Well, I have plenty of missions.
I even had to change some rules for the very first mission that I once designed.
But things are close to balance again. Yet the balance of + - 1% means an end result of + - 10% or higher. Which players might see as a big unbalance.
But the thing is, with all those different units. Even though there is balance where units have an equal number of wins and losses. It seems to be very hard for me to balance a mission itself if different units are pitted with an altered number of starting units.
This is what I noticed:
1)- The map has to be designed in such a way that 2 different squads of units against each other have a 50-50% chance. A simple example:
Rifle Infantry (RI) versus Snipers (S) where the RI have to walk towards the S in a sneaky way or else they are Sniped. The RI need just enough cover for not over powering the S once reached. Nor that the S have killed too much of the RI. During the walk, the S can shoot before hand. RI needs to take cover with every move for reducing the shots by 50%. The average number of shots that are close to the 50-50% end result are; 1,5 or 1. (10 to 15 kills) Players can spend XP, which makes it harder for balancing, since the S can spend it on their stats (mostly Health) before the RI are in position. However, 1 Event Card could tilt the scales more then what the basic fight would bring.
Should I try harder for better balancing? For example, 1 or 2 less RI?
Or should I not try any more on the armies, and simply balance the Event Cards instead now that I am close to the balance?
2)- When 2 groups of 2 different units each fight each other. Where 1 unit type is OP to the enemy and 1 unit type is UP to the enemy. The biggest OP wins the fight. The only way to balance this out is to give each player the same 2 unit types. Which makes it a mirror game. And that is something that I would like to avoid with my game. (Which would be rather unique)
Should I simply mirror the game?
Or should I keep my plan and simply pit the 2 players against an AI? Where the AI can be weaker or stronger by a little bit. This would result in having the same fight by the 2 players.
Of course they can fight each other after the AI fight. By watching what kind of XP they spend and anticipate on that.
Tips, hints or other suggestions are welcome. Even if you know of a game that has the same principles. Like different units for each player, yet a balance. I would like to know.
Ok, a long reply, so I provide/divide it in chunks.
@pelle
First paragraph:
I do have a rock scissor paper mechanism. But I am now pitting paper against paper in my first example. Although, perhaps I did not explain properly how the battle would go. So first the statistics of each unit:
Rifle Infantry (RI);
Costs 100
Army has 36 of these
Speed 2
Overall Health 3
1 Bullet with accuracy 6 out of 6 (1 on average)
Range 2
Sniper (S);
Costs 600
Army has 6 of these
Speed 2
Overall Health 6
6 Bullets with accuracy 5 out of 6 (5 on average)
Range 7
Open area fight:
Indeed the RI does not want to walk in an open area towards S. Especially not with a full squad since S would even have a Range of 8. With both units having a Speed=2 and the RI has Range=2, while the S has Range=7. In an open map, this means S has a chance of shooting 3 times (that is 3 rounds) before RI can start fighting. With 6 S in one squad and doing 5 damage on average each. We have a total of 30 damage on average. 3 rounds means 90 damage in total. Or 90/3=30 RI are dead by the time they can join the fight.
Once the fight starts, RI may shoot first because it is shorter ranged. Then S may return fire. And that 4th round is over. Those 6 RI that remain, might kill one S. But the return fire is 25 damage on average. You can tell that none of the RI remain after that.
Of course I also test with more and more terrain influence. Forests reduce by 50% and Mountains reduce by 100%. Moving behind these with open gaps means a reduction of 50% for the mountains as well. In this mission the RI have to be completely safe behind mountains. Because forests do not make a difference by the rules.
I could throw in a 50% forest, reduction of only 25% once camping behind it.
(on a side note: S loses against most of the Jeeps and Tanks, while RI has way better chances due to numbers)
Second paragraph:
Where did you get those pictures for your game?
Any way, my testing (since play testing is rather obsolete in my town);
-I am good in math and have knowledge on how battles occur due to analysing tons of RTS, so I use Excel or paper and a calculator for simply writing down the numbers that are needed.
-I write down how players would think at the best thinking skill, which can be 1 dimensional. This includes optimal placement of the injured in a squad, possible terrain effects, and optimal spending of XP on the units. The results are put into a table, sometimes even a graph.
-I mostly end up with 2 situations that are very close to each other, one situation is more apparent with 1 Event card, the other with the other. So I take both situations and both Event cards for each situation, and I test the 2 paths again. There is mostly a 50% chance for the needed Event card in my missions. But with 4 rounds, that one Event card needs to be in a pack of 8 cards for a 50% chance on getting the card.
-Then I lay out the map where this 1 dimensional path takes shape in a 2d world. And I check if something different is possible on that map for players to do.
An Event card can simply tilt the scales. Players are playing the game without realizing they are flipping very slowly a coin.
More Event cards that can tilt the scales can be allowed. As long as I put 1 positive for each player inside the deck.
Paragraph 3:
If I am serious? Good question. I am working on this game for 5 years now. There was not much interest. Until 1 year ago. Then I decided to do it in a "professional" way. But with my job and other hobbies. I don't have much time on this. So it will go slowly.
Those percentages are indeed only obtainable with play testing. However, I do have to keep in mind that players have several tactical choices. Even with 2 papers against each other. I will adopt this if my game ever sees the light.
Paragraph 4:
I am not going to be historic. I want to tell my own story. So play testing it is. Although, I want to balance it out first before I even allow players to play test :).
@pelle
Well, I have not post the full game anywhere yet. Although, there are 2 people in this world that have received an old copy of my manual. But that manual has to be reviewed by me first. I need to find time for this. Once done, I could send you a copy if you like.
But I also want to add the pieces this time for players to print out and play with. After all, playing with only pieces of paper with words written on it, does not suit the tastes of lesser wanting players. That's why I have a hard time finding players for testing.
@larienna
All of the above is actually some sort of answer to your post.
Specific on reinforcements:
- Allowing players to have reinforcements is a way. But I need to balance that too. The difference of 1 soldier or tank means a great disturbance in the force.
- Spending XP is some sort of reinforcements. Increasing Health is mostly the best way.
- Income (reinforcements) differences also greatly influence the game. But for that one, I need to go very deeep into the math.
If I had the time now, I would post my testing results. But that would make this post long.