Game Balance and Realism may not ever be compatible

[pelton]

Isn't it ultimately futile to debate these?
Perfect balance is possible in fantasy GAMES, perfect realism is attempted but never achieved in SIMS.
Those wishing pure competition can use the same Division's decks for true but ultimately sterile balance.

As others have noted the human factors of skill, experience and morale will in reality be far more significant than minor technical differences in vehicles. Many military biographies and historians note how the constrained Normandy terrain greatly altered the effectiveness of AFVs from the theoretical.

I'm not sure I've seen anyone argue for "realism" in the availability of units matching the ToE (Table of Establishment ... organisation) of the real Divisions involved which would end the spamming of preferred units.

Too many discussions here are self-serving, revolving around sustaining a gamer's own exploits whilst decrying those of others.

I'd be most happy if Paradox delivered a "believable" Normandy RTS experience particularly in single player and accept that multiplayer will need a greater element of fantasy to achieve balance.

 

[Karlburg]

Isn't it ultimately futile to debate these?
Perfect balance is possible in fantasy GAMES, perfect realism is attempted but never achieved in SIMS.
Those wishing pure competition can use the same Division's decks for true but ultimately sterile balance.

As others have noted the human factors of skill, experience and morale will in reality be far more significant than minor technical differences in vehicles. Many military biographies and historians note how the constrained Normandy terrain greatly altered the effectiveness of AFVs from the theoretical.

I'm not sure I've seen anyone argue for "realism" in the availability of units matching the ToE (Table of Establishment ... organisation) of the real Divisions involved which would end the spamming of preferred units.

Too many discussions here are self-serving, revolving around sustaining a gamer's own exploits whilst decrying those of others.

I'd be most happy if Paradox delivered a "believable" Normandy RTS experience particularly in single player and accept that multiplayer will need a greater element of fantasy to achieve balance.

Might as well close the forums and end all discussion. This seems like a sentiment that goes nowhere.

This game can never even pretend to approach realism at a basic level due to the fact that you are a sky god clicking thinggs around. Accurate TO&Es are just window dressing compared to this.

 

[WhiskyGlen]

I
Perfect balance is possible in fantasy GAMES, perfect realism is attempted but never achieved in SIMS.

I don't think perfect balance is ever achieved in fantasy games either. Take the old Red Alert game, for instance. Many years ago... damn near 20 years ago, I used to play The Aftermath in online ranked tournaments. Almost every top player played as the Soviets rather than allies. Allies had smaller, but faster and quicker to produce tanks, while Soviets had heavier, but more expensive and slower to produce tanks. As 'balanced' as that may seem on the cover, the only hope playing as Allies was for a quick light tank force to knock out the enemy base very early in the game. If the Allied player waited too long or if their first attack failed, it was game over if the Soviet player was good. I do remember there was one player "LAWSTUD" (odd the things we remember) that had won with the Allies before, but I remember almost the entire leaderboard was Soviet red. Perfect balance, even if in a rock-paper-scissors game, which this is not, does not exist.

 

[Makko]

Literally everything is balanceable with phase, price, vet, availability per card and of cards etc.

Some units may end up relegated to the trashbin without the proper refinement, but it's not insurmountable to balance around realistic stats.

Give the Maus or some stupid super unit 30 AP/30 AV but one card of 1 no vet and that costs 600pts and is only in phase C in the tank tab of a deck with 3 tank slots.

Suddenly it's not OP any more, in fact its a joke unit that is only seen in 10v10s.

Conversely take a division equipped with terrible obsolete equipment, give them good unit prices, vets and availability etc and they're good.

CAT C/CAT B was OP in ALB despite being filled with obsolete units.

 

[Vyllis]

Literally everything is balanceable with phase, price, vet, availability per card and of cards etc.

There your answer.

 

[Perhelion]

Literally everything is balanceable with phase, price, vet, availability per card and of cards etc.

The point of equilibrium may however be awkwardly narrow, and the slopes leading to it quite steep. It also depends what metric you use to decide you have reached 'balance', which may not be the same metric for every player.

 

[frout]

To me, the main difference between RL and RTS games is that in RL, you fight with what you have, not what you want :

- Games are often about balance : having at the start of the game a division/army at least as powerful as your opponents', having the same amount of time to put your units on the map...as in any fair games such as chess.

- Real life is about doing the best out of what you actually have whatever it is (in terms of equipment, spying the enemy, weather, (dis)avantage of the ground...)​

And there are multiple RL examples of battles where outnumbered underdogs fought very well and were praised by their opponents. Sometimes their tactical defeat was even a strategic success for their side, e. g. in Bir Hakeim.

I'd really like to see unbalanced game modes where the goal would be "doing your best with what you were given", where your score would of course depend on enemy casualties but also on the ratio of power between the two sides.

To me, it would add a feeling of reality and highlight the notion of bravery.

