Skip to Content
 

Balancing a game through rules

6 replies [Last post]
Sat, 02/27/2016 - 15:44
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

I always seek new ways to bring more balance to a game.

Now that my simulation program can supply me with 1.000 battle's per second. Something bothers me. And it bothers me good.

My problem:
Often, a balance difference of 1 soldier or armor class, means a victory chance of 70%-90% instead of 50%. (I was hoping for 55% or so).

Luckily:
I got my reinforcements and other tricks for a balance in the big picture. (Larienna, you were right back then)

But I want to tune the smaller, simpler battles. I don't want players to start running away when they are even slightly outnumbered.
I want them to take the challenge/chance!
If you have 5 soldiers and the enemy has 6, you still would like to try (instead of having a chance of 95% of losing)

So, I got this one new tool:

Quote:

Accuracy of units becomes less when there is less to shoot at.
Meaning that if 5/6th of a place is filled with units. There is a dice roll for each unit. And each rolled 6 now means a miss.

Is this tool any good?
Can it be upgraded to something better?
Or is there a better way to apply something similar?

I assume that players will spread their forces out now as a strategy. 2 groups will do better than 1 group

Other suggestions are also welcome.

Top
Sat, 02/27/2016 - 17:37
#1
HPS74
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2009
How big are you talking here?

How big are you talking here? Major battlefield simulations?

Top
Sun, 02/28/2016 - 09:43
#2
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
It is going in another direction

1 group of units can contain.
4 to 36 units.
On average 12.

On a side note. Compare this game to a RTS. I think everyone is familiar with how RTS work.

***

After several play-tests yesterday. And changing this new rule over and over.

We decided to stop with this specific accuracy rule.
There are so many reasons why it doesn't work.

There are several key points that I accumulated in yesterdays play test regarding the new rule. I also looked at old ones from half a year ago. That where similar.

In short, I better upgrade other rules.
And on a side note. I better accept that players run away. Running away is actually balancing the game. I simply forgot.
Even if it is annoying as hell at this point.

So, a way to reduce running away. Should also mean that there are better chances for a bigger player to prevent running away. And better chances for a smaller player to defend.

***

One upgrade that I am thinking of, is increasing the number of cards to pick for players.

It is 1 each round.

Players may safe them up. And spend them all in one go if they like.

This can counter a running player, bringing more damage to this player before he/she runs.

But it also counters when a player is in a disadvantage and would like to increase their chances. This last one often makes the attacking player run away instead.

Players tend to save up cards to an average of 3 before using. This takes 3 rounds or half an hour.

However, instead of 1 card. Maybe more cards?
How much is to much?
Your thoughts?

Top
Sun, 03/06/2016 - 12:56
#3
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
We are going to test a higher

We are going to test a higher accuracy instead of lower.

What we are going to test are:

Quote:
If a defending player is smaller. Each projectile has a 1/6th chance in adding 1 projectile of that type.
or
Quote:
If a player is smaller. Each projectile has a 1/6th chance in adding 1 projectile of that type.

The difference in the above 2 is if the player is defending or not. We figured that when a player attacks, that player might abuse the rule. 35 vs 36 would become roughly 40-41 vs 36 projectiles.

This will result in players having an army that is always just a bit smaller. We get an opposite arms race that also will slow down the game.

This same rule is also obsolete again when RPS comes into play. Players don't attack a flame tank with infantry. Nor.
When they are outnumbered.
Nor.
The flame tank is "outnumbered".

Then again, the rule can be polished into having only the difference gaining a bonus.
Once again, if the difference is for example 500. Than the smaller player may choose 500 worth of units. And add this rule to them.
Than it doesn't matter if the player is defending or not. The bonus will never exceed the opponent for "well balanced", pitted, armies.

This rule becomes obsolete when the smaller player is smaller than the difference. But then we say, DEAD=DEAD. :)

I don't know what the new results will be.
All I know is that the chance in getting the upper hand or become equal to the opponent after just one roll of the dice, is right now:
36 vs 36: 53%
35 vs 36: 31%
35(but 36 projectiles) vs 36: 36%
The chance in the long run is surprisingly almost the same.

The difference is way to big for players to take a risk when being the smaller army.

Even if that last soldier has its damage doubled. The difference would be as opposed to that 31% is only 36%.

What else can I do?

Top
Wed, 03/09/2016 - 04:50
#4
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Slowly but certain

Even the previous rules shows that, we aren't there yet. I am crawling through a maze of rules, to see how far and fair I can get with this balancing rule.

Meat/Support and Block/Specialist units where obvious exceptions to the previous rule:

Instead of spending "balance" points on worth of the units, this now happens on their weaponry instead. The result is that a player might give a bonus to 3 meat units, while only 1 support would gain the same bonus.

Instead of looking at € of the units for determining the difference in army size. Players look at another variable regarding this. € and/or Size are used now.

The current set of rules that we have chosen are:

Quote:
- Only reacting players may gain a bonus to their damage, IF they return fire. (This means, attackers never get a bonus)
- The difference in € or Size between the 2 squads is used to determine how much can be "spend" on gaining a bonus. For each unit, the smallest number is taken into consideration.
- This bonus is only a 50% chance for each projectile to double in a number of projectiles. (150% damage)
- The player selects weapons, which may gain this bonus.

