Designing Balanced Campaigns

[Narayan Sengupta]

Hi Everyone,

I thought I would start a topic for everyone to discuss what is the best way to achieve a balanced campaign design.

Balancing a campaign so that it is equally playable as the Axis or Allies, and use historical OOBs, locations, unit strengths, and research points is an interesting challenge to say the least.

What do you do to make your campaigns balanced?

If you haven’t made a campaign, what would be some of your suggestions?

Narayan

[JerseyJohn]

Narayan

Good idea for a thread, there have been earlier threads on new scenarios, but I believe this is the first to address play balance.

To me the Four Basic Elements are Territory, Units, MPPs and Time.

Using the basic Sept 1939 situation as an example, the scenario is played within a seven year period. During the oppening the aggressor needs a large initial advantage. Ideally he ought to be able to push things to the limit and, within two to three years, he should be on the verge of winning. Which means his opponent needs to be willing to fight and yield and counter attack for two years accepting one setback after another.

Somewhere around the second or third year the outcome of the game should be in the balance. The aggressor state should still be attacking but losing momentum; the defender, if he's handled his units and resources properly, should be capable of holding but nothing should be certain for either side.

The game has reached it's climax. A turning point battle or battles transpire. When the smoke clears the aggressor is either mopping up and about to win, or he's come up against a brick wall.

If it's the second situation the defender now has the very difficult task of continuing to hold while gradually building for his counter offensives. The aggressor now needs to budget his resources, he's fighting on two, or even three fronts and, while he should still be seeking a decisive knockout blow probably in Russia, he's got to be careful not to launch such a drive that will fail and end up costing units and MPPs he can no longer afford to lose.

The Allies begin the final phase. The game should still be in doubt, but at this stage the initiative and advantage should be theirs.

So, to me, Balance means territory, forces, MPPs and time. All four elements need to be balanced. Whether the players understand how to use these factors properly is not the designer's concern -- but he should also be objective enough to investigate feedback and make subsequent adjustments.

In the standard WW II strategic situation up to Germany's 1942 Offensive, the above situation should represent the flow of play.

The Axis can win early and often does. On the other hand, players who become adept with the Allies have a huge advantage partly because of the time factor, but egually important, they have an advantage over the majority of players who shun the Allies and are unaccustomed to attacking against a skilled Allied opponent.

I believe things such as the early moves against the Low Countries, Denmark and Italy are mainly quirks of the game system. I don't care for them because to me they areen't historically realistic; nor is launching ambhibious operations during the winter!

We've got to put up with a certain amount of unforseen quirkiness in his basic game scenarios, Hubert had no way of anticipating these play developments. Which is why I prefer Bill's adaptations of Hubert's historical scenarios because they've been geared to avoid most of these pitfalls. I've stated this many times and it isn't to flatter Bill, it's to state the fact that a need existed for corrected game scenarios and these MODs were created specifically to answer that need within a credible historical framework. They've done the job and lead to very well balanced play, why not use them?

Which is not to say I think scenario creation should end there, which is where my posting to your companion Thread begins.

[jon_j_rambo]

Narayan Sengupta --- When it comes to the economy in the world system, people vote with their dollar, euro, or whatever. When it comes to SC, people vote with their bid. The bid is the system to find play balance. The bid has evolved over time too. (for details just ask). With the '39 campaign the Axis have a slight edge, the bid proves that. (or players prefer to be Axis, thus given MMP's to the opponent.)

So what?

What would be cool is a statistical program for SC (or anygame) that keeps tracks of bids & the winners. The stats program could even account for player's skill levels. Something like a golf tournament. The course has a difficulty level (slope & rating) & so do the golfers (handicap). Could somebody make such a system?

But what really needs done?

Victory conditions vs. Time. SC needs a point system of sorts to calculate victory conditions. Right now, 99% of games are finished by somebody giving up. They say, screw this, I've lost. Could somebody invent scenarios or campaigns & make CLEAR victory conditions.

The key to any campaign/game is play testing. Try making shorter, small campaigns, with clear point system victory conditions. Player's could play a 3-hour balanced game, with a point system & ending.

Maybe I'm looking for something that doesn't exist with a strategic game. But it can take from 8 to 28 hours to play a game of SC if played historically. Even if you spent a lot of time & effort, a point system would be a pain in the ass if it wasn't easy to calculate...unless Hubert put in the game.

My 2-cents,

Rambo-Hollywood-Vegas

[ July 29, 2003, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Narayan Sengupta]

Gentlemen,

I meant to add one other important factor, and it has been bugging me that I couldn't remember what that factor was when I finally posted this topic. Anyway, that factor is:

A design that will also consistently allow for historically accurate results.

So is it possible to have a campaign that does all of the above? If so, how? And thanks for your great answers so far.

Narayan

[Narayan Sengupta]

JerseyJohn,

I believe you've done a good job of telling us how to determine if a campaign is balanced, but I'm still not sure how to actually achieve that balance.

Rambo,

I like your idea, but what I was looking for is balance using the current game engine.

The reason I pose this question, is that it seems like we can design a campaign that is historically correct, using proper OOBs, balanced and historically playable for one side, but then one that is not for the other.

Narayan

[JerseyJohn]

Narayan

I don't think there's a formula or even an adequate answer. A lot of it is intuitive. The rest has to be worked out with play testing.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Narayan Sengupta

Here are the issues you have to address when you start going the "historical" route.

You need a Order of Battle and you need an understanding of the to&e of the different units. Take France '40. There are quite a few places that list the OOB, but alot of it is in French. But assume you do find a source you will use. Then you have the issue of the different division types. The French have Infantry, Fortress, Cavalry, Motorized and two types of Armor (DCM and DCR). Those divisions are mixed in various combinations to give you the various Corps and Armies. That brings up the next set of problems.

You need to determine the combat power. Usually that means you assign a combat power rating to each different division type, then add those various numbers together to give you the different combat power of the higher level formations (ie Corps and Armies). In real life, you'll find that Corps are not equal, unlike the way they are represented in SC. You also have to do something about the combat power that is represented by the non-divisional units that are attached to the Corps and Armies. Once you have that done for one nation, you now have your next problem.

When you start comparing different nations, you realize they are not the same. A Russian infantry division is not the same as a German infantry division. And the to&e of the units are not the same depending on the year. This is also where you have to determine how to handle the different nationality types using the generic units of SC.

All of the above is a detailed way of saying the same thing Bill Macon warned you about in reference to using Russian manpower numbers to determine the OOB for SC units.

The last thing you have to do, is determine the service support tail of the different nations. These are the people who support the manpower in the Corps and Armies. Again, there is no one ratio that everyone uses.

Once you work all those things out, you can have a historical OOB. This is also why the "experts" have different ways of representing the same OOB, even if they use the same reference sources. Depends on how you interpet and choose to represent certain information. I'll give you an example of my French '40 OOB.

3e Armee.......str 5.......maginot

4e Armee.......str 2.......maginot

5e Armee.......str 5.......maginot

8e Armee.......str 8.......mine

2e Armee.......str 8.......Ardennes forest

9e Armee.......str 5.......25,14 hex

1re Armee......str 8.......24,14 hex

7e Armee.......str 7.......24,13 hex

GC1 (Armor)....str 1.......Paris (1er Groupement Cuirasse, consist of 2e and 3e DCR)

Alpes Armee....str 9.......Alps (2 Alpini Corps)

Gamelin HQ.....str 5.......next to Paris

CEFS Corp......str 7.......England (French Expeditionary Force to Scandinavia)

XIX Corp.......str 10......Algeria

CSTT Corp......str 7.......Tunisia

GFML Corp......str 2.......Middle East

BEF Army.......str 6.......Coast (I and II Corp)

BEF Corp.......str 6.......Coast (III Corp)

1e de l'Air.....str 10

2e de l'Air.....str 6

Note

1re should be a one (1) experience bar unit.

Alpes Armee should be a one (1) experience bar unit.

BEF units should be two (2) experience bar units.

Now that you have the "historical" units, what next?

[Shaka of Carthage]

Narayan Sengupta (continued)

The critical issue for a historical campaign is the ability to replace losses and add new units. The easy method, is the one most operational wargames take. They follow the historical timeline on when new units arrived to the battlefield.

The other method is the manpower method. This gives you greater flexibility, in that you can leave it up to the player to use the manpower as they see fit. And since you've done most of the work anyway for the OOB research, you have the manpower numbers already. You also shouldn't forget that as you replace losses, you are consuming that limited manpower pool you have.

