Balance: scenario, A26.4, the game

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Scenario:
Is scenario balance important, impossible or irrelevant in your opinion? Or any other thoughts.

Except when playtesting scenario balance was irrelevant to me. I just wanted to play. Fish was my main opponent so I was going to lose 80% of the time anyway no matter if the scenario was balanced or not. He was tough to beat even if he was the underdog .

A26.4
Do you use it as written or to equalize scenario balance? We used it as written.

The system or game itself.

Do you think the system or game favors a nationality, unit, type of unit or whatever?

I haven't thought about this a lot but my gut feeling is that both the system and game favor the Germans. Quite willing to entertain other viewpoints on this as I really haven't given it a lot of thought and am not prepared to back up my feeling with evidence. 😉

Thanks for any input.
 
Last edited:

gorkowskij

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
504
Country
llUnited States
Ye of little faith, balance makes all the difference. The game is always fun; but it’s incredible when the contest teeters on the precipice, turn after turn, because of proper balance. Yes, you might lose 80% of the time to a better player, but he’ll have more fun, and you will learn more, if those scenarios are well balanced. Thanks to balance, the system cannot systematically favor any one nationality. Designers can always compensate for one nationality’s weakness by tweaking the order of battle - and they do. Using what you’ve got (via the OB) to compensate for a weakness or exploit the other side’s vulnerability is the balancing act that makes the game great.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Thanks for your input! I always had fun. Seriously we didn't give that much thought to the scenario, we just wanted to play and enjoy the game.

I have to think about your statement that you learn more from a balanced scenario. My initial thought was that you learn more from an unbalanced scenario. It challenges you to find ways to maximize your assets/situation in order to achieve balance. However I can see how a balanced scenario offers the challenge of how to maximize your assets/situation to unbalance the scenario in your favor.

I'll have to discuss this with Captain Bacchus as his cousin Colonel Ron Rico is absent tonight. 😉🤗
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,359
Reaction score
10,211
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Scenario:
Is scenario balance important, impossible or irrelevant in your opinion?
In general, I think that scenario balance is important.

Of course, you can just play for the fun of it or replay some historical situation which was not balanced at all.

However, I think most people prefer playing games in which the outcome is not clear from the onset. They like the friendly or even competitive contest and the excitement of a tense and close game.

That said, for me 'absolute' balance is not a requirement for having fun, but I do enjoy 'balanced' scenarios more than unbalanced ones.

von Marwitz
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Balance is a pertinent factor I look for when playing someone new or having had very few games with. However, I will certainly pick scenarios that trip my interest trigger be it for historical time-frame/setting or just the look of the scenario based upon the METT-T (Mission, Equipment, Troops, Terrain & Time) standard that I evaluate a first look with when playing my regular opponents. I've never been overly concerned with a win-loss record though my gut feeling is I've lost more games than won over the span of time I've been playing ASL. I've certainly had my share of win streaks, maybe even years, but the real enjoyment for me is playing and especially playing a wealth of newer people and what I consider better players than me. It's really an satisfying accomplishment when I'm able to pull one or two out against an opponent that's slapped me around fairly regularly and/or when I knew I had to bring an A-game to be in the running even if I lost.

Most of the scenarios, especially the newer ones in the last 20 years or so, have been fairly well play-tested (there are some exceptions of course) and should be considered relatively balanced anyway. Here one can usually look for known entities as scenario designers, though even some new entrants into the design process have come out with some gems. About the only scenarios I shy away from are ones where I deem it there is only a single way to win [EX: the Gun must be placed in this hex to be able to win or there is a single critical unit and if something untoward happens to it, you've effectively lost]. Other factors that may make a scenario less appealing to me are a-historical objectives like having more pieces on map board when control of high ground or seizure of road junctions would have fit the bill as a more accurate objective(s) choice.

When play-testing I look for ways to balance a scenario as it should normally be played but also offer historical tidbits if known to enhance that aspect of scenario presentation. There may be ways to break a scenario and while I look for those, do not go out of may way to do so wasting a playtest session though I'll mention it to the designer as a potential outcome. All said balance is a factor but not an all consuming goal in playing but takes a higher priority when play-testing.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Scenario:
Is scenario balance important, impossible or irrelevant in your opinion? Or any other thoughts.
Balance is an illusion. I think if a scenario designer can get to 55 - 45, they have done an outstanding job. If they can get it to 60 - 40 they have done a pretty good job. The dice, the difference in players, people's grasp on the rules, how they have read the card, etc all have a say in the balance and they are too unpredictable. I have recently been playing BoF 16 Saluting a General after watching Repetti's and NBT's (Natural Born Tuomo) replay. I thought in watching it, while interesting, if one takes the approach NBT did to the Defense, winning as the Germans would require great fortune. Having played through 4 turns of this, I can say without a doubt, this scenario is fun, I am glad I played it, I am glad I got to meet a new player, and I am enjoying the hell out of the game, but I am only more firm in my belief that NBT has more or less broken the scenario. As he setup, the German Infantry has to cross 24 hexes to get to the VC area in 7 MPh's. That's an average of 3 hexes forward a turn and that get's you there on the last turn with no hope of getting to the back of the VC area. It's fun for the German, even if mostly hopeless. It reminds me a lot of my favorite ESG scenario, Mad Mike's Finest Hour. The IJA are super fun. It is a large scenario played across 4+ boards but the IJA have no hope to get where they need to be in the time provided.

If I were balancing the BoF 16, I would restrict the Russian setup area to allow the Germans to setup closer to the VC or I would bring on their AFV's on turn 1. For Mad Mike, I would add a 1/2 turn for the IJA to have one more move and it would be dead on. Of course, that's for me. I better or lesser player would have a different view. -- jim
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Balance is an illusion. I think if a scenario designer can get to 55 - 45, they have done an outstanding job. If they can get it to 60 - 40 they have done a pretty good job. The dice, the difference in players, people's grasp on the rules, how they have read the card, etc all have a say in the balance and they are too unpredictable. I have recently been playing BoF 16 Saluting a General after watching Repetti's and NBT's (Natural Born Tuomo) replay. I thought in watching it, while interesting, if one takes the approach NBT did to the Defense, winning as the Germans would require great fortune. Having played through 4 turns of this, I can say without a doubt, this scenario is fun, I am glad I played it, I am glad I got to meet a new player, and I am enjoying the hell out of the game, but I am only more firm in my belief that NBT has more or less broken the scenario. As he setup, the German Infantry has to cross 24 hexes to get to the VC area in 7 MPh's. That's an average of 3 hexes forward a turn and that get's you there on the last turn with no hope of getting to the back of the VC area. It's fun for the German, even if mostly hopeless. It reminds me a lot of my favorite ESG scenario, Mad Mike's Finest Hour. The IJA are super fun. It is a large scenario played across 4+ boards but the IJA have no hope to get where they need to be in the time provided.

If I were balancing the BoF 16, I would restrict the Russian setup area to allow the Germans to setup closer to the VC or I would bring on their AFV's on turn 1. For Mad Mike, I would add a 1/2 turn for the IJA to have one more move and it would be dead on. Of course, that's for me. I better or lesser player would have a different view. -- jim
Balance is an illusion. I like that. 😊
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The most important factor is fun.
Which is subjective.
I would however venture that only a minority of players have fun with a scenario presenting VC which don't give a chance to one side.
I am not speaking of an unbalanced situation (which is more frequent than not), but of VC not designed to reward the better play.
A side could be totally be wiped out, but still win if it prevented the stronger one from reaching its objectives.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
The most important factor is fun.
Which is subjective.
I would however venture that only a minority of players have fun with a scenario presenting VC which don't give a chance to one side.
I am not speaking of an unbalanced situation (which is more frequent than not), but of VC not designed to reward the better play.
A side could be totally be wiped out, but still win if it prevented the stronger one from reaching its objectives.
You are spot on with the observation that the most important factor is fun! I agree that there should be a path to victory even if, as you say, a side is totally wiped out but prevents the other side from reaching its objective. The Sparans at Thermopylae being probably the most famous example of this.
 

asloser

The Head Tuomo of the Finnish ASL Community
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
1,593
Location
Klaukkala-Finland
Country
llFinland
Balance is an illusion. I think if a scenario designer can get to 55 - 45, they have done an outstanding job. If they can get it to 60 - 40 they have done a pretty good job. The dice, the difference in players, people's grasp on the rules, how they have read the card, etc all have a say in the balance and they are too unpredictable.
This. Balance is a very subjective thing and all of the above play a role. As long as I think there is a reasonable change to pull it off I am happy - I do not mind taking the challenge.
, but I am only more firm in my belief that NBT has more or less broken the scenario.
Well, FrF designers and playtesters are some of the best in business. This one has been revised after the initial publication. I really do not think I am good enough a player to break such a scenario.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
This. Balance is a very subjective thing and all of the above play a role. As long as I think there is a reasonable change to pull it off I am happy - I do not mind taking the challenge.


Well, FrF designers and playtesters are some of the best in business. This one has been revised after the initial publication. I really do not think I am good enough a player to break such a scenario.
I am not familiar with this scenario or you as a player but it doesn't really take a great player to " break " a scenario. Sometimes it only takes a player applying a rule or tactic that the designers and playtesters didn't anticipate or take into consideration. Deliberately setting fires comes to mind though I believe this has been eliminated in most cases. Does this make the breaker a great player or the broken scenario a bad scenario? Not necessarily as the scenario can be tweaked and the player can fail miserably in another scenario.

Rigorous playtesting will minimize the ability of a scenario to be broken. Are scenarios these days playtested with the same thoroughness as those bitd may have been? I have no idea but would assume that there were fewer scenarios and more playtesters back then. This is just a wild ass guess.

Regardless I would congratulate a player who has discovered a way to break a scenario. He has exposed a weakness that the designer and others can look for in their designs and by doing so improves the game.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I really do not think I am good enough a player to break such a scenario.
They are but the fact this was revised shows they are not infallible. You also underestimate yourself. -- jim
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
...If I were balancing the BoF 16, I would restrict the Russian setup area to allow the Germans to setup closer to the VC or I would bring on their AFV's on turn 1. For Mad Mike, I would add a 1/2 turn for the IJA to have one more move and it would be dead on. Of course, that's for me. I better or lesser player would have a different view. -- jim
I'm playing the same scenario with von M and my Germans are experiencing the same challenges,... being shot dead without much success going the other way. In a separate game I am the Russians vs eagl4ty (pbem) and the fight a bit more interesting as every German shot is breaking my infantry (well,...all but one).

This scenario is definitely fun but I believe part of the problem lies in assigning the Germans obsolete, out-of-date tanks (as per Chapter H and historically) and then trying to fix the problem by giving the Pz IIIGs APCR (not normally available). The Pz IIIGs are too weak for 1942 and should have fallen from use by late 1941. This places the Germans in a situation where a mere Stuart is superior to four of the Pz IIIs on the board and arguably about equal to a fifth. It may not seem like a large advantage but compare:

Stuart III(a) - AF 4/4, small target, TK 11 (37LL), RoF 1
Pz IIIG - AF 4/3, regular target, TK 11 (50), RoF 2

As hull hits are the norm this means a Stuart kills on a 7 and scores an Immob on an 8. The return shot from the Pz IIIG kills on a 6 and Immob on a 7.

Statistically, the difference in TK #s lends a noticeable edge to the Stuart, which tended to struggle against the standard Pz III of mid 41 to mid-42, the Pz IIIH (AF 4/6).

The red TH #s used by the Russians is not as much of a handicap as it might appear due to the close terrain and the fact that the Russians will normally shoot first. If the range is longer, the 37LL TH mods help a bit in supporting a hit. The map is also quite crowded with numerous hindrances that help balance THs over all and bring the shooters to close range. At the same time, the Stuart's small target modifier imposes a TH penalty on the German bounding fire shots complicating the return TH #s (despite the Pz III RoF of 2).

As the Russian Prep Fire Phase will follow soon after, the Pz IIIs (those still alive) are now badly exposed and on the wrong side of the gun/armour numbers (which, historically, should raise an eyebrow or two) .

I am very curious as to the effect on the scenario of changing two (or three or all) the Pz IIIGs to Pz IIIH (which come with A5 w/o the need for an SSR). The TK #s for the Stuart would then drop to a 4 for the kill and a 5 for the immob on a hull hit and 6 kill/7 shock for a turret hit. This may prevent the German tank force from being shot full of holes with an unnerving regularity regardless of the route of the attack.

Dealing with the Lee's is a separate issue in that the only real help for a 50 is to hope for APCR (TK 14 vs 8 armour) with some additional help if the range is 6 or less. In my current game the Germans failed to make a single APCR availability roll so far.

[Well,... that post was longer than anticipated. :oops: ]
 
Last edited:

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I'm playing the same scenario with von M and my Germans are experiencing the same challenges,... being shot dead without much success going the other way. In a separate game I am the Russians vs eagl4ty (pbem) and the fight a bit more interesting as every German shot is breaking my infantry (well,...all but one).

This scenario is definitely fun but I believe part of the problem lies in assigning the Germans obsolete, out-of-date tanks (as per Chapter H and historically) and then trying to fix the problem by giving the Pz IIIGs APCR (not normally available). The Pz IIIGs are too weak for 1942 and should have fallen from use by late 1941. This places the Germans in a situation where a mere Stuart is superior to four of the Pz IIIs on the board and arguably about equal to a fifth. It may not seem like a large advantage but compare:

Stuart III(a) - AF 4/4, small target, TK 11 (37LL), RoF 1
Pz IIIG - AF 4/3, regular target, TK 11 (50), RoF 2

As hull hits are the norm this means a Stuart kills on a 7 and scores an Immob on an 8. The return shot from the Pz IIIG kills on a 6 and Immob on a 7.

Statistically, the difference in TK #s lends a noticeable edge to the Stuart, which tended to struggle against the standard Pz III of mid 41 to mid-42, the Pz IIIH (AF 4/6).

The red TH #s used by the Russians is not as much of a handicap as it might appear due to the close terrain and the fact that the Russians will normally shoot first. If the range is longer, the 37LL TH mods help a bit in supporting support a hit. The map is also quite crowded with numerous hindrances that help balance THs over all and bring the shooters to close range. At the same time, the Stuart's small target modifier imposes a TH penalty on the German bounding fire shots complicating the return TH #s (despite the Pz III RoF of 2).

As the Russian Prep Fire Phase will follow soon after, the Pz IIIs (those still alive) are now badly exposed and on the wrong side of the gun/armour numbers (which, historically, should raise an eyebrow or two) .

I am very curious as to the effect on the scenario of changing two (or three or all) the Pz IIIGs to Pz IIIH (which come with A5 w/o the need for an SSR). The TK #s for the Stuart would then drop to a 4 for the kill and a 5 for the immob on a hull hit and 6 kill/7 shock for a turret hit. This may prevent the German tank force from being shot full of holes with an unnerving regularity regardless of the route of the attack.

Dealing with the Lee's is a separate issue in that the only real help for a 50 is to hope for APCR (TK 14 vs 8 armour) with some additional help if the range is 6 or less. In my current game the Germans failed to make a single APCR availability roll so far.

[Well,... that post was longer than anticipated. :oops: ]
Perhaps longer but interesting and informative.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I would still appreciate input about the overall balance of the game/system.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Balance is an illusion. I think if a scenario designer can get to 55 - 45, they have done an outstanding job. If they can get it to 60 - 40 they have done a pretty good job. The dice, the difference in players, people's grasp on the rules, how they have read the card, etc all have a say in the balance and they are too unpredictable. I have recently been playing BoF 16 Saluting a General after watching Repetti's and NBT's (Natural Born Tuomo) replay. I thought in watching it, while interesting, if one takes the approach NBT did to the Defense, winning as the Germans would require great fortune. Having played through 4 turns of this, I can say without a doubt, this scenario is fun, I am glad I played it, I am glad I got to meet a new player, and I am enjoying the hell out of the game, but I am only more firm in my belief that NBT has more or less broken the scenario. As he setup, the German Infantry has to cross 24 hexes to get to the VC area in 7 MPh's. That's an average of 3 hexes forward a turn and that get's you there on the last turn with no hope of getting to the back of the VC area. It's fun for the German, even if mostly hopeless. It reminds me a lot of my favorite ESG scenario, Mad Mike's Finest Hour. The IJA are super fun. It is a large scenario played across 4+ boards but the IJA have no hope to get where they need to be in the time provided.

If I were balancing the BoF 16, I would restrict the Russian setup area to allow the Germans to setup closer to the VC or I would bring on their AFV's on turn 1. For Mad Mike, I would add a 1/2 turn for the IJA to have one more move and it would be dead on. Of course, that's for me. I better or lesser player would have a different view. -- jim
What is the balance provision for Saluting a General? I tried looking at the Scenario Archive but didn't see it. Thanks!
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,359
Reaction score
10,211
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
What is the balance provision for Saluting a General? I tried looking at the Scenario Archive but didn't see it. Thanks!
In the BoF version:

Russian: Delete one PzKpfw IIIG from the German reinforcements.
German: Delete one Stuart III(a) from the Russian reinforcements.

In the FrF version:

Russian: Add one M3 LT to the Russian Turn 1 reinforcements.
German: Delete one M3 LT from the Russian Turn 1 reinforcements.

von Marwitz
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
In the BoF version:

Russian: Delete one PzKpfw IIIG from the German reinforcements.
German: Delete one Stuart III(a) from the Russian reinforcements.

In the FrF version:

Russian: Add one M3 LT to the Russian Turn 1 reinforcements.
German: Delete one M3 LT from the Russian Turn 1 reinforcements.

von Marwitz
Thanks!
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
What is the balance provision for Saluting a General? I tried looking at the Scenario Archive but didn't see it. Thanks!
Not enough, IMO. It's not about one side having too much or the other having too little, the problem is how far they Germans have to go and the time they have to do it in. -- jim
 
Top