As you can see, each unit will be getting a new addition on their information card. The worth of their weapons.
Some units might have their weapon worth displayed per projectile. Meaning that a tank with 6 bullets, might have only 4 bullets gaining that bonus rule.
Other units that have rockets/cannons/miniguns etc. might get a bonus to only one or two of these "3" weapons. The player has a choice in this. And it now gives a natural focus in combat.

Should I call it bonus? I am sure there is some sort of military name that would be suitable for this. But I am not sure how to call it. I could go with "Focus".

What kind of impression do these rules give at a first glance? Understandable? Without knowing the rest of the game?

Top
Thu, 03/10/2016 - 03:18
#5
Experimental Designs
Experimental Designs's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013
I believe most of a game's

I believe most of a game's balance comes out of the mechanics rather than the rules itself. To me the rules themselves are what you can't do without being too confining. Simple rules leaves less to interpretation and less room for power gaming.

Mechanics are lot more involved on how things work within the rules. Balance can come in many forms in the sense you make good units cost more which can leave them outnumbered versus hordes of lower quality units. That's a simple one.

As a stat by stat basis consider the variance of quality and the dice system you're using, that is if this is a tabletop game. A game called Flames of War done a very simple mechanic to make conscript troops to succeed on a 5+, regulars on a 4+ and veterans on a 3+ in combat. On a D6 the difference between regulars and veterans are a big deal. That is a 1 point variance where is a game is using D10s or 2D6s there is a broader band in variances of troop quality or armor classes. This can mitigate numbers if you make some units that are "tanky," meaning hard to damage but relatively easy to hit versus a "squirmy" unit that is difficult to hit but pretty easy to damage. This combined with point cost and troop value/armor class there is something more to play around with in balancing it mechanically.

I had this idea for a Cold War game that I still use for my "simplified" games regarding infantry squads. A squad of West German Grenadiers is a 5 man squad with 3 rifles and 1 machine gun and a grenade launcher while Soviet Moto-Strelki is a 6 man squad with 4 rifles, 1 machine gun and an RPG.

What I did has a variation of firepower that for every 2 rifles you get a firepower die and the machine gun itself allows another firepower die with a re-roll and the grenade launcher gives a major assault bonus and effective in a firefight. The RPG gives light anti-tank capabilities but moderately okay in a firefight and cumbersome in an assault. So the firepower dice is similar but one is going to be effective in a urban brawl versus one that has more flexibility towards armored vehicles. So you can give different load outs to distribute the firepower. So even if you have a squad with 4 rifles and 1 machine versus a squad with 5 rifles and 1 machine gun they both get three firepower dice with one being a re-roll due to the machine gun for suppression purposes.

Having a squad larger by 1 is not a big of a deal versus being outnumbered 2 to 1. Here's the kicker, even if outnumbered if the smaller squad is in a better firing position, numbers don't mean squat if the larger squad is out in the open! Sometimes being tactical can be a balance on its own accord. The rules and the mechanics have to be there to allow such options.

Top
Thu, 03/10/2016 - 06:41
#6
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I guess that I should say

I guess that I should say that I am kinda at the end of all the balancing.

I have a lot of parameters that have primary or secondary influences on a battle. But these count for all units.

The balance that I still seek is something ancient. Something that all RTS games seek. Something that is not noticeable in the best balanced games. But we are talking about real time there. You blink with your eye's. And you can't see the small difference.

My board game, has every moment spelled for the players. You see that each battle is going to be one sided.

I don't really care about RPS moments, since these fights are supposed to be one sided. But what I do care about are these "almost" balanced fights. They aren't!!

I have a couple of battle's that are perfectly or near perfectly balanced in theory.

35 infantry vs 36 infantry is my finest example.

A battle to the death is roughly in 8 attacks.

The starting difference is 2,8%. Yet this grows to a 67% chance for the 36 in winning (simulation).

How is this even possible?

If we are going to put this in numbers. We get this average result:
105H,35P vs 108H,36P
69H,23P vs 73H,25P
44H,15P vs 50H,18P
26H,9P vs 35H,13P
13H,5P vs 26H,10P
3H,2P vs 21H,9P
dead vs 19H,9P

As the game progresses, the difference becomes bigger and bigger and this grows exponentially too. One might wonder why players would continue. So I decided to focus only on the first shot. The one where players still gamble because it is worth a shot turning the tables.

After all, players do act on 1 moment at a time.

It turns out that the percentages given in the previous post are the chances in turning around the battle.
Really, 31% is way to low.
35 : 36 (or 1 : 1.03) is actually
1 : 2.2 in a sense.
With the new rule, it is
1 : 1.8. Waaaaay to big of a difference if you ask me. Battles like these are not worthwhile, even if it is to reduce an army. So that another army has a better survival chance.

After doing a survey. Most players that played my game. Told me they only consider doing a gamble like that if the chances are at least 40% (1 : 1.5).
My 36% isn't there yet.
Yet to calculate my new system. Play tests looked good though.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut