• Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 480

Topic: Is Balance Possible

Here's a topic on TMP:

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=71216

I'd say perfect equality of fighting potential of two forces in a given environment is not likely to happen, but can be approximated.

Any thoughts?

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,575

Re: Is Balance Possible

smokingwreckage wrote:

I'd say perfect equality of fighting potential of two forces in a given environment is not likely to happen, but can be approximated.

Actually, I think perfect equality of fighting potential is possible; see chess. I also think a very good approximation is possible even in a more complicated set of rules with variable forces; see Starmada. big_smile

But the original TMP poster was talking about "balance" in a completely different way, I think. Frankly, I had a hard time following his premise.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: Is Balance Possible

Defiance.

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,285

Re: Is Balance Possible

Rule mechanics and modeling can be balanced within a negligible difference...however...

Battles are never really balanced.  One side will always have an edge over the other either with slightly better weapons or experience etc...

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: Is Balance Possible

It depends upon what you are modeling also.
Is it a one time game, out of real context, to play for fun? Balance is critical to make that a rewarding experience for all.

Are you attempting to model a real life event, warts and all? Un-Balance may be the key to a rewarding experience in that case.

Are you attempting to play a broad strategic game, over time, that allows its own natural factors to develop and produce unbalanced games but with a balanced opportunity to create those situations? Again, this is a different way to create another rewarding experience.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 261

Re: Is Balance Possible

Yeah, the problem with the TMP thread is that new posters keep piling on different definitions of game balance, which just worsend the problem of vagueness in the original poster's question.

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: Is Balance Possible

What I am lacking most is a clear understanding of the mathematics.

I dabble, but I still feel like a lot is missing from my knowledge.

I don't understand statistics and game theory deeply enough to really address balance.  Not that I don't want to understand it. And I've tried (but I think in some ways failed) with the FtM formula.  And the Aces formula is even worse, in my mind.

So I have been fighting myself trying to get a new FtM formula to work out.  I've gone to the Defiance formulae to get an army/unit/element balance but I have trouble going farther than a little bit into it. I will get there, it will just take a while. And a dedicated focus.

But I think that MJ12 has always made a serious effort to provide a method of determining effectiveness of a unit/element/army.  Now what people do with that as far as balance is concerned is up to the scenario.

However, I am firm in the belief that statistical balance is possible regardless of the variables.

Logical balance may provide a quicker short-term solution, but it will always be flawed.  By logical, I mean playtested values. Orc 1 is worth 10 points, but if you add a spear he is worth 15 points because he kills 1.5 more opponents with the spear.

Additionally, the most super-powered army may have a significant flaw that can be exploited regardless of the method of assigning a combat rating.

<whew!>

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 416

Re: Is Balance Possible

jimbeau wrote:

However, I am firm in the belief that statistical balance is possible regardless of the variables

And some people deny the existence of statistical balance entirely, while accepting random number generation as a balancing factor...

It's a potentially bottomless pit out there, don't click the link :wink:

  • Registered: 2007-01-13
  • Posts: 33

Re: Is Balance Possible

cricket wrote:

Actually, I think perfect equality of fighting potential is possible; see chess.

Chess is actually not perfectly balanced because White has an advantage.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 65

Re: Is Balance Possible

RedShark92 wrote:
cricket wrote:

Actually, I think perfect equality of fighting potential is possible; see chess.

Chess is actually not perfectly balanced because White has an advantage.

Oh?

That's the 'White goes First, so it has an advantage' take on the subject?

I've heard that one before.  It can be argued that the fact that White is 'forced' to move first is a disadvantage that balances the equation, since the opponent, 'Black' gets to see and evaluate that initial move, before committing a single move of his own.

More than one game allows the side that 'Wins' initiative to force his opponent to move first.

JP

  • Registered: 2007-01-13
  • Posts: 33

Re: Is Balance Possible

Justin Crough wrote:

Oh?

That's the 'White goes First, so it has an advantage' take on the subject?

Oh sure. smile

I've heard that one before.  It can be argued that the fact that White is 'forced' to move first is a disadvantage that balances the equation, since the opponent, 'Black' gets to see and evaluate that initial move, before committing a single move of his own.

Well lots of things can be argued. Statistics of high level play show a White advantage and addtionally I've heard that many people who do play at high levels tend to play White to win but Black to draw.

More than one game allows the side that 'Wins' initiative to force his opponent to move first.

Of course they do but unless and until you get into the specifics of the mechanics of each game (and why it's an advantage or a disadvantage to move first within those mechanics) that's a vast oversimpliciation that's really irrelevant to this discussion.

Classic Battletech for instance has alternating movement and simultaneous weapons fire. In Battletech each side alternates moving units with the loser of initiative moving first.

In CBT that is usually a disadvantage (though not always). Part of the reason that it's a disadvantage is that it allows the opponent to respond to his position. (You make the same argument for Chess, but it's not that simple.)

Part of the reason it's not that simple is because once the first unit has moved into position, having failed initiative, the entire opposing force has a chance to respond to that unit's position before it will have a chance to move again.

The other factor is that weapons fire is simultaneous and follows movement, and by moving that around one can easily alter the balance of the game.

For instance if we keep movement the same and keep weapons fire after movement, but change it so that it resolves in initiative order then moving first can become an advantage because if I fire first and destroy your unit before it's had a chance to respond, it will never get the chance to respond.