Game Balance

[arby]

There have been any number of comments here about play balance in the game. Most of the critical comments on that score are directed to two particular aspects of the game: research and American production, or lack thereof. I was struck by Doomsday's comment on this latter point in another thread:

I think the production rate sucks. The starting point is fine, but it does not take into account the massive build-up of everything conceivable. I remember watching a movie rendition of the Battle of the Bulge. A German officer was dismayed because he knew it was a futile pursuit to even think they had a chance when he saw that the US was flying fresh cakes from Boston to the men.

I think he's probably right, but it raises an interesting question: was the German defeat inevitable? Because if it was, trying to play balance the game will necessarily mean making it ahistorical to some extent.

[redwilf]

I would like to know whether game is in balance if game ends historically correct.

So does Hubert mean that when he thinks that the game is in good balance that both sides with equally good players have good chance to win...or does good balance mean that if both players are equally good then Germany will fall in summer 1945.

I hope that balance is considered good when equally good players will end the game somewhat like it went historically.

This offcourse means that i'm better than average player

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by redwilf:

So does Hubert mean that when he thinks that the game is in good balance that both sides with equally good players have good chance to win...or does good balance mean that if both players are equally good then Germany will fall in summer 1945.

Well, who wants to play a game half way through?

As it stands, that seems to be the usual situation. (unless you wish to prolong the agony & ecstasy once Russia kneels over and surrenders).

I think sometimes we (I am guilty of this as well)are TOO concerned with historical accuracy and not appreciating that -- unless the game is fun and competitive to the very end, it hasn't provided what we want -- namely, a spirited contest, as chess mostly is, where the latter stages are as competitive as the earlier ones.

This brings to mind one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes (from Zarathustra):

"An image made this pale man pale. He was equal to the deed when he did it; but he could not endure its image after it was done."

What do I suggest? Well, there is this underlying psychological aspect to war-games, and especially WW2 recreations, wherein the player, being naturally aggressive, has very little opportunity (RE: Freud and "Civilization and Its Discontents") to express it fully, and thereby exorcise it (if only temporarily).

And so, it is exceeding difficult to actually out & out say -- hey, it's OK if the Germans win.

No-one would admit, in polite Society, that they take some sure and heady pleasure in mayhem & conquest, and most especially no-one would admit ANY satisfaction in seeing the German war-machine achieve its nefarious 3rd Reich ambitions.

To be ambivalent or even conflicted-contradictory about this, or indeed many of the simplest things in Life, is the "normal" condition.

To pretend that we (mainly males) are NOT innately aggressive, as if this could be conditioned out of us by some paltry requests (even, authoritative admonitions)to the contrary, is, in my estimation, nonsense.

So. I am suspecting that we must "tip-toe" around our (mine, anyway) great glee in seeing the whole Euro-world aflame (and, by implication, ready for -- a NEW, possibly more Eden-like rebirth).

Mostly we are afraid, in line with WB Yeats' timeless poem where he suggests... that the center will not hold -- O we are scared witless that another! bold and menacing attack on Western Civ is ever... just under the surface, about to rear its hideous, malformed head, and commence that sneering slouch toward Bethlehem.

Well, this is no polemic, nor earnest thesis, for that would certainly take 100s of pages, so I will conclude by saying -- let us admit that we truly enjoy marauding and laying waste!... no disclaimers or slitted red masques necessary or required.

Let the Germans win, let them almost win, or let them be smitten by an avenging Angel, but mostly, let the game reach utter completion, even if it bothers our "collective sense" that this would be... the final arrival of that faintly-promised Scourge...

(... sorry, you may disregard this post in its entirety and continue to pretend if you'd prefer... )

[pzgndr]

that would certainly take 100s of pages

What, give us just the Reader's Digest condensed version of leave us wondering what you really mean?

We all have to remember this is a game, and the game's victory conditions are not necessarily the same as in real life. Germany must be ahistorically aggressive to win in SC, and this leads to all sorts of conjecture about reality. Why did Germany wait during the winter of 39-40 for a possible political solution? What if Britain and France did agree to an early resolution, or never went to war over Poland in the first place? That would give us a whole different game. Imagine playing sitzkrieg and getting an Axis Victory announcement in February 1940 because the other guys quit.

So, we play a game that expects the Axis to be aggressive (and we KNOW that up front) and either they win or they don't. We do have optional settings which either favor the Axis or the Allies, and players should select their handicap as they desire in order to achieve "true"(?) play balance. What we don't have are partial victory conditions or interim victory conditions that may provide some different sort of satisfaction. Another thing we're not seeing (yet) is later year scenario play and comments about play balance from that perspective.

SC does provide enough variation that we can select options appropriate to our ability and experience a fun and challenging game. Certainly, if folks continue to beat the "game" at Expert +2 with all options conservatively selected, then something's wrong and needs adjustment. As long as we have "play balance" somewhere between the two extreme game settings, that should be fine.

Lastly, a rhetorical question. How do you achieve play balance in computer chess? Same rules, same forces, no options, no variants. How boring can you get?

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

SC does provide enough variation that we can select options appropriate to our ability and experience a fun and challenging game.

Bill, on this there is not a scintilla of doubt. If it isn't sufficiently PBEM balanced now, it will be soon. :cool:

And, as you suggest, there are plenty of options for each to make the scenario that they find most challenging and enjoyable -- I know I have.

Mostly I was commenting on a general area of interest -- to me. It is surely evident that this "psychological" impetus originates INSIDE of me, and so it may well be true that I am one of the only ones who is concerned with it. If there are no responses, than I will assume that to be the case, and move on -- there are very nearly an unlimited # of other topics to discuss.

Nonetheless, I felt the strange desire to BEGIN to examine this touchy topic, but it sure enough shouldn't be explored beyond a "Reader's Digest" level, which is why I didn't elaborate. To do it justice would require a full-length book.

After all, the psychological workings of the Human is not of surpassing interest to very many, primarily I think, because it can be quite threatening to bio-balance. And, it is mostly supported by fanciful theories, and not hard-science kinds of "facts." (though here we cannot pretend that these so-called "facts" haven't changed over the centuries, because they have, and will continue to do so)

In addition, pscyhologists have a (well deserved in terms of jargon-laced reformulations of ordinary common sense) reputation as "witch doctors" who cannot often see -- the Mystery in the forest for the trees, etc.

As for computer chess, I have never played it nor do I have any desire to do so. Face to face chess can be a majestic battle of wits, as any good boardgame, and in fact, I mostly prefer those to computer simulations.

SC is exceptionally fun to play, and I am very thankful for Hubert's 2 year Odyssey.

[iolo]

Of course we all want the Germans to win, at least sometimes.

They had much better uniforms, better looking tanks, and no matter how awful the Nazis were, you have to at least respect anyone that gave the 'ole Taking Over the World thing an honest go.

[sogard]

I find it fascinating that there are so many folks here who seem to think that one can not have a good game based upon the historic power relationships between the major powers in World War II. History must always be seen as inevitable even though this inevitability was not apparant to the major actors at the time. I think that there is a general consensus among military historians that it was possible for Germany and her Allies to win WW II. There is also a sense that Germany came much closer to knocking Soviet Russia out of the war in 1941 than is generally recognized. Read Weinberg's A WORLD AT ARMS, or the recent military history, A WAR TO BE WON by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett, or John Keegan's A HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR or delve into Russia with WHEN TITANS CLASH by David Glantz.

The Axis had some real advantages and factors working in its favor. (Hitler intended to take his opponants on in succession, one after another and to a great extent, he succeeded at this fantastically.) Is it impossible for a game to reflect these power relationships more accurately?

I think that STRATEGIC COMMAND does a number of things right. Hubert is also trying to produce an enjoyable game. Personally, I want any game on WW II to reflect the actual power relationships as accurately as possible so that the game can be about examining what kind of success was required by the Axis to win.

I find the "it is only a game" argument to not only diminish my enjoyment of a WW II game; but, a self fullfilling prophecy by those who don't seem to care. Then, why not simply create a fantasy game and not base it in a specific historic period? I do not see why one should start with the proposition that a game can not really present an honest view of the actual situation. Game creation will always have some tension between these two game design goals; but, the do not have to be exclusive.

[pzgndr]

I find the "it is only a game" argument to not only diminish my enjoyment of a WW II game; but, a self fullfilling prophecy by those who don't seem to care. Then, why not simply create a fantasy game and not base it in a specific historic period?

Whoa! Hold your horses pardner, those are some of MY fighting words! At least a couple of folks can vouch for my beating the "historical accuracy" drum one too many times around here, so I sure as heck do care.

I concur completely with what you're saying. The political model is doing a good job of simulating the random entry of the US and USSR based on events, so the Axis can choose how to proceed. And there's room for improvements to add more realism to the game in future patches or revisions.

However, once everything possible is said and done, it still remains that the game may be "balanced" or not. There is a spectrum which can accomodate each individual's talent to produce that optimum game experience. At some point we may have clearly defined tournament game settings (which Hubert has pretty much established but is in the process of confirming). But even those settings may be too easy or too hard for some. So, as a "game" and not a perfect simulation, there's room for each individual to decide how to enjoy SC.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by iolo:

Of course we all want the Germans to win, at least sometimes.

Of course.

It's that revolting Beast in each,

Usually tamed,

And then and again... demanding! it's way,

But... rare is the day, thanks be,

It's chewing right through!

That pitiful short-length leash...

[iolo]

Oh.. but it sure is a sexy beast...