Balancing scenarios.

[Matt W]

I focus on the historical conclusion and whether the side "outperformed" their historical counterparts. The idea that a mechanism (victory conditions) defines a winner and a loser has to do with the fact that we call these games more than anything else. While I certainly play to win I also try to keep in mind that this is a tactical situation and sometimes the play ends up being more about the victory conditions than about the reality.

When Daniel and I play we both discuss "gameyness" when one or both of us start playing to meet the victory conditions rather than defeating the opposing force. Something like Bogdanovo, which I have played, captures the desperation of the situation. The fact that the Soviets win most of the time doesn't mean that I wouldn't play the Germans, merely that I wouldn't be likely to "win" according to the victory conditions. If, however, my forces were able to gain a lodgement in the town sufficient to permit shelter I would feel pretty good about my performance despite the victory conditions.

[larry marak]

Turns out, according to the U.S. Army history published after the war, the 6th Panzer did not "take" Bogdanovo from the Soviet forces holding it. The 355th Rifle division conducted a tactical withdrawl from the town in broad daylight to avoid encirclement by 9th army forces and 6th Panzer then occupied it.

[Matt W]

Note that the scenario concludes at noon.

[Shad]

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.

You're right Alan, but only if we assume that the player knows how to use leaders well. If you can't maintain cohesion and activation chains your good leaders are only useful for resisting assaults. So for weak players I think it's a wash.

(mind you I'm not accusing Larry of not being able to use leaders!)

[campsawyer]

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.

You're right Alan, but only if we assume that the player knows how to use leaders well. If you can't maintain cohesion and activation chains your good leaders are only useful for resisting assaults. So for weak players I think it's a wash.

(mind you I'm not accusing Larry of not being able to use leaders!)

Shad,

If you are saying that you are trying to balance for weaker players, there is a different solution for that, give them the stronger side. My point was more about general scenario variablity with leaders, and my presumption was that you had comparable opponents.

[larry marak]

The variability of the competency of individual leaders is of course the magic that makes each scenario replayable. I just enjoy tinkering with scenarios where one side never has a prayer, even if the Captain and Lieutenants leading the men were named Hannibal, Napoleon, and Rommel.

[larry marak]

Two more ways to improve the scenario for the nationality that seems to always win. 1. give the attacker fewer turns to achieve his objective. 2. (and radical) change out the map(s) to yield more terrain that favors the defender.

[zaarin7]

Another thing would be to allow the defender to deploy second. If the attacker enters from off board he would place his units along the edge in entry order if along a road then the defender would deploy.