Conquer Club

porkenbeans wrote:I do not know if this is entirely on topic or not, but it is my contention that way too much effort has been spent trying to make everything even. When you create a map that is "even", What you are basically doing is, making it a game where the dice are deciding the winners and losers. The advanced strategists are able to study a map, and figure out it's un-"evenness". This allows the better player, a better chance to win. And IMHO, makes for a good map. If everything is made perfectly "even", then instead of being able to read a map, the dice become the determining factor.

Just something to think about while you are creating your layout and bonus structure.
porkenbeans

Making all sides 'even' (i.e., the same circumstances] does indeed cut out strategy and give rise to a dice war. This is obviously a bad goal for CC maps.

However, this circumstance only applies when only one viable strategy exists. Take for instance Research & Conquer. The goal there was to create essentially equal circumstance, but offer multiple strategies with only enough resources to pursue a few of them. Then, choice once again becomes a factor and the player's decisions are relevant to their success or failure on a map.


Really, the goal of good gameplay should be balance, which may or may not be achieved with 'eveness' that is tempered with a variety of strategic options. Good balance means avoiding gameplay that trivializes certain options in favor of others- the costs and the benefits of a strategy should vary, but their ratio should not... if that makes sense.

For example, if I have to hold a bonus area with 8 regions and 4 entry points, I expect the bonus to be equal to the effort, at least in comparison to the benefits given for other efforts. If the payoff isn't equal to the risk, than one can say that the game balance is off. The bonus, or whatever, is 'broken'.


I agree pork that equality, while achieving balance, does so only in the shallowest sense and can, when strategic options are quite limited, make for a non-strategic, not-so-fun map. However, I don't think that has become a problem in the map threads that I have reviewed in gameplay, and I've recently done an audit of all of them.

Well, to me, its only the first round that needs to be somewhat even. Everyone should have a fair and equal chance at winning as of round 1, but after that its all up to player's strategy.

I mean, on Classic, which is a very even and satisfactory map. Everyone starts fair, but by round two the idiot who has lost went for Asia and the winner went for Australia or South America.

I've always been under the impression that the quest for an even map has been for an even start.

Industrial Helix wrote:Well, to me, its only the first round that needs to be somewhat even. Everyone should have a fair and equal chance at winning as of round 1, but after that its all up to player's strategy.

I mean, on Classic, which is a very even and satisfactory map. Everyone starts fair, but by round two the idiot who has lost went for Asia and the winner went for Australia or South America.

I've always been under the impression that the quest for an even map has been for an even start.

Mmmmm... I suppose it depends upon perspective and a mapmaker's goals. Classic was much more fun for me when it was a puzzle that offered possibilities... once I analyzed the game after playing it (as Risk, way back as a kid), the game was much less fun. CC Classic is still fun in team games and fog of war helps tremendously- but when there aren't many viable strategies because most bonuses never pay off, I do think it limits the long-term potential of a map.

The 'goal for an even start' is indeed the #1 aim. If a map has an even start, then it has passed muster.

A truly balanced set of options, however, can make a map deep, and depth is what will give it long-term appeal. There are some CC maps that have a 'trick' or two, and once you learn them, there is very little the map has to offer that doesn't feel like work instead of play. Yeah, they're great for farming points, but they're not really a challenge.

If there were no 'idiots going for Asia' on an 8-player Classic map, how would it play out? The answer is largely the drop and the dice, with some tactics thrown into the mix as well... but not strategy. If there are only two strategies- S. America and Australia- then it's not going to be hard to anticipate your opponents' objectives. The only real choices you have then are method, and most of that can get pretty technical and petty... more nuts-and-bolts tactics than any real strategy.

Strategy is goal setting. Choosing an objective. True, methods of accomplishing those objectives can be fun, but over time they become incorporated into your style as a fixed set of procedures. They don't change much over time after that, and may be considered a given.

Of course, this is from my personal perspective. I'm a puzzle-person, I like analyzing things and formulating plans and confronting unknown challenges. Some players get their enjoyment from a completely experience. They hate over-thinking things and like the comfort of knowing what's going on every time they join a game.

To my mind, the ideal gameplay for CC maps are the ones that offer different levels, where the 'let-em-fly' CCer can feel comfortable and yet the 'nerd' CCer can feel challenged.

