Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

In an effort to better playbalance the scenarios in the games that we play, a request has been made that our officers enter some thoughts on the manner in which a given scenario that they have just completed could have been better balanced. These comments should be added to the DoR entry whenever an officer enters, or confirms, and End Game Result. The addition of such comments is completely voluntary, but may serve to help our game designers in their quest for balanced contests.

Any comments so entered should be objective. It might also be a good idea for the players to mirror match the battle so that they can view it from both sides. Solely playing one side in every contest does not generally breed objectivity.

I thank you in advance for any help you might give in this regard. Personally, I am always seeking balanced engagements myself.

Few historical scenarios are perfectly balanced but the designers have tried hard to make scenarios "winnable" for both sides. If you want a perfectly balanced scenario, you will probably have to design it yourself using the scenario editor. But you already know that...

_________________
FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, 1st Squadron, Household Cavalry
1st Duke of Uxbridge & Anglesey K.G.

I think the goal should be to make it "Equally Winnable" for both sides. Historical scenarios are going to be unbalanced, but the Victory Levels should reflect a measure of achievement by the respective players under the circumstances. The same applies for hypothetical battles. It would not , however, apply for tournament scenarios which, in my opinion, should consist of equal forces, neutral terrain, and mirrored Victory Levels.

Play balance is all fine and goid so long as the opposing players have the same skill level.

_________________

I wonder if somehow the question could be restricted to Needed Improvement of the Victory Conditions in the interest of play balance. I think that the question should be asked after GT1 is completed. Moreover, responses would only be helpful if a player detects/suspects a serious imbalance in Victory Conditions, regardless of opponent's skill. I would hope that a thoughtful consideration of play balance at the start of the game would include consideration of relative starting positions, strengths and position of terrain objectives. I hope these ideas are helpful for the general membership. Clearly, if this cannot be handled as an optional comment box when registering the game ( which would now have to wait until the completion of game turn 1), then individual member's comments could still be forwarded to Rich Hamilton.

_________________

I think the victory of a battle should be determined by a player's skill more than anything else. That gives every player the incentive to improve their play, as opposed to seeking to select a battle that is wholly one sided. I never do mind losing to anyone who outplays me. In that instance, I feel they have earned the victory and my respect. I try to dilligently absorb all of the painful lessons inflicted upon me in the process of my defeat.

Colin Knox issued me my first drubbing at Austerlitz. I came to immensely respect his ability, and immediately set about improving my play in an attempt to (hopefully) one day become competitive to him. I may never get there, but I aim to try.

I owe a special thanks to the superb training of Andy Moss, and the superlative tactics of Jeff Bardon as well. Thank you fellows, one and all.

To me, it is not about winning. It is about improving, while making as many good friends as I can along the way. A balanced game is the only way to determine where you really stand relative to your opponent, and that is precisely why I seek them.

I think Bill's point is excellent as well. We all analyze our chances at the outset of a battle while trying to determine the manner in which we will maneuver and fight. If the playbalance of the scenario is obviously off, then there is no need to wait until the end of the match to comment. In fact, comments could come at any time during the course of a battle.

In my limited experience objective hexes can often unbalance a game from a player perspective.

Whilst they influence a players strategy and are useful for an intellectual examination of a historical reenactment, they do force the "losing" player to repeat the mistakes of history. In historical/campaign terms letting the enemy take a hex to the rear is/was a bad move. However we usually play the battles in isolation without regard to how the position of the armies will effect the course of the war in the following days.

I have always assumed (bad move usually) that the VP required for a win reflect the relative player skill. i.e. If historically the French win the battle then for the French player to win they must do better than their historical counterparts.

However not all battles are about actual numbers killed or captured. Historically some are about an force trying to join with their compatriots in the bigger battle and a pesky few are blocking the way. Victory in those cases would be how quick the attacking force can get to the rear and continue their advance. Which means the VP hex and length of time to capture it would determine the value of the victory. This poses two problems in game terms. The defenders could defend that hex to the last man denying the attacker victory. Whereas holding off the pesky few whilst the majority march onward to the main battle would satisfy the historical necessity and still leave that hex in the hands of the pesky few.

I started this post with the intention of making a quick observation and have ended up arguing myself into a quagmire of indecision.

Returning to my original thought: Perhaps those with more knowledge than I could suggest a house rule that discounts the value of certain VP hexes in the calculation of victory?

However I understand that if there are no VP hexes there may not be an incentive to attack.

Now my brain really does hurt.

_________________

I think the issue of objective hexs has been discussed before.

The objective hexes, as my limited understanding goes, are supposed to represent the key "historical" points of the actual battle...

Le Haye Sainte
Placenoit

Etc....

The objective hexs will, to some degree, dictacte the strategy of the battle.

_________________

I'm not sure I fully understand the question?

Are we trying to playbalance all our scenarios?

From the discussion here I get the sense that what we are saying is that Unbalanced scenarios are unplayable or not worth the time to be fought.

I am of the opinion that, while I definitely think that the majority of our scenarios to choose from should be of the "balanced" kind ,
I would also say that I enjoy a challenge that an Unbalanced scenario may bring me.

I suppose the more I think about the Victory conditions the more I think I understand what you are trying to propose, Mark

regards,

Interesting development regarding this issue in a ACW game I am playing.

It is the first battle of Bull Run, the glorious army of the south is supposed to be strung out along a creek and the treacherous army of the north comes round my left flank and destroys my units piece meal.

I opted to withdraw my left flank so that they (spit) would have to face my brave boys in force not one or two at a time. It is now turn 14 of 40 and because of victory hexes he has a major victory. My loses of men are down to fixed units unable to move till they were shot at.

In practical terms he could just sit it out and win. I could attack but I am unable to see whether he has his forces waiting on my right or my left and a mistake in direction of attack would leave the other flank insecure.

In reality if he does not attack then the battle would be a draw. The only honourable win would be if he attacked and defeated me by casualty loses.

This prompted a thought that developers could use in the future. --------- A VP hex held at the beginning of the battle would be of zero value the the holder but the value to the other side would be (for example) 500 points. As the game progresses the value to the holder would rise to (in this example) 500 points. The value to the other side would diminish till it reached zero. This point need not be at the end of the game but at a point in the game that seemed right to the developer. Once the hex changed hands VP's would be awarded on the basis of the value at that time. The computer would keep track of the VP value and should the hex change hands again then VP would be awarded again at the level they had reached.

Hope the explanation is clear if not the concept.

In this way the original holder would gain VP for the length of time the hex was held and the other side would gain VP for how quick they took it. At some point the hex would lose it's value completely.

Just a thought.

_________________

Right; but that involves reprogramming the game engine. Lets operate within the game as it presently exists. In this case, perhaps you shouldn't have abandoned the VP hexes. Obviously, the scenario designer expected you should defend them.

_________________
FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, 1st Squadron, Household Cavalry
1st Duke of Uxbridge & Anglesey K.G.

Interesting conversation

My read on the big historical scenarios I have played is as follows:

Austerlitz historical - totally balanced especially as Bill changed the victory conditions for the allieds in his last patch. Best scenario of the lot in my view.

Jena-Austerstedt twin battle. Favours the French but not impossible to win as allieds I have against a very good player.

Hunting Davout - very nice scenario very balanced. Although I have not played since morales were lowered

Aspern Essling St Cyr to the rescue. Favours allies a little but winnable as French - tough though

Wagram unleashed - favours the French tough for the Austrians

Znaim - pretty even

Good to play the three above as set.

Borodino unleashed- pretty even

Leipzig operational - current scenario favours the French

Paris 1814 favours the allies

Ligny/QB - favours the French

Waterloo/Wavre - pretty even but requires two things. French player must agree to not go all out for the Brussells exit hex allied player must be sensible and conserve Wellington's army. I was thinking we should edit the exit hex to a 500 vp victory hex

Waterloo campaign big map unleashed.
Favours the French. The ADN's cavalry,artillery and guard is magnificient and concentrated. Another scenario I have some ideas about how to fix it. Essentially you need a set of vp hexes to represent the French line of communications. This prevents 'the charge up the road to Brussells' strategy and forces the French player to deal with the Prussians exactly as Napoleon had to.

I love the great battles and have played many of them several times.
Just my opinions

Regards to all

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

The Coalition can READ? Really?

_________________
Ernie Sands
1ère Brigade of 2ème Division de Grosse Cavalerie, Réserve de Cavalerie
de la Grande Armée
President, Colonial Campaigns Club

Yeah, we read THE KING'S ENGLISH, just like you Frenchies. Something to do with the outcome of the whole, wretched affair.

(That was a very funny retort you made, Ernie. Simple and effective. The very best kind. )