The passage unbalanced?

[Vanir Ausf B]

well i could say the same to you why are the results of a waffenprüfung less believable than combat reports (maybe flawed by bias and exaggeration) ?

how come that there are such totally different results between waffenprüfung 1944 and reports out of jents ?

As has been stated several times, the wa prüf 1 results are not from combat reports or range tests. They are calculated. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. After all, the result of every tank vs. tank engagement in CM (or Achtung Panzer Operation Star) is calculated. The problem is we don't know what values were used to achieve those results. The quality and thickness of Soviet armor plate in general tended to vary widely from vehicle to vehicle. The official spec thickness of the T-34 upper hull was 45mm, but actual thickness could vary from 42mm to at least 53mm. Some T-34s had applique armor welded to the upper hull. For highly sloped armor that represents a huge range of possible effective resistance. For all we know, the German engineers who produced that report may have assumed a worst case scenario. Or they may have by chance measured a single T-34 that just happened to have an unusually thick upper hull plate, or had applique armor.

2) there are a lot of weak spots in the glacis plate of the t34. iam not saying that a t34 should always withstand the 75mm shots when angled 30° and further away than 100m. But a 60° horizontally angled plate with additional vertical angling of 30°. how on earth can a AP shells bite into that kind of armor at 1000m. theres virtually no surface to bite, it just glides away.

You seem to be over-estimating how much the offset angle adds to the effective armor resistance in this example. When the armor is perfectly vertical there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship between the offset angle and increased angle of impact. But when the armor is already angled away from the vertical plane added horizontal angle gives diminishing returns. 60° plate offset by 30° only gives you a compound angle of 64°.

[siffo998]

As has been stated several times, the wa prüf 1 results are not from combat reports or range tests. They are calculated. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. After all, the result of every tank vs. tank engagement in CM (or Achtung Panzer Operation Star) is calculated. The problem is we don't know what values were used to achieve those results. The quality and thickness of Soviet armor plate in general tended to vary widely from vehicle to vehicle. The official spec thickness of the T-34 upper hull was 45mm, but actual thickness could vary from 42mm to at least 53mm. Some T-34s had applique armor welded to the upper hull. For highly sloped armor that represents a huge range of possible effective resistance. For all we know, the German engineers who produced that report may have assumed a worst case scenario. Or they may have by chance measured a single T-34 that just happened to have an unusually thick upper hull plate, or had applique armor.

You seem to be over-estimating how much the offset angle adds to the effective armor resistance in this example. When the armor is perfectly vertical there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship between the offset angle and increased angle of impact. But when the armor is already angled away from the vertical plane added horizontal angle gives diminishing returns. 60° plate offset by 30° only gives you a compound angle of 64°.

well thx for the explanation vanir!

still the t34 glacis against pzIV hits seems a bit weak to me. i havent seen a single armor spalling or partial penetration right now even at longer ranges. all hits seems to go cleanly through... but maybe its just me.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It may be a bit on the weak side. Some testing will need to be done. The problem is that with all the variable thicknesses and quality seen in real T-34s it is difficult to know what effective resistance would best represent a typical T-34. It is likely that CMRT assumes the armor is at official spec thickness and then applies a high-hardness modifier.

I was just looking at a British report that listed the measured thickness and angle of the glacis plate on a captured Panther tank as 85mm thick at 57°. Compare that to the official spec of 80mm at 55°. That is a very substantial difference in effective resistance. It also listed the lower hull thickness at 75mm, a full 10mm thicker than spec!

[Kommissar]

It is the driving.

The tanks can kill each other. The Russians have odds. If both sides drive equally well the Russians will win, and should win. To defeat superior numbers of equally capable AFVs, you need to drive yours better than the other guy drives his.

That means arranging many on fews, it means scouting for the tanks with your other elements, it means choosing to engage only when you have an advantage, in numbers of hull down vs even numbers. It is not enough to pit your edge in one suite against their edge in another (""I'm hull down but he has numbers, oh well, I'll try it" - no).

How do you arrange many on fews against an enemy who outnumbers you? Deny him firepower integration. That means not putting all your tanks out in the open where everyone can see them. Instead, force him to move to get spots on your tanks. Then arrange to see the Russian tank going first before his friends are in view to help him out. Separate his force back to front.

You do that using cover, peeking around the sides of it; by using reverse slopes so that a whole platoon of yours can see the first Russian to cross a crestline; by keyholing with crossing fire lanes that the enemy can't fit multiple tanks into at once, putting most of your prey's "friends" in shadows from LOS blocks you are sighting between. It means using light armor "bait" to draw his tanks into locations whole platoons of your waiting unbuttoned Panzer IVs with armor covered arcs can see. It means distraction by infantry, light armor, and the like while your tanks hunt into view from 90 degrees off the direction of his turret. It means using smoke from artillery or mortars to "break off" a few of the enemy in view while masking the rest of his force, then KOing the few that are in view.

Tactics. Not gun and armor specs. That is what decides armor fights between equally capable AFVs. It should not be new to you - if it is, you've been walking on crutches up to now. Welcome to the party - Allied tanks have been doing these things forever.

That's so much more difficult than loading up Gog and Magog, playing as Germans, and watching as those T34-76s run in fear when your King Tigers crest the hill. Not finished the scenario, but I imagine some IS2s are probably on the way, at which point I suppose I could actually try using some of those "tactics" you seem so fond of.

[JasonC]

Kommissar - if you aren't fond of tactics yourself, you are in the wrong place, and playing the wrong game.

Castle Wolfenstein works on a DOS emulator, I hear...

[Kommissar]

I was kidding. I guess I should have put a ":P" after the comment about tactics.

[db_zero]

I got better results in CMBN with MarkIVs when I stopped viewing them as tanks and looked at them as assault guns with turrets.

I read a long time ago a big problem with the US Army in WW2 with regards to its armored force was it was too heavily influenced by the British experience. The real armored arms race was taking place on the Eastern Front and when confronted by large numbers of Panthers in Normandy it shocked them. Yes the Americans encountered Panthers and Tigers in Italy, but for whatever reason it seems they were no fully in sync when they hit France.

Ill have to see for myself how MKIVs do against T34s. So far ive seen what panzerfausts and shreicks do, but my Stugs are getting hammered.

[JasonC]

"Yes the Americans encountered Panthers and Tigers in Italy, but for whatever reason it seems they were no fully in sync"

I can explain the reason. They encountered a few Tigers on Sicily but defeated them pretty easily, because there were only a handful, they initially tried to attack in range of naval fire support, and with weak infantry cooperation. The terrain also limited the usefulness of those that survived that early fighting.

As for the mainland, there were only Panzer IVs in the German force faced in the south, and at the winter line. The heavies including the first Panthers in theater only showed up for Anzio, where they did indeed help contain the beachhead and stopper the roads. But then the Germans tried to counterattack with them, and learned something.

Logistic capacity and control of the air and sea give HE firepower dominance. HE firepower dominance has a curious effect on a battlefield of land reclaimed from the sea with the water table about 12 inches below the surface, in February. Two words describe this effect, "mud" and "moonscape". And guess how useful a superior front armor AFV is in a moonscape made out of bottomless mud? Not a whole heck of a lot.

Armor didn't matter again around the Anzio position until the summer, by which point the German armor in theater had been pretty much attrited to nothing.

Basically, drowning the battlefield in a deluge of high explosive, delivered from the air, from naval gunfire, and from artillery ashore fed by practically limitless sea lift --- is trump.

Because of that experience, the Allies reached Normandy not expecting German tank specs to matter terribly much. The Brits then did have plenty of trouble with good German armor, despite HE superiority, in large measure due to poor tactics but also to high force to space. (And despite having better AT weapons than the Americans). But for the Americans, the lesson of Italy did apply in the end - and German armor was singularly ineffective against that strong suit. (Sure the Brits helped soak a lot of it off, etc - the Americans still faced serious amounts of German armor by the end of the Mortain attempt, and never had a problem beating it).

Operational factors trump tactical ones.

[poesel]

Back to the OP: I've played this scenario H2H as the Russians versus jby. We play a lot of games and we are very evenly matched.

The game ended with a disaster for the Germans. After 10 minutes nearly all German tanks were destroyed. In hindsight the Germans could have done some things differently but it was also not an exactly stellar performance from the Russians.

TL;DR: the scenario is heavily biased towards the Russians. Suggestions for a remedy below.

***** SPOILERS *****

The Russian plan was to 4 (later 5) tanks to the right of the setup zone on the hill that oversees nearly all of the approaching zone of the Germans. 3 tanks with infantry were send over the (non-objective) railroad bridge to avoid congestion on the main road. The rest went straight up through the middle - half of it to the bridge objective the other half stayed central.

The Germans tried to move their halftracks as fast as possible to the gap. Some of the tanks stayed stationary while most also tried to run along the road towards the small forest.

The tank duel ended 7:3 for the Russians. The 5 T34s on the hill got 3 PzIVs (one moving at 2342m!) while they received only one partial penetration which only spooked the crew for 2 minutes. One of the three tanks was killed by the only long range hit by the Germans (side hit, badly positioned). Later the remaining two of these tanks shot two PzIVs across the lake from behind that small village. Perfect side view over the whole German setup area. Two PzIVs made it to the rail road and could hide in the ditch. Those got one T34 on the Russian objective and the one which I had boldly raced to the 'road to ???' touch objective. The two PzIVs were shortly afterwards dispatched by the 4 tank group near the forest.

So the long range duel was won by the Russians. The short range duel was more evenly matched but then the superior numbers of the Russian tanks make more than up for it.

To make that more evenly matched I suggest to give some better protected long range fire power to the Germans (1-2 Tigers, Panthers, Hetzer, JagdPanzer or Stugs) or a few Schreck teams.

The first would make the long range duel more even and give the Germans a better chance to get close. The Schrecks would make the fight in the forest interesting for the Russians.

This was my first foray into the eastern front. Shooting at these ranges is something new to me and I really like it.

[ASL Veteran]

The tank duel ended 7:3 for the Russians. The 5 T34s on the hill got 3 PzIVs (one moving at 2342m!) while they received only one partial penetration which only spooked the crew for 2 minutes. One of the three tanks was killed by the only long range hit by the Germans (side hit, badly positioned). Later the remaining two of these tanks shot two PzIVs across the lake from behind that small village. Perfect side view over the whole German setup area. Two PzIVs made it to the rail road and could hide in the ditch. Those got one T34 on the Russian objective and the one which I had boldly raced to the 'road to ???' touch objective. The two PzIVs were shortly afterwards dispatched by the 4 tank group near the forest.

So the long range duel was won by the Russians. The short range duel was more evenly matched but then the superior numbers of the Russian tanks make more than up for it.

With respect to your opponent, if your big tank battle was at a range of 2300 meters then it sounds like he didn't handle his tanks in a tactically proficient manner. By the way, the scenario is based on a historical action and there weren't any of those recommended vehicles in the area.

[poesel]

With respect to your opponent, if your big tank battle was at a range of 2300 meters then it sounds like he didn't handle his tanks in a tactically proficient manner. By the way, the scenario is based on a historical action and there weren't any of those recommended vehicles in the area.

Do you know the map? The Germans have a relatively small strip of land between border and lake which they have to cross to get to the objectives. This strip is mostly in LOS of the Russians.

So you have two options: run or stand your ground. Standing your ground proved futile for the panzers to the surprise of both of us. Running did him no good either. The 2300m shot hit a moving tank.

AFAIK there is no smoke available for the Germans (which might be another option).

I know nothing about which vehicles were or were not available. As I remember the briefing the scenario is not exactly historic but a close estimation of what could have happened. So there is some wiggle room.

Panzerschrecks should be available.

[sburke]

I know the map and play tested it quite a bit. The only problem with your suggestion is it may help balance hth, but will unbalance play vs the AI. As play vs the AI is I believe from BF's view the first option I would not recommend a change by the designer. Players can alter as they see fit for a better match up for hth (don't know who you were suggesting change the scenario. If the above was your intent I'd wholeheartedly agree though it is a challenging and fun scenario as is versus the AI)

[ASL Veteran]

Do you know the map? The Germans have a relatively small strip of land between border and lake which they have to cross to get to the objectives. This strip is mostly in LOS of the Russians.

So you have two options: run or stand your ground. Standing your ground proved futile for the panzers to the surprise of both of us. Running did him no good either. The 2300m shot hit a moving tank.

AFAIK there is no smoke available for the Germans (which might be another option).

I know nothing about which vehicles were or were not available. As I remember the briefing the scenario is not exactly historic but a close estimation of what could have happened. So there is some wiggle room.

Panzerschrecks should be available.

There is no need for the German player to trade shots at 2300 meters. The ground slopes ever so gently as it moves towards the lake and the hills on the Soviet side will block that long range LOS very quickly. Once the Soviet player loses LOS he will be forced to move forward off that distant high ground in order to be a factor in the battle. You can very easily avoid the 2300 meter long range dual if you make the most simple of effort. The Soviet tanks with tank riders also move at a max speed of slow so if the German avoids the long range dual he will be in position at the gap before the Soviet player will. Why don't you try switching sides and play as the German?

[poesel]

I'm only talking about H2H here. The scenario is advertised for H2H. IMHO it has a strong Russian bias and that should be in the description.

As I wrote before in hindsight the German player could have done better - but that is always true. It is much more difficult for the German to get into a equally good position as for the Russians. The Russians can simply put some tanks on a hill where they are mostly safe from the German guns. The rest can drive in cover nearly on top of the objective.

That is IMHO an unbalanced scenario. Or better: it is balanced for playing the Germans vs the AI.

Btw ASL_vet: the Germans did just that what you proposed. That did not go well for them. The lake shore can be spotted through the forest and the group of T34s and the twp PzIVs began to trade shots. But then I had already tanks on the hill you described and they had nice side views on the panzers...

Why do you think that tanks with tank riders run only slow? I had them all fast down the central road. I think I've reached my side of the forest only a minute after the Germans reached theirs.

[ASL Veteran]

I'm only talking about H2H here. The scenario is advertised for H2H. IMHO it has a strong Russian bias and that should be in the description.

As I wrote before in hindsight the German player could have done better - but that is always true. It is much more difficult for the German to get into a equally good position as for the Russians. The Russians can simply put some tanks on a hill where they are mostly safe from the German guns. The rest can drive in cover nearly on top of the objective.

That is IMHO an unbalanced scenario. Or better: it is balanced for playing the Germans vs the AI.

Btw ASL_vet: the Germans did just that what you proposed. That did not go well for them. The lake shore can be spotted through the forest and the group of T34s and the twp PzIVs began to trade shots. But then I had already tanks on the hill you described and they had nice side views on the panzers...

Why do you think that tanks with tank riders run only slow? I had them all fast down the central road. I think I've reached my side of the forest only a minute after the Germans reached theirs.

Alright then, chalk one player up as saying that the Germans can't win this scenario vs a human opponent without the Germans having Panthers and Tigers. Thanks for your feedback. I made the scenario by the way - just so you know that I actually do have some familiarity with the map. I did make it after all.

The only thing I'll add here is that it takes the German maybe two to three minutes to get behind the trees on the German side of the lake. The Soviet player is also firing through light woods at the rise near the Soviet set up zone. I don't want to leave people with the wrong impression of what's going on here because if the German immediately fast moves towards the gap the chances of getting destroyed by the Soviets with long range fire is limited. Like I said above, if the German player studies the terrain and is aggressive he can do well unless playing against poesel71. Poesel71 can't lose this scenario as the Soviets and is willing to back it up against all comers.

There is no chance of adding Tigers or Panthers to the scenario at this time. It is as it will always be unless someone goes in and changes it around themselves. If anyone wants to blame someone and declare the scenario hopelessly broken then I humbly apologize for this current travesty that you wasted your time playing. If you want to you can also toss some blame to all the play testers who said the scenario was fine in it's current form.

Is the scenario harder to play as the Germans than as the Soviets? Sure, it probably is because the German can't make any mistakes. At the same time though, I can't make the player realize that a PzIV isn't a Panther and to treat it accordingly. I did the best I could with this scenario. Sometimes I make stuff that's fun and sometimes I blow it. Alright, on 'The Passage' I blew it because there are too many German players who like to sit up high and target things at long range but who also don't know that the PzIV is outclassed by the T34/85 beyond 2000 meters. I'll try to do better next time. :cool:

[GreenAsJade]

I don't understand the comment about the Germans being able to get into the trees.

Access to the shore VL is completely blocked for the German vehicles... in my H2H game I made the rush to this location as advised in the briefing, and managed to overlook that blockage until too late. Now I have whole inf and supporting AFVs trapped down in that little area with Russian tanks on the other side of the rail and in the yellow field on other side of the lake picking me off... there are lots of tricky terrain features in this map, that's for sure!

(It was also a surprise that inf can't go under the rail bridge - I would have loved to pop through under there and made an inf assault on the first Russian tank that set up there!)

GaJ

[sburke]

Or better: it is balanced for playing the Germans vs the AI.

That statement I do agree with if you caveat it that the German player have at least a minimum skill level in order to be able to win. I think it is also true that depending on the relative skill levels of the two players it may also be balanced for HTH. If the player's skill is poor it may also be balanced for Russian vs AI play.

That is the problem- there are far too many assumptions about "balance". If you are saying a scenario is only balanced if it is equally difficult for both sides in HTH then you will almost NEVER have a decent scenario for AI play.

My apologies if this statement is incorrect, but from your critique I am going to have to assume you have not designed a scenario in CMx2. I would suggest tinkering with one if that is true and try to put yourself in the shoes of a designer who is primarily trying to develop something to be included in a BF release.

HTH scenario design is actually much easier. You don't have to create an AI plan and you can try to match up the forces based on the type of battle and terrain. Designing a challenging mission vs the AI is a totally different kettle of fish.

[GreenAsJade]

I guess there will always be different opinions on this can of worms.

FWIW, I don't think it makes sense to say "designing against AI" or "designing for H2H" is more difficult. Both have significant, but different, challenges.

However, it is perfectly fair to ask "is this scenario designed to be balanced for H2H?", where balanced means "each side has a reasonable chance of winning, for equally skilled opponents". This is the goal of designing a good H2H scenario (aside from historical varietes).

AND it is fair to answer with "it is balanced only for highly skilled opponents - it will not be balanced if both players are weak - it requires good tank skills to win as Germans, but if both players have good skills, the Germans can win".

Which is what I'm hearing about this scenario?

Nothing wrong with that at all (except that I don't have good skills and I'm getting whupped! )

GaJ

[ASL Veteran]

I don't understand the comment about the Germans being able to get into the trees.

The stand of trees at the top of the hill by the railroad cut. From that position you can overlook the gap by putting tanks in the trees and you can even position some tanks in the cut and be hull down if you want to. If the Soviet player sends anything to their side of the lake then it is possible to defeat the Soviet force in detail because the German can shift his tanks from one side of the stand to the other if he wants to. It takes the German armor about two to three minutes to get tanks in that position - I know that because the AI plan gets them there that fast.

The main problem is that I did not anticipate a Soviet player simply lining up along their map edge rather than advancing towards the gap. Had I anticipated that then I could have made the simple expedient of adding some heavy forest tiles along the railroad tracks and perhaps lowering the height of that hill a meter or two. I felt the scenario was fine for head to head play. You disagree - fine. The fact is that nothing can be done about it now because the game has been released and there is no way for me to reach into everyone's computer and create a personalized version of the scenario that meets their needs by sprinkling Tigers and Panthers into the OB.

I've made 25 scenarios for the various CMx2 games and modules, I made about 35 scenarios for CMBO, and about 40 scenarios for CMBB. So I guess all told I've made about 100 scenarios. I started a few for CMAK but I never finished them. If you think you can teach me anything about scenario design then I'm ready and eager to learn from a master like yourself. Please feel free to point to your body of work for me to learn from and don't hesitate to contribute to the next module or game that will be released in the future so everyone can benefit from your skills and knowledge.

To everyone else, sorry for the rant. This stuff usually just rolls off my back because I know that it comes with the territory. The problem is that once the CD is released nothing can be changed about the scenario so it gets a little tiresome when a particular scenario gets pounded continuously about being broken. Scenario design is more art than science so you are just fooling yourself if someone thinks you can just create something that's perfect every time or that the designer can have perfect knowledge about how a scenario will play out every time someone decides to play it. Even a scenario that has no AI plans and is ostensibly a head to head scenario can have very unbalanced results depending upon the skill levels of the opponents. You make a scenario as well as you can make it and then you just hope for the best. Sometimes we'll come up short - that's life.

[GreenAsJade]

I felt the scenario was fine for head to head play. You disagree - fine

Wait a minute - I never said it wasn't fine for head to head play!

In fact I said

Nothing wrong with that at all

Any problems I'm having getting killed in this scenario are, as usual, of my own making I was just trying to find out what trees you were talking about! (Because the briefing has specific instructions about trees).

GaJ

[poesel]

@sburke:

totally agree on what GaJ said. IME scenarios that are both balanced against the AI and H2H are very rare.

@ASL Veteran:

I didn't know you made the scenario as you put your real name under it. If you mentioned it here in the thread I've missed it and the next sentence does not apply.

It would have been nice if you stated your authorship when you entered the discussion - I consider it bad form that you didn't. Then I wouldn't have made that comment about you knowing the map obviously.

Not long ago there was a lengthy discussion why scenarios get so little feedback. We disagree about this scenario, I criticise it and I only get disparaging remarks from you. So its better to only praise or say nothing?

About LOS - here's a picture to show what I mean. This is the situation after two minutes:

The LOS areas are not very exact.

Actually I liked the scenario and thank you for making it. My only criticism was that it should have had the Russian bias in the description.

[Combatintman]

My 2 Cents ... I helped test this and got hammered first time out as the German. Second time out I employed different tactics and got beaten again but by a much less devastating margin. At no time did I feel that the scenario was unbalanced.

I enjoyed both games and will certainly play this again to see if I can get a win. Winning is certainly possible, other testers playing as Germans absolutely smashed the Soviets.

My takeaways are - great replay value and I need to improve my game.

The research that has gone into this scenario is impressive and although I didn't know it at the time, I have found the area of this map on Google Earth. I found it by accident as I am designing a scenario set in a few km to the west of this map. The map is a really good representation of the ground and again is worthy of praise.

Now I know that this may seem like testers sticking up for testers but despite the challenge it presents, there is a lot to like in this scenario and had I thought it was unbalanced I would have said so in my test feedback.

[Skwabie]

Not long ago there was a lengthy discussion why scenarios get so little feedback. We disagree about this scenario, I criticise it and I only get disparaging remarks from you. So its better to only praise or say nothing?

It is indeed the downside of freeware, both creator and user can get easily... fed up for lack of a better word. So users would then resort to more "subtle" ways when attempting feedback, but ofc with the reduced effect, or just keep quiet. When I put myself in both sides' shoes I realize it is neither side's fault at all, but at the end it's the quality of the software that suffers I think.

[ASL Veteran]

I didn't know you made the scenario as you put your real name under it. If you mentioned it here in the thread I've missed it and the next sentence does not apply.

It would have been nice if you stated your authorship when you entered the discussion - I consider it bad form that you didn't. Then I wouldn't have made that comment about you knowing the map obviously.

I was not trying to be deceptive. I don't advertise myself as being a scenario designer because I don't want the focus to be on myself, but rather the focus should be on BFC.

Not long ago there was a lengthy discussion why scenarios get so little feedback. We disagree about this scenario, I criticise it and I only get disparaging remarks from you. So its better to only praise or say nothing?

You are just going to have to go on faith here, but trust me when I say that I have had plenty of negative feedback. I get it from scenario testers during the process of creating the scenario, I get it on the forums here after the game is released, on the various club forums, on Youtube, and in some cases in official game reviews from websites and magazines. The level of scrutiny that a CD scenario gets is much higher than the level of scrutiny that a scenario uploaded to the repository gets. No, the issue for me is that I created something, it was tested, and a finished product was put on the CD. Once it is on the CD then I can't change anything about the scenario. It is in it's final form. So while you may have useful 'feedback' I can't act on that feedback. A more useful exercise for the German player who loses this scenario would be to look at it and think 'how can I improve my performance and what could I have done differently'.

My only criticism was that it should have had the Russian bias in the description.

That assumes that a bias is known by the designer in advance or that a bias is actually a fault of the scenario itself or as a result of the relative skills of the players. Something like five different people playtested the scenario, some multiple times. Several people within this very thread have had experiences that did not mirror your own. Others have posted in other threads about this scenario and their experiences didn't mirror your own. Some in this thread have had the same experience as you did. All that has to be processed by the designer and then the designer has to make a judgement about the overall scenario balance. If I had only used the information from the first guy who tested the scenario I would have had the impression that the scenario was wildly pro German because he basically destroyed the Soviets while barely losing a single tank. We would all like to see a scientifically proven method of creating head to head scenarios where both sides, no matter the skills of the opponents, have an equal chance of winning under all circumstances. Unfortunately here in the real world that's simply an impossible standard to achieve.