I have seen GP issues batted back and forth on a given map, for months. People whip out all sorts of algebra and algorithms, to prove that a certain thing is un-balanced.

Take the orig. Risk board. Do you think that Asia is balanced with a bonus of 7 ?
You can figure out all of the math that you want. Any good strategist knows that you do NOT go after that bonus. Even if the bonus was 20, you would still NOT waste your time and effort on it. And why is S. America worth the same as Aust. ? It clearly has more countries to hold, and it has 2 borders to protect when Aust has but one. If you were going to make it more "even", you would either raise the bonus for S. America, or lower Aust.

My point is, A good map is one that is NOT evenly balanced. Being able to read a board, and determine where the balance is in your favor, is where skill, and knowledge of History pays off.

I think that all boards should be built with this in mind. Especially for ones that are about actually true historical battles. The balance should be tilted towards the actual victors of those battles. And certain elements that were proven to be advantages or disadvantages, should be brought in to the GP, so as to reflect these things.

Well, i see what you're saying Pork and in general I agree. When I do my maps I take more that borders and territories into account, often thinking of the political and economic value of a region as well. Perhaps the Frenchie who invented classic risk was thinking South America to be more valuable than Aussie in terms of resources, ect so made them equal... or at least he didn't have a forum of people telling him the game was unfair

As for Classic... my general strategy never changes but its always different. I was raised in the Society of the Cooks tradition, Unlimited Escalating, and I go for two key territories and never for a bonus, unless maybe I drop it. The players make the game interesting more than the map for me. And while my strategy rarely changes, it does alter a bit to reflect other player's moves. Perhaps we're looking at the map for a good game when we should be more looking at how well the map accommodates players for variety of strategy.

I guess what I would like to see is more of an attempt to make the map un-even on purpose. That is, make it so that it is slanted towards one side over the other.

Lets say you were making a map of D-Day Omaha Beach. I would like to see a well thought out evaluation of this great battle. Why was the invasion a success for the Allies ? Then after all of this has been debated, These facts can be incorporated into the game in a way that would lend relevance to the actual battle. The bonus structure would mirror the true facts, and the balance would tilt towards the Allied positions.

I like mibi's Omaha Beach map, and it is one of my favorite maps to play, but it does not play out anything like the historic battle. If these historic battles were set up with a slanted bonus structure, that gives the true victors a slight advantage over the actual losers, then it would help to teach a little history, along with strategy. I would like to see a more map specific strategy, than a homogenized blend of various Risk strategies deployed.

There is a big difference between equality, evenness, symmetry and balance...




We have never pushed for equal maps, only ever balanced ones!

I like Mr.Benninette's post with visuals. Good summary.


--Andy

Game designers may decide to deliberately create imbalance for various reasons.

For example, in the multiplayer video game Day of Defeat, the "dod_overlord" map was consciously designed to favor the Axis team. This can allow more experienced players to play on the Allied team as a means of handicapping. Another consideration may have been historical faithfulness to the real Operation Overlord.

In sports games that strive to realistically replicate real-life sports teams (one example might be the Madden NFL series) each virtual team's capabilities are made to mirror those of the real team. Thus, the teams are not designed to be balanced against each other. The imbalance may make the game a more realistic simulation
Mr.B
I do not think that anyone is disputing any common definitions here. In the world of Game Design, there is the accepted use of overall balance. Most strategic board games strive for a well balanced strength of opposing forces. I understand this concept, and of course agree with it's merits.

However, there is also an accepted use of "intentional imbalance". This is commonly done when creating a game that is about a Historic Battle. The balance of the opposing forces, are intentionally tilted to "SLIGHTLY" favor the side that actually won the battle in real life. Through the accurate knowledge of History, a player can glean insight, as to what his main objectives might be. Or where his pitfalls might lie.

These imbalances are very subtle, and are by no means meant to be a deciding factor of the games outcome. The advantages are very small, but to the aware strategist, can in the long run, give him a better win percentage on the map. Not to mention the fact that this kind of balancing adds to historical accuracy, and makes for a more "true to life" game.

I found this article interesting.
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2009/200 ... er-a.shtml

porkenbeans wrote:These imbalances are very subtle, and are by no means meant to be a deciding factor of the games outcome. The advantages are very small, but to the aware strategist, can in the long run, give him a better win percentage on the map.

I'm curious. Can you give an example of what you mean from an existing CC map?

Evil DIMwit wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:These imbalances are very subtle, and are by no means meant to be a deciding factor of the games outcome. The advantages are very small, but to the aware strategist, can in the long run, give him a better win percentage on the map.

I'm curious. Can you give an example of what you mean from an existing CC map?

I will try

Let us use Mibi's D-Day once again as an example.
There should be a detailed discussion at the beginning of the map thread that is all about the battle. The goal here is to determine, Who won, and why. What exactly were the determining factors of this great battle.

Then the discussion would turn to how to implement these determining factors in a way that will give a slight edge to the victors of the battle, (in this case it would be the Allies).

It may be determined through debate that one of the major factors that led to the allies victory at Omaha Beach was its deadly bombardments from the sea. That along with it's overwhelming number of troops.

These agreed upon facts, that go to determining the victors of this battle should be incorporated into the game with a major role in the GP.

As it plays now, it is more focused on the bunkers, and is not true to life in this respect.

This small advantage would not be the determining factor for who wins the game. It would only be a small advantage, like for example, being white in a game of Chess. Going first in most games is a small but measurable advantage.

So all I am suggesting is that The allies should either metaphorically, or literally, get the small advantage of going first.

I'm not sure I get your point. The whole point of balancing a map is to try and help ensure that the luck of going first is minimised (ie to try and ensure that any player with good strategy has a chance to overcome the luck of the drop).

MrBenn wrote:I'm not sure I get your point. The whole point of balancing a map is to try and help ensure that the luck of going first is minimised (ie to try and ensure that any player with good strategy has a chance to overcome the luck of the drop).

MrB,
Do you think that Chess is not balanced ?
Every game on Earth that is seq. turn based, is tilted to the player that gets to go first. This advantage in Chess is very small, but it is measurable.

A small but measurable advantage is what I am talking about here. Nothing so large that it determines every game.

I see what you're saying Pork, but I think the important detail you're forgetting is that on CC, players can not choose the side they play. D-Day would be awesome if you could pick starting as Axis or Allies and it would be just as cool if being the Allies was tougher than the Axis.

But the fact remains that a player can not choose the side he wants to play. As long as we have random deployment rather than pre-set starting positions, maps are going to have to be even. Write a letter to Lack or make a suggestion. You have my support for that.

Industrial Helix wrote:I see what you're saying Pork, but I think the important detail you're forgetting is that on CC, players can not choose the side they play. D-Day would be awesome if you could pick starting as Axis or Allies and it would be just as cool if being the Allies was tougher than the Axis.

But the fact remains that a player can not choose the side he wants to play. As long as we have random deployment rather than pre-set starting positions, maps are going to have to be even. Write a letter to Lack or make a suggestion. You have my support for that.

Yes that would be cool, but that is not exactly what I was trying to get at. What I meant was-

say it was determined that the landing craft, or the ships, were the deciding factor of the battle. I am not necessarily arguing that, but just say that it was the case. Then I would make those positions slightly worth more, than what they would otherwise be. That would make them more desirable than not. And, it would follow that those that know history, or those that are able to "read" a board, would have that knowledge at hand.

This would in turn, make the game somewhat follow the true history, in many cases. Now remember that I am NOT saying that they should be pumped up in value so as to decide every game. Just enough to make them more of a factor than the math would dictate.

Many games use this kind of "imbalance" to acknowledge real world facts. Just as one Quarterback in Maden Football is better than another.

Right, which is what I said before then, make bonuses reflect some sort of political or economic value. I think some maps do this though not all. I intentionally made Austria-Hungary worth more in German Unification because that's how it was back then... as it turns out I made it worth too much, but meh. It's there, I think you're just not crediting it enough.... but in general, I agree that with historical/military maps the situation is much more precarious as areas did in fact have more strategic value than they would ordinarily indicate.

Just so everyone's aware, the reason SA and Oz have the same bonus is that SA is actually easier to move out of and snag another bonus (africa or NA), while the player in Oz is confronted with the vast wasteland of Asia if they want to keep their borders consolidated.

porkenbeans wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I'm not sure I get your point. The whole point of balancing a map is to try and help ensure that the luck of going first is minimised (ie to try and ensure that any player with good strategy has a chance to overcome the luck of the drop).

MrB,
Do you think that Chess is not balanced ?
Every game on Earth that is seq. turn based, is tilted to the player that gets to go first. This advantage in Chess is very small, but it is measurable.

A small but measurable advantage is what I am talking about here. Nothing so large that it determines every game.

It may not be terribly important to the main topic of discussion here, but there are games where the second player has the advantage (some variants of Nim) or where the second player can always at least force a draw (tic-tac-toe/naughts-and-crosses).

More to the point at hand, I'm not sure if I would prefer the sense of reality that comes from facing the same advantages and disadvantages of an historical situation, or I would resent the feeling of "aw, nuts, I'm screwed from the get-go" if I found myself dropped into the loser's shoes.

I do believe more effort is expended now to prevent first-round disasters than to ensure overall uniformity.

ender516 wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I'm not sure I get your point. The whole point of balancing a map is to try and help ensure that the luck of going first is minimised (ie to try and ensure that any player with good strategy has a chance to overcome the luck of the drop).

MrB,
Do you think that Chess is not balanced ?
Every game on Earth that is seq. turn based, is tilted to the player that gets to go first. This advantage in Chess is very small, but it is measurable.

A small but measurable advantage is what I am talking about here. Nothing so large that it determines every game.

It may not be terribly important to the main topic of discussion here, but there are games where the second player has the advantage (some variants of Nim) or where the second player can always at least force a draw (tic-tac-toe/naughts-and-crosses).

More to the point at hand, I'm not sure if I would prefer the sense of reality that comes from facing the same advantages and disadvantages of an historical situation, or I would resent the feeling of "aw, nuts, I'm screwed from the get-go" if I found myself dropped into the loser's shoes.

I do believe more effort is expended now to prevent first-round disasters than to ensure overall uniformity.

ender,
I think that you are not entirely understanding the sugg. First, the advantage that I am talking about is not a drastic one. it could turn out being something as small as giving a certain bonus a 4 rather than a 3 bonus, or maybe something as insignificant as incorporating a one way attack or bombardment.

The outcome of the game would not "screw anyone from the git-go". Just as choosing black in a Chess game, does not doom your chances to win.

Pork, you're at risk of derailing another topic into troll territory...
In summary it would appear that you are advocating slight inequity of bonuses etc where appropriate to the backstory of any given map, provided that this does not skew the overall balance of the map. That being the case, then I'm not sure what your complaint is? (unless it's about a specific map already in play, in which case it's a matter of 'suck it up cupcake')

MrBenn wrote:Pork, you're at risk of derailing another topic into troll territory...
In summary it would appear that you are advocating slight inequity of bonuses etc where appropriate to the backstory of any given map, provided that this does not skew the overall balance of the map. That being the case, then I'm not sure what your complaint is? (unless it's about a specific map already in play, in which case it's a matter of 'suck it up cupcake')

First, please read the first post. Then tell me how on earth am I off topic.

Second, Maybe the reason that you are finding it hard to figure out where the complaint is, is because there is no complaint. (at least not by me). My whole point was that this "backstory" is needed in a historic map. No complaining here, just a conversation between cartographers.

Industrial Helix wrote:Right, which is what I said before then, make bonuses reflect some sort of political or economic value. I think some maps do this though not all. I intentionally made Austria-Hungary worth more in German Unification because that's how it was back then... as it turns out I made it worth too much, but meh. It's there, I think you're just not crediting it enough.... but in general, I agree that with historical/military maps the situation is much more precarious as areas did in fact have more strategic value than they would ordinarily indicate.

Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that some map makers fail to take such things into account. And while their map might end up playing well, it does not reflect as well as it could, to the real history, and logistics of the Battle. I just think that if you are going to spend months and months, to develop the GP on a map, you should at least try to make it as close to the real History as you can. But that's just me. And I am not talking about just sticking in a bunch of authentic items, but also make them play in a way that makes them even more authentic, to the actual strategies, of the real battle.