Balanced vs. Unbalanced

I think that many people naturally assume that the teams/sides in a scenario need to be balanced, in terms of number of ships, total strength, etc. Personally, I don't subscribe to that notion. For one thing, even if one manages to get exactly "equal" ships on both sides - the same ships, armed identically, which would be nearly impossible - the differences in captains' skill levels would affect the overall balance of strengths. Somebody could drive themselves nuts trying to figure out how to manipulate the fleets & still never get it perfect.

I like the idea of an unbalanced scenario, where the opposing sides have different strengths. This reflects the reality of warfare in general. In real life, I can't think of a single example where sides were equally balanced. Agressor nations don't start wars with somebody whose strength is a match for their own, they pick on one that's weaker. One of the primary rules of combat is, "Never allow yourself to be drawn into an even fight!"

The key, I think, is to define objectives for each side. One side can win a scenario by:

- Achieving their objective(s) while their opponent fails to achieve theirs (or achieve more of their objectives than the opponent does).
- Achieving their objective(s) first, before the opponent achieves theirs.
- Denying the opponent their objective(s).

Example: You've got 11 cargo ships of a variety of types & sizes. There's really no way to divide them up equally, so why even try? Assign them all to one team, with the objective to deliver some number of total cargo runs, or some total amount (tonnage) of "cargo". The opponent's objective is to keep the cargo from being delivered. It's that simple: Whoever achieves their objective gets the "win". Since both objectives are mutually-exclusive, there can't be a tie. An option might be to put a time limit on the scenario, so that the cargo runs must be completed before time runs out.

One of my all-time favorite battles was just such a scenario. Through attrition of both warships & cargo ships, the whole battle came down to one last beaten-up Liberty Ship that needed to finish one more run vs. one pocket battleship armed with guns AND torpedoes! That was the most exciting finish I've ever seen: Would he make it, or would he get sunk first? If the pocket battleship could get in position for a shot, all it would take is one. It literally got settled feet from the "finish line" with the whole crowd cheering wildly!

My point is that it's not necessary to try to artficially balance the opposing fleets to have a good battle scenario. In fact, it's all but impossible to actually achieve balance. In a balanced scenario, the winner is basically determined by who's stronger at the end, when the balance has shifted due to battle losses. With an unbalanced scenario, the possibilities are unlimited. Set objectives for each team, or even just a single objective for one team: If Team A makes ___ they win, otherwise Team B wins. Objectives need to be measurable, so that there's no doubt when one is made, & agreed to by both sides in advance. They should be reasonable, but sometimes it can be fun to have to try to make the impossible happen!

JM

 

I think john has a good idea on his hands (john always has good ideas). The balanced fleet comes from the hole counting mechanism, if one side has more ships, they will have an advantage when scoring hits (b/c they had more weapons to start with). Then again; I've never liked the hole counting mechanism, its too much like bean counting, who really cares how many hits you've scored above? I don't, unless I brought that ship to its knees!

 

Same here - & thanks for the compliment!

I don't like counting holes, either, except to establish bragging rights. I'd like to see those who absorb the most damage over the course of a year/season get rewarded nicely for their contributions to the enjoyment of all! Other than that, hole counting, points, combat factors, etc. are useless. After all, how many "points" did it take for the US Navy to win WWII in the Pacific? Wars are fought over strategic national objectives, & won or lost based on whether those objectives are achieved or not. For one side, the objective may be to conquer; for the other side, just to survive the onslaught is enough to win. I like gameplay that reflects this, rather than just tearing up balsa (not that that isn't a fun part of it - it is!).

I've been in several few-against-many scenarios on both sides - even a few one-against-many engagements. Frankly, I'd rather be alone against a swarm if given the choice. I feel that in a "target-rich environment" I stand a good chance of taking a few more ships down with me, while the other side has more limited scoring opportunities.

JM

 

I'm not quite sure that you're using the term "balanced" properly here. "balanced" suggests to me that both teams have an equal chance of success at the time the battle starts, that neither side has an unfair advantage. This does not require that each team has equal firepower and ships, although many people believe such. On the other hand, even if each team is "equal" in firepower and ships it is still quite possible to weight the game in favor of one team or the other. Balancing the teams is very much an art form, as the Combat Director must take into account ship ability, captain ability, and team-play modifiers. It certainly isn't easy, because some ships are more (or less) effective against certain other ships, some captains work well together, and others have impressive armament but poor reliability. Despite this, several people in the WWCC have become quite skilled at creating balanced teams.

Personally I like the scenario battles and fights with numerically uneven teams, but a large percent of the WWCC dislike that underdog feeling, even if it isn't true. What I strive for in terms of game balance is for each team to have an equal chance to win. If people believe that the games favor one team or the other then they are less likely to attend the next battle.

Scenario battles are meant to spice things up. If a battle is a bowl of chili, then regular battles are the meat and beans. Scenarios and missions are the chili powder and other spices (hey, I'm not a cook). If you add too much, some people won't be able to handle the heat, and others will lose the flavor of the meat and beans. I will have to be careful in the WWCC because a large number of captains are not regulars, and only attend one or two battles at most every year. When they attend, they expect regular battles, and will probably have trouble adapting to any scenarios, which may cause them to leave the club.

 

I think it is important to get the word out that on date X, we will have a scenario battle & date Y we will have a standard battle. Do half & half for an entire season & you will start figuring out which is more popular with your crowd.

 

I think you're the oddball ;-) Most people, I believe, think of balance in terms of equal numbers or strength.

I'm with you, though, in the sense that each team should have a chance to win. Not necessarily an equal chance, all the time - longshots can be a lot of fun! That's where the setting of team goals is important, to give everybody a chance to win if they work hard, get lucky, etc. & both sides should agree on the goals ahead of time.

JM

 

personally I agree that trying to perfectly balance and make things fair is pointless.. especially with groups that sometimes get anal about as much realism that they can

you think one fleet sits out in the ocean waiting for the other fleet to group it's forces.. hell no! if they see an opening it's balls deep in we go!

un even firepower can be delt with fairly easily provided the "underdog" team can mesh well and work together

 

I would fight in any type of battle. Joe Moore with his Wisconsin stood everyone in a battle one time and lived to talk about it.He did have 200 holes put into his vessel. Joe is a WWCC member.

 

From a Game-Design standpoint John has nailed this on the head. There are many, many games out there (Computer games especially) where you are put into a situation where the odds are stacked against you...but you dont necessarily have to KILL or DESTROY all of your opponents...you only have to either do item "a" or keep them from doing item "b". As long as it's relatively possible to achieve the object that battle will be a LOT of fun.