to much.

#5 another way to balance an unbalanced scenario..take from golf, give one side or the other 2 or 3 optional rerolls.

I really think the reason Boganovo has seen 4 revisions in order of battle, besides improved info on the units involved, is that the town on the board is about 2 hexes too big for the situation. Historically, the 6th Panzer units did take the town, but with difficulty. It was seize shelter or freeze to death outside. January's in Bogdanovo range from 25 to -18 degrees fahrenheit, and that's the HIGH for the day. The soil was frozen a meter deep.

[campsawyer]

#5 another way to balance an unbalanced scenario..take from golf, give one side or the other 2 or 3 optional rerolls.

Larry,

I think you really discount the features in the game that can make it different. Leaders and initiative can be quite the game changer.