Skip to Content
 

Balance issue, looking for oppinions (war game based)

6 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

The game, is balanced.

When designing a game, I always set up little rules for myself in how to balance it right away.

After all, other games can get issues with balance when going extreme at certain points.

One of those rules that I apply, is that each designed unit is limited in a maximum number you may have.
Examples: 6 tanks of each 600 points, or 36 rifle infantry of each 100 points. Etc. etc.
As you can see, the total score is 3600 in this example.
In another example, having a total score of 6000 would mean. 10 tanks of 600 points and 60 rifle infantry of 100 points.

As a result, players mix their armies.
The rule also protects players that want to go mass tanks, mass tanks will not win you the game.
Another bonus with this rule is that creating the pieces gives a comfort in knowing that only a certain number has to be created. Thus I know how much pieces a player will get and need for the game.

In addition, when an army contains an unit that is good against 2 types of opponents instead of just 1. (aka, anti infantry, anti vehicle, anti tank etc.) Then the ammount of this unit is simply doubled.

With these 2 rules, the balance is maintained (almost) perfectly. Well, the discrete (<-- right word?) balance at least is perfect.

*****

The problem:

Perhaps you have noticed, the total points for each unit is kept equal for each unit. Now, with 3600 points, a 8 x 450 is also possible. But when the players move to a game with 6000 points for each unit. Suddenly, the ammount of units would be 13.33333.

Not only that, but I have designs ready with costs like 700, 800, 1000. etc.

Possbile solutions:

1 - Simply saying, !@#$ it and round it down for that unit. Meaning, it would become 13 x 450.
Good side; easy done.
Bad side; some army designs (thus several units put together) will be weaker. Especially with units that are worth like 2000.

2 - Balancing it out with another unit. Meaning that if one is 450 x 13. 150 points remain to give it to another unit. For example 1 extra Grenadier of 150 points.
Good side; balance is somewhat kept even though not perfect. It is only perfect when 2 of the same type and same weapon are balanced out this way. (Rifle Infantry and Sniper)
Bad side; We always look for abusement of a rule. With this rule it could mean that someone could design a perfectly average unit with average firepower against any target. And simply saying, the 9 other groups are discared and everything goes into this one unit.
As an extra result, if this unit is effective in taking out structures fast and very durable. It could be a game winner. Of course this is an extreme example, but the proposed new rule would allow it unless I add a counter rule.

3 - Combining 1 and 2. Having rounded downwards for every unit. Each player now has a little stack of points to give to any other unit. This has to be done at the beginning of a game. The player may choose to put everything into 1 unit.
Good side; Best solution so far.
Bad side; Must make more pieces of every unit that is less then 6, to be sure you can place them.

*****

Which solution would you choose?
Or can you suggest something different?

President Jyrgu...
President Jyrgunkarrd's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/24/2014
I am strongly of the opinion

I am strongly of the opinion that balance is something that needs to be examined & tweaked during playtests rather than something you try to math-out in abstract. I can't even count the number of times I've explored mechanics that seemed totally in harmony on paper, and when it came time to actually play the game players were dissatisfied with the game's overall balance due to elements of [i]perceived[/i] strengths / weaknesses.

My recommendation is to put together a quick & dirty prototype, give it a bash and see how the numbers feel / where they feel like they need to go.

firstcultural
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2014
One easy way out might be to

One easy way out might be to give whoever has fewer points some kind of advantage, such as being the first to move.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Static Bonuses

Not to go too much further afield, but another thing you could do is have a static or one-off bonus that can be purchased with those surplus points. Think of different advantages someone would want on a battlefield, and apply a point value to them. Some basic examples:

- Certain terrain costs fewer move points/they can move further
- Increased range with a particular weapon
- Increased defense value in a certain terrain
- A one-time-use airstrike or grenade volley
- Etc.

This would allow players to make use of those leftover points, while further customizing the game to their liking and play style.

The drawback to this method is of course additional testing and balancing. But depending on your development cycle you might have plenty of time and opportunity to do that.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
There is the answer that I seek

Thank you for replying. I will answer each one personal.

President Jyrgu... wrote:

I am strongly of the opinion that balance is something that needs to be examined & tweaked during playtests rather than something you try to math-out in abstract.

Sorry.
Play testing is not the answer here.
This game has had play tests over 1000 by now. The boards are coloured red by all those destroyed tanks.
Perhaps my first line should have been:
"the game is balanced, this has been proven by the 1000 play tests".

Now to add something new for future additions.

firstcultural wrote:

One easy way out might be to give whoever has fewer points some kind of advantage, such as being the first to move.

This is an idea. However, turns are randomized every round.
Perhaps I need to think of more ways to turn the excess points into something worthy. Like buying upgrades for the player; an extra action point every 3 rounds or something like that.
Another field that we where thinking of was having points ready to give XP to the newly build units. But this is a bit hard to implement correctly.

Quote:

@ let-off studios

Your answer is the one that I am looking for.
And of course the answer is an obvious one.
I should be ashamed; why did I not think of that :D.

Instead of having all the units of a class the same.
(13 x 450 = 5850 while the rest has a total of 6000)
One or a few of them can get a tiny weeny little upgrade.
(12 x 450 + 600 = 6000)

That one unit belongs to the exact same class (Same armor type and same weapon type) but can have increased speed, durability, range, accuracy and/or projectiles.

I even can keep using the same pieces. All I need to do is add a star icon to that one unit(s).

Thank you.

lewpuls
lewpuls's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
Will the players care?

This appears to be about "little rules for" yourself, rather than about the game. You can worry about whatever turns you on, of course, but the players sure won't care.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I smell sarcasm. :)

I smell sarcasm. :)
Yes, the (top) players do care. In fact, they requested this from me.
They are all RTS micro management fanatics.

Perhaps you are talking about new players. Well, they don't really understand yet. So it is understandable that they don't care yet.

But if no one has additional suggestions. I think this topic is done for. The best suggestion has been tested immediately and approved by the players.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut