Scenario Designers, How do you use A 26.4 in your designs?

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I had posed this question in my Shanghaid thread a while back but didn't get much response so I thought that I would try again


When you design a scenario do you use a strict interpretation of A 26.4, balance is used when both players want the same side? Or is it your intention that it be used to correct some perceived advantage for one side?

I'm just curious about the designer's view of balance.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I had posed this question in my Shanghaid thread a while back but didn't get much response so I thought that I would try again


When you design a scenario do you use a strict interpretation of A 26.4, balance is used when both players want the same side? Or is it your intention that it be used to correct some perceived advantage for one side?

I'm just curious about the designer's view of balance.
I thought that there was a sub forum for scenario designers but I couldn't find it. If such a forum exists and a moderator moves this thread to that forum I would be greatly appreciative.
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
When you design a scenario do you use a strict interpretation of A 26.4, balance is used when both players want the same side? Or is it your intention that it be used to correct some perceived advantage for one side?
Can't speak for anyone else, obviously ... but my approach is "I want the scenario, in its standard form, to be a fair fight for both players". Playtesters will note stuff that they find hard and stuff that they find easy. Discussion should ideally highlight "problematic" areas. From all this the proposed balance will aim to address these areas. That's all very non-specific, of course, but it's a hard topic to address in any other way.

A particularly easy balance provision is when the scenario requires a threshold to be reached. Score a certain number of VP? Then use the balance to raise or lower the number. Control a certain number of specific locations? Again, change the number. Got a hard time limit? Add or remove player turns.

I imagine that we all know scenarios where clearly zero thought has been applied. "Add a LMG to the OB", for instance, when the crux of the scenario is about reaching a certain destination by a certain time; that extra LMG is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever in most cases. The absolute worst case I can remember is when the scenario required the Attacker to exit a certain number of VP, and the scenario length was already 7.5 turns or whatever. The balance for the Attacker was to add an extra player turn! All that tells me is that the designer has no real idea of, well, anything, (It was a Critical Hit scenario, so wilful ignorance on the part of the publisher, rather than the designer, may well have been a factor.)
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Can't speak for anyone else, obviously ... but my approach is "I want the scenario, in its standard form, to be a fair fight for both players". Playtesters will note stuff that they find hard and stuff that they find easy. Discussion should ideally highlight "problematic" areas. From all this the proposed balance will aim to address these areas. That's all very non-specific, of course, but it's a hard topic to address in any other way.

A particularly easy balance provision is when the scenario requires a threshold to be reached. Score a certain number of VP? Then use the balance to raise or lower the number. Control a certain number of specific locations? Again, change the number. Got a hard time limit? Add or remove player turns.

I imagine that we all know scenarios where clearly zero thought has been applied. "Add a LMG to the OB", for instance, when the crux of the scenario is about reaching a certain destination by a certain time; that extra LMG is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever in most cases. The absolute worst case I can remember is when the scenario required the Attacker to exit a certain number of VP, and the scenario length was already 7.5 turns or whatever. The balance for the Attacker was to add an extra player turn! All that tells me is that the designer has no real idea of, well, anything, (It was a Critical Hit scenario, so wilful ignorance on the part of the publisher, rather than the designer, may well have been a factor.)
Thanks!! This was very much the kind of response that I was looking for.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I thought that there was a sub forum for scenario designers but I couldn't find it. If such a forum exists and a moderator moves this thread to that forum I would be greatly appreciative.
Thanks for moving this thread to where it belongs!🤗
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Can't speak for anyone else, obviously ... but my approach is "I want the scenario, in its standard form, to be a fair fight for both players". Playtesters will note stuff that they find hard and stuff that they find easy. Discussion should ideally highlight "problematic" areas. From all this the proposed balance will aim to address these areas. That's all very non-specific, of course, but it's a hard topic to address in any other way.
Sometimes one side has a steeper learning curve than the other. In that case, I ask myself : "What would a new player need to make it a closer game against a groggie when playing this side"?
I also don't use mutually exclusive balance provisions. That way you can give the balance to both sides if you want. Just for flavor whatever reason you like.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Sometimes one side has a steeper learning curve than the other. In that case, I ask myself : "What would a new player need to make it a closer game against a groggie when playing this side"?
I also don't use mutually exclusive balance provisions. That way you can give the balance to both sides if you want. Just for flavor whatever reason you like.
Thanks Pete.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
From the responses so far it seems as if A 26.4 is not really a major consideration. Interesting and hope to see more input.Thanks!
 

sswann

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
2,911
Reaction score
1,379
Location
Middle of Kansas
First name
Steven
Country
llUnited States
I do not use the Balance when playing.
I put a balance in my designs to satisfy all the other ASL players.
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
From the responses so far it seems as if A 26.4 is not really a major consideration.
Well, you haven't really had many responses so far, but speaking in the most general terms possible: in the majority of scenarios I have played over the last umpteen years, from all publishers, the proposed balances have been fairly pathetic. By that I mean, the balance fixes a non-existent problem, or ignores actual problems. Certainly there have been exceptions, but they are few in number. The conclusion I draw from that is that a majority of designers/publishers give it no consideration whatsoever.

The exception would be scenarios that use ABS, although it should always be remembered that the "B" stands for "Bidding" not "Balancing". ABS is about what you're prepared to sacrifice to get the side you want. "Balance" doesn't really factor into it.
 

lionelc62

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
410
Reaction score
452
Location
Northern France
First name
Lionel
Country
llFrance
I (now) try to design a balance that :
  • Has a real impact on the game (to just add a lmg or change a 457 to a 458) but without transforming the scenario in something not winnable for a side. The goal is to change the win/loss ratio by 5-10 % for a side (from 50/50 to 55/45, difficult to achieve but it is the goal 😊 )
  • Add (when possible) some new options to the OB- an AFV or SW that could have been here
For me the balance is to compensate a large skill difference between two players or to correct a small balance problem in the scenario.
I try also to define the balance early during the Playtest. Often, I receive more proposals to change the balance than to change the scenario itself.

Hope this help.

Lionel
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I (now) try to design a balance that :
  • Has a real impact on the game (to just add a lmg or change a 457 to a 458) but without transforming the scenario in something not winnable for a side. The goal is to change the win/loss ratio by 5-10 % for a side (from 50/50 to 55/45, difficult to achieve but it is the goal 😊 )
  • Add (when possible) some new options to the OB- an AFV or SW that could have been here
For me the balance is to compensate a large skill difference between two players or to correct a small balance problem in the scenario.
I try also to define the balance early during the Playtest. Often, I receive more proposals to change the balance than to change the scenario itself.

Hope this help.

Lionel
Thanks!
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
I try also to define the balance early during the Playtest. Often, I receive more proposals to change the balance than to change the scenario itself.
For me, it's the opposite. I often include a balance provision - something that got taken out or changed to make the scenario balanced (In the eyes of the experienced playtesters.) But in the end, I prefer to take an asset out of the supposedly favored side than add something to the unfavored side.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
For me, it's the opposite. I often include a balance provision - something that got taken out or changed to make the scenario balanced (In the eyes of the experienced playtesters.) But in the end, I prefer to take an asset out of the supposedly favored side than add something to the unfavored side.
Interesting. Brigadier Bacardi and I will have to ponder this whole topic again. Had A 26.4 been called Bidding instead of Balance it would make more sense for what the rule intended.
Glad to see the Aussies got it right with their ABS.

Curious still if Designers think it is important that their final product is fair for both sides. Personally I think that there are too many variables to do that and am much more interested if the scenario is fin to play.

An attribute that doesn't get as much consideration as it deserves IMO. Too much attention paid to historical accuracy.

Lol that platitudinous spiel again!🙄
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
I
Curious still if Designers think it is important that their final product is fair for both sides. Personally I think that there are too many variables to do that and am much more interested if the scenario is fin to play.

An attribute that doesn't get as much consideration as it deserves IMO. Too much attention paid to historical accuracy.

🙄
There is a required 'balance' to all of these facets, that will make a scenario great. And to be clear - the final product is a TEAM effort.

If feel my primary jobs as designer are:

  1. Historically APPROPRIATE. (I prefer this term to the less flexible 'accurate').
  2. Scenario should be interesting/FUN (if I do this, volunteer playtesters will stick with it until THEY get it balanced.)
  3. Have enough flexibility built into the scenario to give those playtesters some options as they do their jobs in #2 above.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
There is a required 'balance' to all of these facets, that will make a scenario great. And to be clear - the final product is a TEAM effort.

If feel my primary jobs as designer are:

  1. Historically APPROPRIATE. (I prefer this term to the less flexible 'accurate').
  2. Scenario should be interesting/FUN (if I do this, volunteer playtesters will stick with it until THEY get it balanced.)
  3. Have enough flexibility built into the scenario to give those playtesters some options as they do their jobs in #2 above.
Historically Appropriate. That's very good. 🥰
 
Top