Skip to Content
 

Different factions in a wargame - should they have the same stats or be different?

14 replies [Last post]
KiltedNinja
KiltedNinja's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/14/2013

Hi all,

I just wanted to ask for some opinions about this: In a wargame I'm making, I have a bunch of different soldiers with different stats (health/damage/etc.) and I'm now creating different factions.

The question is, how do you feel about different the factions having different stats? As in, each individual soldier in that faction has completely different stats to each individual soldier in a different faction? (And each player would choose one faction each.)

No matter how I balance the stats, there will always be one faction which has the weakest warrior, and one faction which has the strongest warrior - however both factions soldier-stats and point-costs will match overall.

Do you think it's better to have a variance in the stats (as I've outlined) - or do you think all factions should essentially be a carbon-copy of each other, but have different art/models..?

Thanks!

keirion
keirion's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/17/2016
You might not like my answer,

You might not like my answer, but it's that you can do either.

One example of a game where you have no variance in faction abilities is Axis & Allies. It's a classic for a reason. They do it very well, and it tends to be quite an engaging game. One thing to note about this game is that there are starting scenarios and you always use those. The factions don't simply start from nothing and build up.

One example where there is variance is Rune Wars. Once again, a fantastic game, but it has somewhat of a different feel than A&A due to this. The variance allows for starting from nothing and each player building up differently and having more replayability from that setup.

I think what it comes down to is how you want your game to feel. Both come with their own balancing and 'fun test' challenges, but both have been done well. Like I said, that's probably not the answer you wanted, but its your game. :)

It sounds like you're making great progress on your game. Keep it up. :)

-Alex

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Good Question

In my experience with tactical & strategic wargames, I've noticed a couple general tendencies:

- Tactical games tend to be more asymmetrical: squad-based combat that features units with special abilities unique to the game system, while all units follow the same general rules. An example of this that comes to mind is Heroscape, where players each draft an army of unique squads or units - each with their own special attacks and abilities - and play along with the same rules governing attack, defense, height advantage, etc.

There was also an alt-history WWII game whose name escapes me at the moment, where players were either the Allies or the German powers. The Allies were typical "G.I.Joe" types, while the German troops were exotic and/or combined with supernatural powers. Very asymmetrical, but within a game system that governed all gameplay rather effectively. You could also have a look at Last Night On Earth, which is a cinematic-style humans versus zombies game.

- Larger-scale, strategic wargames that feature relatively similar armies, but factions that have unique special abilities just for units controlled by a specific faction/player. An example of this would be RISK Legacy, where general battle rules apply to keep things as quick and painless as possible. However as the game carries on through the campaign, players can select special abilities that apply to only a specific faction within the game itself. These special rules don't often affect specific units, as the units are more or less the same across the board anyway and there's very little specialization of units.

I also played the bleeding-edge-of-Kickstarter game Scythe a couple months ago at a convention, and it seems to fit into this mold as well (at least as far as combat and factions are concerned), but it at least has special abilities for certain units - though each player has the same quantity of these units so beyond production choices there's no asymmetry in army composition.

///

It seems to me that the design question you ought to ask yourself is what is the scope of the game you're making, and how intricate do you want to make combat. From what you've described, I'm not totally sure but it seems like you're leaning more towards that tactical style.

My apologies for my rather antiquated examples. I'm not much of a wargames fan/veteran. Hope this is helpful.

ruy343
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2013
Asymmetry in RTS

I think that there's a lot to be learned on this topic from the RTS game world. Let's look at three largely popular games in their day (Command and Conquer 3, Age of Empires 3 and Supreme Commander), and how well they fared in initial reaction and continued playerbase.

Command and Conquer 3 came out the same week as Supreme Commander. Both were comparable in graphical capabilities, and both were "build a base, destroy the opponent" type games. Both were well-received, although SupCom was rated just a hair lower by a few websites (with accusations flying that they had been paid to write a more positive review to boost sales of C&C). As a result of their good ratings, both received an expansion (Though SupCom's was a standalone expansion).

Command and Conquer 3 had limited resources, three very asymmetrical factions, and waged war on a small scale. If you wanted to learn how to play the game, you would often focus on learning one faction at a time, then learn the other factions. The hype around the game's release was huge, and it attracted a wide variety of players, but it's hard to find players to play with nowadays.

Age of Empires 3 had somewhat limited resources (with ways to develop infinite resources), had 6 largely similar factions, and also waged war on a relatively small scale. The largest differences were in the power of certain units, and in the unique units that each faction received (for example, instead of standard cannons, the Portuguese could build "organ guns", which fired multiple times and were cheaper, but moved slower, dealt less damage per shot, and were a bit unwieldy). Since these differences were minor, it was fairly easy to switch between factions, though they were different enough that some players had strong preferences for one over another. The game was well received, and had two expansions, which presented factions that were largely different from the base game. The game is occasionally played today on Game Ranger.

Supreme Commander had unlimited resources, three largely similar factions (with the exception of a few factional tweaks, such as experimental units and unit HP vs. maneuverability), and waged war on a massive scale. Switching between factions was fairly easy since they were largely similar, though the small differences did take some skill to navigate and use properly. The game was largely unheard of, since it came from a small publisher, so its initial sales weren't as high, but thousands of people continue to play the game today in the game's mod scene "Forged Alliance Forever", as well as through Steam.

What can we learn from these examples? It appears that games that play on a larger scale tend to play with more similar factions, while smaller-scale games can have more leeway for variation.

Also, we learn that even even for games with relatively large scale, it's important to present some variation, though it doesn't need to be extensive. For example, you could pick two units from each faction that you'll make a hair different - maybe make them more powerful or unique in some way, incentivizing the player to use those, but not go overboard since if you just build that one type of unit, your opponents can easily build a counter.

Finally, it appears that hardcore gamers prefer largely similar factions, and that those players will continue to play for a long time, while making it about small scale conflict and unique factions may only attract casual gamers, who are excited with the game until the hype drops.

Though Warhammer seems to defy that... Huh... Meh, take it for what you will.

Willem Verheij
Willem Verheij's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/08/2016
If uncertain, you could also

If uncertain, you could also let it be a mix of both.

Standard infantry could have the same stats for all factions, its what you'd field the most. It could have different models and names of course.

At the very least you could give each faction a single unique unit, but if thats the most powerfull unit it might not come on the board that often so wouldnt have much of an effect.

With miniatures its of course also possible to allow for differences in quantity and quality.
One faction could have a small amount of powerfull cavalry while another could have a larger amount of weaker cavalry.

Its also important that the factions have ways to counter the strenghts of the others. If for example you give one faction cavalry archers, the other faction can't just be melee infantry, even if its spearmen with a bonus against cavalry.
They would either need to have a cavalry option to chase them down or ranged units.

Depending on if its grid combat of course, I'm not quite sure how you plan to handle it. Either way there should aways be some sort of counter.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Most diverse is most fun...if balanced.

I learned a thing or 2 by analysing RTS.

Suggested guidelines:

1 - What about... who is the back bone in each army?

Keep that one the same. Not like Dune2000 where the combat tank is different for each faction.
Thus at least 1 unit will never change in stats per faction.
All other units (that all provide a support) dance around in stats.

2 - Adjust stats the same.

One gets +25% damage, one gets +25% health (this is balanced in a way).
One gets +25% range, one gets +25% speed. Although, range and speed factors depend on your game mechanics. And perhaps you have more stats to play with.

***

Of course, if you are worried about balance issue's. There are medkits against this.

3 - Make sure that each unit has an unique job. PLUS. There is time to adapt.

This can only be through (natural and/or mechanical) RPS. And this goes well with limited resources per turn. Plus, players need to travel to the other player with forces, while the other player can build the right units for a counter. And not one unit can do the fight alone.

In short, if you manage to make the RPS effects bigger than an unbalance through stats. The game balances itself through game play. Give players time to react on an attack. Take away reaction time from the attacker when there is new defence. "Cheaper" defence structures amplify this effect.

4 - If you still have 2 units with the intention on the exact same job.

Make sure the difference is HUGE between them. In such a way that a new RPS is born for the other factions to deal with these.

5 - Each faction has the exact, same, amount, of choices. And the exact same part has adjustments in stats. Example: Army A and B both have 9 units each. From which 4 randomly picked units have one of the 4 stats adjusted.

KiltedNinja
KiltedNinja's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/14/2013
Wow

Okay first of all, thank you for the great responses!

I've been agonising over this for a while now, so this is pretty fantastic to me to be able to hear some really interesting viewpoints on this. You guys really went above and beyond here, I seriously appreciate it.

I withheld information about the game so that I might hopefully have a more generalised response to help my decision making process.