I guess it can be achieved in scripted solo campaigns (with missions such as "defend (being outnumbered) that bridge during x minutes before reinforcements arrive"), but not only.

It might also be another way to balance 1v1 to 10v10 fights, that is :

- balancing the final score, depending on the ratio of power between opponents, giving relatively more points to the weak / the underdog,
- instead of balancing divisions to try and make them equivalent to give everyone the same chance of victory at the beginning of the game.
​

I guess it could also preserve the flavor/special features of each division without the risk of having to artificially buff/nerf them for the sake of balance and make them all a bit identical.
And it would preserve a fair balance between players (through the score).

 

[Patgarret77]

Asymmetry can be very nice and fulfilling in wargames and strategy games. Still this Wargame franchise has a very strong online competitive flair so a certain level of balance has to be achieved. But again, fiddling with other stats (costs, quantity, veterancy) can go a long way in rendering the unbalances opaque and the decisions meaningful and interesting

 

[frout]

Asymmetry can be very nice and fulfilling in wargames and strategy games. Still this Wargame franchise has a very strong online competitive flair so a certain level of balance has to be achieved. But again, fiddling with other stats (costs, quantity, veterancy) can go a long way in rendering the unbalances opaque and the decisions meaningful and interesting

The level of balance would be achieved, in multiplayer fights as well, through the final score depending on the ratio of power, not through division balancing as currently.
I know... I know, it wouldn't be chess anymore...

 

[CyberianK]

To me, the main difference between RL and RTS games is that in RL, you fight with what you have, not what you want :

- Games are often about balance : having at the start of the game a division/army at least as powerful as your opponents', having the same amount of time to put your units on the map...as in any fair games such as chess.

- Real life is about doing the best out of what you actually have whatever it is (in terms of equipment, spying the enemy, weather, (dis)avantage of the ground...)​

And there are multiple RL examples of battles where outnumbered underdogs fought very well and were praised by their opponents. Sometimes their tactical defeat was even a strategic success for their side, e. g. in Bir Hakeim.

I'd really like to see unbalanced game modes where the goal would be "doing your best with what you were given", where your score would of course depend on enemy casualties but also on the ratio of power between the two sides.

To me, it would add a feeling of reality and highlight the notion of bravery.

It would be nice and I would be in support for this for custom/lobby games. As for standard matchmaging game modes I think this has been tried and does mostly not really work in RTS so you need a certain symmetry for competetive multiplayer.
Reason is mostly that in Reality what you wanted to compare it to in War there are millions of unknown variables that are impossible to calculate. So you are dealing with a system of chaos where very surprising outcomes are a daily occurence. Even in the most complex games the systems can usually be totally evaluated by a single smart and experienced player. Even with RNG involved they can make strong assessments about their options and the best action to take in almost all situations. Thats why in competetive MP surprise outcomes like you mentioned in a biased setup where one side has the advantage are a rare occurence. So if one side has advantages due to game mode or unbalanced factions that side wins the overwhelming number of matches totally breaking the game.

 

[frout]

It would be nice and I would be in support for this for custom/lobby games. As for standard matchmaging game modes I think this has been tried and does mostly not really work in RTS so you need a certain symmetry for competetive multiplayer.
Reason is mostly that in Reality what you wanted to compare it to in War there are millions of unknown variables that are impossible to calculate. So you are dealing with a system of chaos where very surprising outcomes are a daily occurence. Even in the most complex games the systems can usually be totally evaluated by a single smart and experienced player. Even with RNG involved they can make strong assessments about their options and the best action to take in almost all situations. Thats why in competetive MP surprise outcomes like you mentioned in a biased setup where one side has the advantage are a rare occurence. So if one side has advantages due to game mode or unbalanced factions that side wins the overwhelming number of matches totally breaking the game.

Concerning standard multiplayer 1v1 to 10v10 fights, what I was thinking of actually did not imply strong asymmetry. It was just the idea of leaving :

- a strong division in say Phase A strong and weak in Phase C
- a given equipment/unit in a given division strong or weak,​

that is some weaker divisions and some stronger ones depending on hisctorical data or flavor, but compensate these imbalances though the final score that'd take into account the ratio of power at each phase for the sake of fairness.

Apart from that, there could also be pure asymmetric modes.

 

[RoyalColor]

Literally everything is balanceable...

This is something unachievable ever imo. Even in a very static (no new content) games like StarCraft, COH and so on, when you go to their forums, hard-core followers will give you hundreds reasons on why their games aren't balanced.

We've had Wargame series for how many years running now? 9? Has it ever been balanced? Has it ever been even close?

Hell even chess is unbalanced, coz white always go first

Balancing is something that has no end, even in games that don't have the burden of being loosely inspired by military history.

 

[Patgarret77]

Yes to an extent perfect balance cannot be achieved...I think we are talking about blatant unbalance which, for me, in Steel Division only affects the Luftlande division (too weak).