Most wargames stay away from the manpower method because while its realistic, its open to major interpetations and its alot of work. What you end up with, are "unit limits" and/or "reuseable units". Hence, the French would be allowed something like fourteen (14) or so units. They couldn't build anymore than that max, but whatever they lost, they would be able to rebuild (assuming they have the economic units to do so). This also allows you to limit the French to one (1) Armor unit and two (2) Air units. This gives you the ability to show the economic, manpower and doctrine limits that restricted the various nations in the choices of units they built.

This is why SC is a great game when you want to play the Greys against the Reds. But when you want Germans against Russians, it falls short.

One last point. A "balanced" historical campaign is a contradiction in terms. Take French '40 campaign as an example. No one, even newbie players, will recreate the same mistakes that the French made when they fought the Germans. So you have to do something to make it playable. Thats one of the reasons the French in SC don't start with a HQ. Those are the types of challenges you have ahead of you.

[Narayan Sengupta]

"Those are the types of challenges you have ahead of you."

Shaka,

Actually, I have designed five or six campaigns so far, including the first custom campaign ever for Strategic Command, so some of these challenges are actually behind me.

But still, I haven't been able to find a way to make everyone happy. So I really value your feedback on this and am grateful for it. It doesn't look like anyone has the magic answer on this.

But it would be really nice to find a way to make things balanced, historically accurate at the start, and give (possibly) historically accurate results regardless of which sides the player plays.

[Narayan Sengupta]

Shaka,

And BTW, it was very kind of you to write up your OOB. Thank you!

Narayan

[Shaka of Carthage]

Narayan Sengupta

You have to realize that you will never make everyone happy. Someone will always complain.

Designers for years have debated among themselves about the choices they have to make when it comes to playability vs realism. There is no magic answer.

[JerseyJohn]

This thread has had an interesting effect on my outlook regarding the subject. Nothing earth shattering, but a a better understanding of the concept first by writing my own philosphy out (for the first time), then by reading the postings both you guys have entered, and then by allowing the different ideas to mix a little.

Great Thread, Narayan.

Shaka, as you doubtlessly recall, the two of us posted quite a bit regarding a scenario editor that would provide for unit limits and differentiation between major countries, primarily your concept. Glad you're expressing the idea in a a different thread as a house rule format. Still, it would be a lot better if we actually had it in the scenario editor but I don't think Hubert has that in the works.

--

The new scenario idea Topic was also useful to me not only in expressing my own ideas and seeing those totally different ones posted by others, but also in having to analyze why I felt the game system itself limits scenario eras.

Enjoying all of this good interaction; here's hoping it continues and remains constructive.

[ July 31, 2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

Agree about the Scenario Editor concept. At this point, I'd just be happy with a Unit Editor.

I've mentioned this in the past, but it doesn't hurt to repeat ones' self.

If Mr H gave the permission, I'm sure there is enough grey matter in this forum for a "user created" Unit and/or Scenario Editor. This alone would give us the ability to be creative and play test the concepts we constantly debate.

[Narayan Sengupta]

JerseyJohn and Shaka,

The only way I can think of making this work is to sacrifice one of the four aforementioned factors of balance. The work around, as I see it, is to have varying MPPs and research points for the Axis and Allies that are biased against the player - since we must recognize that the player has a tremendous advantage over the AI. Thus each campaign would have an Axis setup and an Allied setup where the MPPs and research are the only things that are different between the two setups.

Perhaps the other thing is to recommend certain starting settings for experience, etc.

BTW, I'm also enjoying this dialog! Thank you,

Narayan

[Shaka of Carthage]

That points out one of the strengths of SC. The R&D system. Its one of the few places where you have to make certain decisions, but are unsure of the results. I love it when people complain about how they get no tech advances, yet the enemy does. I emphatize, especially when you have invested alot of chits and you find out the enemy only put in one chit. And the agony of having to reclaim the chits because you don't have enough units to stop the invasion.

AI has come along way, but it will never be the equal of playing against a human. As a learning tool, its great. But at a certain point, you will be able to beat the AI.

To make it more challenging, you have to play a "losing" side, to see if you can win. SC does that by the varying experience increases. Problem is, this hurts your playing against a human.

I think SC has the right approach, where the AI gives you a competent game, but to go to the next level, you have to play a human.

The variable setups make for a much more challenging H vs H game. Right now, the only way to do that, is for there to be a third person "game master". The Allied player would have to send a list of the units "purchased" and thier setups. Same with the Axis. This would allow France & Poland to have a different deployment. Since you can't do that with Russia, Italy and the US, you could get your variation there by random assignment of MPPs, variable number of R&D chits and even the occasional random assignment of neutrals to a specific side. Take the information, create a new scenario, then send it to the Axis player, who would then proceed as normal.

I've flirted with the idea of doing this, but we will have to see.

[Narayan Sengupta]

Shaka,

The problem is that as soon as you weaken the player (Side A) enough to where taking on the AI (Side is a challenge, then when the player plays as Side B, he steamrolls right over the AI as player A.

Narayan

[JerseyJohn]

Narayan

Agreed. I've only made one attempt at a scenario involving a human vs. AI only concept and wound up levelling it a bit so it could be played by two humans instead. Basically it's been a long time since I've played the AI so it's difficult for me to judge; I know it does a lousy job with the Axis, for example, but that's about it.

[Narayan Sengupta]

Hi John,

I suspect that I'm just going to have to give up on historically accurate results.

The Cold War General was nice in that sense because there are no historically accurate results to worry about.

Narayan

[JerseyJohn]

Greetings Narayan

The frustrating part about historical scenarios is sometimes the exact same item seems to slavishly reproduce the results and other times it seems to deviate wildly from the events depicted. I suspect the similarity mainly depends upon the players involved.

I find the worst limiting factor in SC to be the lack of a Russian Winter and also the unrealistically mild effect weather generally plays in the course of the game.

In Russia, for example, the Soviets never have a respite from the initial onslaught. Also forgotten is that the second winter of the invasion, also affected the German plans; freezing of the Don enabling the pincers movement against Stalingrad (crushing attack to NW against the Rumanians) and high snow hindering von Manstein's rescue effort.

There's no equivalent to the Italian and Balkan muddy seasons or choppy seas making amphibious landings impossible along with rain and snow limiting aircraft activity.

The result is a good enough game by game standards but something two dimensional that really should be three dimensional in order to accomplish it's main objective: being an Historically Reliable War Game. That is not to say it should always play out according to history, different decisions should change the course of history or there isn't a point to any of it. But it does mean that exactly the same factors that affected the historical events should affect the game events with similar results.

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn makes an excellent point. One of the reasons I never released my scenario, was that I was never able to achieve the results I wanted on the Eastern Front.

As JerseyJohn points out, the Russians get no break from the German attacks. I have not been able to find a way to effectively reflect the Russian ability to bleed the experienced German manpower.

As pointed out also, the amphib thing is a killer. Especially in North Africa, where the Allies could leapfrog each turn of retreat by the Axis. Not to mention the classic Italian "E-Day" assault by three or more units on Egypt. Those things just couldn't happen.

I've tried to keep a list of what changes I feel are necessary to give a more historical result. Here is the link.

Suggested Changes

This is off topic, but the one other thing I wanted to do, was to expand the economic unit beyond the single MPP. In other words, I wanted the effects of oil, since it was a critical economic issue in WWII. I wrote a system up on that as well. If you're interested, you can find the link in the newbie sticky thread.

And don't get us started on expanding the Atlantic!

[ August 02, 2003, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[JerseyJohn]

"Those things just couldn't happen."

-- Shaka

Yes, all things the two of us and many others have discussed repeatedly in numerous threads and in many different ways.

And they are all items that really have to be corrected.

Preferably that should have been done in the current version. As you and Bill have pointed out, however, the game is trapped by it's own system restrictions.

It's frustrating to imagine how good the game can really be with a few slight adjustments. Which is not even mentioning things like an expanded editor, a production schedule, slipways for actual warship producing ports -- guess I mentioned them after all.

Glad you linked that Great & Classic Thread. It was falling too far back.

[ August 02, 2003, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Narayan Sengupta]

Hmmm... I did find one thing over the last few days that I wanted to share with you.

The AI apparently doesn't have a good grasp on how strong his units are.

My historically pretty accurate OOBs led me to conclude that many of the German units not facing France should be weak (as should French and British units) to simulate units that were still being fleshed out/paper units, etc.

However the German AI assaults the Maginot Line from the Rhine River with 2, 3 and other similarly substrength units allowing for unrealistically easy kills by the French forces.

So I had to remove some of the German units and strengthen other weakened ones correspondingly. Now things are working better.

Narayan