So for a bit more info; it's squad-based (typically 4-man teams), tactical style, grid-based movement, only 4 stats each (which might turn into 3 depending on whether a simplification method I'm trying works out..), standard combat that each soldier/warrior can perform (mostly melee with occasional ranged), and the inclusion of 'action' cards that give the warriors extra short-term abilities. (I actually wrote here about it.. *checks blog history* .. wow, October 2013. Pesky IRL keeps getting in the way O.o)

So I've re-read all your responses about 3 times now to get a good feel for what you've all said - Judging from that, I think it would be important for me to try my best to get some asymmetry working here.

I have a certain amount of unique stat-builds (configurations) for the warriors. When you have freedom to build your squad any way you like, with multiples of the same stats (e.g. 2 warriors who are effectively clones) - and with each player being able to use the same builds if they want, then almost every test game (many...many many playtests) has seemed to be quite even and fair.

I started thinking about the asymmetrical route as it seemed like the way to go; my initial thoughts were to try and split each of the unique stat-builds fairly among the factions.. but I was left with the dilemma that one faction would have the weakest, and one faction would have the strongest.

I felt like I hit a wall with trying to work out the best way to deal with this, and it just seemed very lazy to just say "Oh well, every faction can have the same choices" Especially when I personally feel that the squad-building aspect of the game is important. Hence coming here for some seasoned advice!

So anyway, enough waffle - after reading all your responses, I think I now have a greater foundation of thoughts to help the decisions - thanks for that, it's helped me a lot.

I'm now fairly sure that I will be able to work out a hybrid mix, with each faction having the same weakest and strongest warriors, but with the mid-range being diverse. That should make each faction different enough for players to have their favourites, but similar enough not to be unfair.

Thanks for the massive insights here folks - again, it's seriously appreciated!

ruy343
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2013
Hmmm OK

All right, that helps to give more specialized advice. If each player has only a handful of units, and makes selections at the beginning of the game, perhaps instead of having "factions", perhaps present the players a few technological upgrades that they can pick before the game, which can apply a bonus to certain units. If you let players choose three or so tech boosts via a drafting system beforehand, and you have 20 possibilities, you could greatly expand replayability.

Overall, it would save you design time, since you won't have to balance an entire faction against another but instead you can balance tech upgrades against each other.

Willem Verheij
Willem Verheij's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/08/2016
If its small squads of four

If its small squads of four people, maybe something more personal could also work though I dont know your intended narrative or the setting.

Since it's mostly melee I'm guessing its either historical or fantasy. Either way it seems more personal and not an army.

I'm not sure if it increases the cost much if each figurine is unique, but that might be a way to go too.

You could give each faction maybe 8-10 characters, but based on the faction theme what they'd have could be different.

If it's 8 for example and its elves, then they could have three archers, two druids, two light warriors and one heavy warrior.

But all those three archers would have a different name and appearance, and while most of their functions would be identical, each could have a small thing thats unique to them.
Like one having flaming arrows, another acid arrows, and the third one magical arrows.

I do think that it might get players to care a bit more about the troops when they die if it's squad based. It works for the x-com series at least.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
KiltedNinja wrote: I'm now

KiltedNinja wrote:

I'm now fairly sure that I will be able to work out a hybrid mix, with each faction having the same weakest and strongest warriors, but with the mid-range being diverse. That should make each faction different enough for players to have their favourites, but similar enough not to be unfair.

I have seen this method before. And it worked well for that designer. It is a wise decision.

He mentioned the first unit and the most expensive unit to be a standard. You first do play tests on these 2 for balance tests. All other units in between would be troubled fighting one and stronger against the other.

Can't seem to find the blog right now :|
It was one of my first to read regarding this topic.

KiltedNinja
KiltedNinja's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/14/2013
Exactly

Willem Verheij wrote:
/..would have a different name and appearance, and while most of their functions would be identical, each could have a small thing thats unique to them. ../..
I do think that it might get players to care a bit more about the troops when they die if it's squad based. It works for the x-com series at least.

Yeah that's what I'm ultimately intending for the warriors - they are each uniquely named, have their own art etc (*will* have their own art once I get round to that bit!). It's my hope that having named warriors will help the players invest more in their games.

I'm also developing a backstory/world-history for the game, and some (if not all) of the warriors will be utilised in the story at some point - so that might help to reinforce that aspect.

X3M wrote:
/...the first unit and the most expensive unit to be a standard. You first do play tests on these 2 for balance tests. All other units in between would be troubled fighting one and stronger against the other.

That's exactly how it works - the mid-range warriors can usually beat a low-range warrior, but struggle against the high-range.

I've spent some time reconfiguring the stats after this discussion here, and I think I'm pretty happy now with how they seem to feel. I'm certainly feeling a lot happier about everything now that I've had time to bounce some ideas around in here.

Time to get some playtesting done now and see how it works in the field!

Thanks again folks :)

Willem Verheij
Willem Verheij's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/08/2016
It all sounds very

It all sounds very interesting, really seems like a game I'd want to play for sure. :)

An old videogame that perhaps might help a little might be Gladius.
I don't know if you heard of it, its available only on PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube.

Here you controll teams of gladiators in a fictional world, they hail from four different regions.
The gladiators are all different classes and uses a bit of a rock paper sizzors system, its a turn based game.

Heavy gladiators beat medium, medium beats light, and light beats heavy due to being difficult to hit. Ranged and arcane classes dont get a bonus or weakness against other classes here.
They all have different skills too, with some overlapping ones.

It's probably still quite different from what you plan to do, but it just seems like something that might help give new ideas and such. Either way its a great game so theres that too. :)

Olson185
Offline
Joined: 06/30/2016
Strategic > Operational > Tactical

Strategic > Operational > Tactical

Strategic = the whole world or a major portion of it (ie. Risk, Axis & Allies, any European Theater of War game which incl. No.Africa & Scandinavia). Such a game uses "army" tokens or "army, corp, div." chits.

Operational = a fraction of "Strategic" (ie. Onslaught: D-Day to the Rhine, any game dealing w/ the entire Eastern Front vs Russia) Such a game uses "corp, div,...maybe regmt." chits

Tactical = a fraction of "Operational" (ie. Battle for Stalingrad)
Such a game uses "maybe regmt....brigade, squad" chits.

I don't play Tactical games so I'm not sure about the unit sizes used. Just read about them.

Experimental Designs
Experimental Designs's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013
I know I’m late getting onto

I know I’m late getting onto this subject but I wanted to opine on the differences and variation of factions and their units because I had the same quandary.

There are so many ways to go about this and people have already given a lot of examples of the subject matter it really boils down to the differences in aesthetics/theme versus actual crunchy stuff like stats, abilities and etc.

Take a game like Tom Clancy’s End War where the three factions are pretty much the same in stats and functionality with the major differences in aesthetics. The crunchy differences are very subtle in this game such as the USA favoring long range engagements and their units tend to be a little more balanced where as the EU favored speed and uplink capture efficiency and Russians tend to be beefier and hit harder. Overall the strategy aspect of TCEW was very rock-paper-scissors esque in a subtle crunchy variation.
Then as someone mentioned before Command and Conquer has both aesthetic and stat line differences to the point that the three factions play different therefore necessitated a different play style and strategy. Another example of this is Starcraft where the stats and unit abilities truly give each race a play style identity. Such as Zerg emphasizes swarm and rush tactics, the Terrans emphasizes turtling and flexibility and the Protoss emphasizes on powerhousing and late game steamrolling.
That being said the question maybe is what you’re looking for as a variety in the game I say do a little bit of it all. Have a noticeable difference in aesthetics, themes, stat lines and play styles with each faction. As for a tabletop example of this look no further than Warmachine/Hordes.

Olson185 made a good point on the level of scale can determine how much variation of factional differences your game allows. I believe the smaller the scale the more attention to detail you can emphasize on real stat differences, abilities, special attack and whatnot.

KiltedNinja
KiltedNinja's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/14/2013
Thanks

Thanks for the replies folks.

It's been really helpful to get some different perspective on this, and to learn some different tools to help make better decisions in the game design.

The scale of my game is pretty small, so I guess 'Tactical' would be the label to apply here. It's basically small squads of soldiers (around 4 or 5 per squad - depending on the build).

With regards to the actual stats/builds/soldiers etc, it really does make sense for me to have variance in there - it works better with the overall theme of the game, and particularly since I am also working on world-history/backstory (which I ultimately intend to convert into a graphic novel).

Recent playtesting has shown me that my new stats are quite good. Changing the stats between factions has basically meant that 2 players (90% of the time) will not have an identical squad.

This has actually highlighted a random issue in the combat mechanic that had been getting masked - simply due to many many games of players having the same squads. So, now that has been revealed, I have adjusted the mechanic, and gameplay is somewhat better now! Happy result :)

Playtesting continues..

I'll no-doubt eventually return here and perhaps provide some print&play files if anyone's interested.

Thanks again for all the insight and advice!

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut