Order and Chaos

In the abstract gaming world, this quality in a game is usually called decisiveness. At the one end of the spectrum, any advantage will simply snowball inexorably toward victory. The game is too decisive. At the other end there's the game that vacillates so wildly from turn to turn that good play becomes not only futile, but impossible, since there's no basis for tactics, much less strategy.

Between these two extremes, most games lean one way or another. Chess tends toward strong decisivness in good players, and the unexpected loss of a single pawn among skilled players could be a critial error. But this is only a function of skill, really, and less skilled players can be winning up until the very moment they lose the game.

If decisiveness is a problem for you lately, try deconsructing your game mechanics. Look for what elements of the game the players directly control, and note those which can be reversed by another player later in the game. How many reversals are possible, as opposed to non-reversable elements? How easy are they to achieve, as compared to those things that cannot be undone?

These questions will give you a good feel for things that might be slinging your games far to one side or the other of the decisivness spectrum.

For instance, in Chess, moves cannot be undone by an opponant, though threats can be nullified or countered. Captures are absolute. Of these elements, only threats can be influenced by an opponant, and only through good play and the potential loss of a turn in doing so. Hence, Chess tends to be decisive, but allows for strategic planning as well as intelligent tactical decisions.

Flux, on the other hand, is a card game where players regularly change the entire layout of the victory conditions, making any strategic decisions impossible. By thei time your turn comes around, your entire hand may be nearly worthless. By the turn after that, it may be a game winner, all without any action or decision by you. In Flux, there is no action of an opponant that cannot be undone by someone else, and that is game-breaking indecisiveness.

I'd say that a game becoems too decisive if:
1.) A gain in material (pieces) as well as position by either player cannot be countered after it is made.
2.) Any gain makes future gains more likely.

A game is indecisive if:
1.) There's usually an option available that cancels the benefit of your opponant's last move.
2.) Niether material nor positional advantage is permenant, and cancelling such advantage is as easy or easier than achiving it was in the first place.

If it's luck as to whether a player can get a strong unit on the board or not, it sounds like that's your problem right there. Look to games like Axis and Allies for the solution to this one: strong units should either cost more, or be harder to replace, or in some way be more valuable than weak units.

Good luck,

Jeff

game balance tips:

when trying to balance units (usualy cost of the unit matching the units effectiveness for example) i have a rather effective method.

I'll use Magic the gathering bascis for an example. creatures have and attack/deffence stat and they have a cost stat, keeping this balanced so that some creatures are unfairly cheaper and more effective than others is a tricky thing.

first I try to set a reference point;

a creature with 5 attack and 5 defence cost 5
I then base all the cards i create on that reference point, i ask my self if a 5/5 creature cost 5 is it fair if a 2/3 creature cost 3? sometimes you can create a spectrum the high and lows of the game. the lowestis 1/1 cost 1 and the highest is a 10/10 cost 12, so you can kinda fill in the gap. The most common mistake I and other game designers i've worked with have made is making your reference point too high or too low (if your only creating one reference point not 2, (most games call for only 1). you want to make it somewhere in the middle, so that you can make cards better and cards worse than it.

or formula:
such as, Attack + Defence = cost
or averager of Attack and Defence = cost

also when creating units for a wargame or a card game or whatever, I try to make them too weak or too strong. I set a few reference points, I then design units keeping the reference points in mind, but i set them just a bit lowwer than I would feel is fair in relation to the reference points. this does 2 things when you test the game, 1) it will quickly reveal any cards that are signifigantly over powered, and 2) when adjusting the stats of the units you know that they mostly need to go up not down, compared to the reference points. After doing this you have a good range of units that are now closely balanced to eachother and you can now use most of them as solid reference points.

as for the un predictability problem, most games need a random element, most of the time if you suck at a game and your friend is exceptional at it you dont want to play, it won't be much fun (most of the time). Games with random elements keep it fun for players with differing ability. thats the apeal to magic the gathering, there is always a good chance you could win even though your opponent has a better deck and is a better player.

one thing i've noticed is, games that require more die rolls are more predictable. To see that you have a 5% chance of rolling each number on a d20 you would need to roll it like 10,000 times. to see the probability of rolling 3 or 4 d6 it would be much less like 1000, (i'm guessing these numbers lol but you get the idea) the point is that, you won't get wild results as often with the 3d6 or 4d6 than you will with the d20.