Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi all, I've been writing some articles (5 in total) on game balance over the last few weeks, more musings on things and general observations really. The intention is to spark a bit of debate about what we as gamers are actually after and also to hear what you all have to say. I don't want it to degenerate into a this game is better than this game flame war, but comments would be welcome from all:

http://thefrontlinegamer.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-any-game-system-ever-truly-be.html?showComment=1312805187359#c1621688212966943592

Thanks

First turn advantage can be eliminated by simultaneous movement.

That is one of the things I like about Full Thrust is that movement is plotted beforehand and done effectively simultaneously. I wish firing was handled in that same way as opposed to alternating initiative since damage counts on your turn.

If you don't have a system like this, I am a firm believer in rolling or bidding for who goes first each round rather than it being set who's first/second if you have an I go / You go system. That makes it harder to get into a dominating position and stay there. Being first or second has both advantages and disadvantages in most cases so it should be available to both sides.

I have yet to play a game of Infinity, but from what I have read of them, and the rules regarding individual units, I think that this game is very close to "balanced" as we can really expect. Like I said, I havent tried a game, but I really want to, the rules seem very well written, clear and concise as they should be for ANY game.

What I think of when I hear the term "balance" in regards to wargaming, is having a set of rules, that does not "guarantee" a victory, in 40k it would be taking that OP, WAAC tournament list that float around the internet... This would mean that some rules that reside within individual army books, or codices would be nerfed or eliminated all together


What will ultimately determine the balance, or lack thereof, in ANY game I think come down to the writing of the rules, and how they are enforced in public venues (stores, tourneys, etc.)

Kilkrazy wrote:First turn advantage can be eliminated by simultaneous movement.

Would integrated turns (or IGO-UGO, if I'm remembering the term correctly) also be a method of eliminating first turn advantage?

12thRonin wrote:]If you don't have a system like this, I am a firm believer in rolling or bidding for who goes first each round rather than it being set who's first/second if you have an I go / You go system. That makes it harder to get into a dominating position and stay there. Being first or second has both advantages and disadvantages in most cases so it should be available to both sides.

This is one of the reasons why I'm excited to pick up the ACW version of the Polemos ruleset. Not only does one bid using 'Tempo points' to try and get to go first each round, but those same Tempo points are used to direct troops in the game. It's an interesting balance between getting your troops into position, and then knowing when you absolutely need that first move.

IGO-UGO normally indicates the pattern seen in 40K in which the first player moves and shoots everything before the second player follows.

This is reckoned the most unbalanced turn sequence. It is particularly unbalanced in 40K because of the number of armies that can bring such a powerful first turn attack that they can cripple the other side before it gets its first turn. That's because the setup in 40K allows a lot of powerful units to be in strike range at the start of the game.

Most games start the forces out of range and provide a period of manoeuvring before combat is joined.

There are other ways to improve that turn sequence, such as overwatch (opportunity fire), C&C and Morale, and charge reaction.

Kilkrazy wrote:IGO-UGO normally indicates the pattern seen in 40K in which the first player moves and shoots everything before the second player follows.

This is reckoned the most unbalanced turn sequence. It is particularly unbalanced in 40K because of the number of armies that can bring such a powerful first turn attack that they can cripple the other side before it gets its first turn. That's because the setup in 40K allows a lot of powerful units to be in strike range at the start of the game.

Most games start the forces out of range and provide a period of manoeuvring before combat is joined.

There are other ways to improve that turn sequence, such as overwatch (opportunity fire), C&C and Morale, and charge reaction.

Then that's the exact opposite of what I meant.

So why was overwatch taken out of 40K fro 3rd edition? Was it too complicated for us to understand?

Overwatch was taken out of 40k from 3rd Ed onwards because it simply slowed the game down way too much and as the game was building towards a larger scale it'd just have over complicated things and slowed everything down.

First turn bias is just one of the things rules lead to. There are so many other inherent imbalances because of restrictions that I think true balance as Alessio Cavatore has said is pretty much impossible. I do however think its more than possible to have a situation where we all get a 'fair' chance. I'll be doing further articles throughout the week if people are interested in reading them.

Interesting article. I think you get closest to the real "answer" at the end when you note that war isn't equal and perfectly balanced, and there's no real reason to assume that a wargame should be either.

I think that if you talk to older wargamers, you'll get even more confirmation of this. Rules, Army lists, points systems, terrain, senarios effect on different armies and the whims of the dice arent balanced and will never be. That's just the way it is.

For something completely different.
As to the discussion above about IGOUGO, the usual alternative to IGOUGO (besides similtanenous action like that used in Tractics) is Alternating Unit Activiation. Alternating is one of my favorite turn mechanics because players take turns playing out the actions of units rather than one player playing out all their units and then the other.

My experience is that Alternating Unit Activiation leads to a much more involved game and adds alot of depth to a game system.

That's funny Ellif those are pretty much what all the other articles are on!!! lol. I've been wargaming since I was 5 thanks to my Dad and I'm now 32. I've seen a lot of different game systems come and go. I like the alternating unit activation system and I think that is part of the way forward with wargames, but the bigger the game because the harder it is to use that structure. I think Infinity's Active and Reactive player mechanic is another way to go and at times is utterly sublime.

infinite_array wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:IGO-UGO normally indicates the pattern seen in 40K in which the first player moves and shoots everything before the second player follows.

This is reckoned the most unbalanced turn sequence. It is particularly unbalanced in 40K because of the number of armies that can bring such a powerful first turn attack that they can cripple the other side before it gets its first turn. That's because the setup in 40K allows a lot of powerful units to be in strike range at the start of the game.

Most games start the forces out of range and provide a period of manoeuvring before combat is joined.

There are other ways to improve that turn sequence, such as overwatch (opportunity fire), C&C and Morale, and charge reaction.

Then that's the exact opposite of what I meant.

Did you mean something like this?

Both. Rally and Repair
A. Preparatory fire
A. Movement
B. Defensive fire
A. Advancing fire
Both. Rout movement
B. Advance move
Both. Close combat

It's called a semi-simultaneous turn sequence.

Second part of my article on Game Balance has gone live:

http://thefrontlinegamer.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-any-game-system-ever-truly-be_09.html

Again as always everyone's comments are welcome and I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

Ah, the eternal question of points values. Designers hate and denigrate them and Players can't seem to do without them.

There are many shortcomings to points, one of the most glaring of which is that they can't ever take into complete consideration the combined effects of the units a given pointed unit will be fighting alongside or against.

That said, balanced or not, points systems are a must for almost all the games I play. Even (perhaps especially) with my favorite indie games with unit creation mechanics, points are an indispensible way of making sure we're all at least in the same ballpark. Of course we all play with the gentlemans expectation that no one is trying to game the system. If a certain arrangment of units seems to unbalance the game, I'll agree to modify it down a bit. We don't have time or inclination to all try and break the system, and I find no particular honor in stomping an opponent who hasn't even a fighting chance.

The gun vs sword analogy is particularly apt. As illustrated at a recent club game where equal pointed armies were facing off for a game of WarEngine. We didn't have a feel for the balance of the game units yet. I brought a few heavy units and my opponents had no anti-armor firepower. Need less to say , my enemies were toast. Of course, having realized this I won't bring more than one Heavy unit in small games anymore.

Ellif its the eternal bugbear with every game system isn't it? I want to beat my opponents fair and square, not by using and overpowered beardy army. I think most gamers are the same. So points systems are the best way to approach it... no matter how imperfect!!!

To the best of my knowledge, points originated in WRG Ancients in 1969. The values were pretty well ironed out by the 5th edition in 1976.

40K points values are a problem not because of particular difficulty in making them work, but because the 40K designers like to slip a few complete boners into each codex. It only takes the internet about 10 minutes from the release of a new codex to spot the winners and losers.

SirAngry wrote:Ellif its the eternal bugbear with every game system isn't it? I want to beat my opponents fair and square, not by using and overpowered beardy army. I think most gamers are the same. So points systems are the best way to approach it... no matter how imperfect!!!

Yes and no.

I find points systems indespensible when not fighting senarios where the forces are deterimined by the senarios. Still, points systems without communication between players about what kind of game they favor seem to ineviatably lead to tournament-style armies, spamming, powergaming etc. None of which are wrong persay, but that is not remotely the kind of gaming I'm looking for.

Put more simply, a points system without communication and accomadation leads to a style of gaming I don't find enjoyable.

This is an interesting subject and it's nice to read articles that are well written. I'm afraid this debate will have to take the form of some specific examples though (at least at some point). I'll try and keep this generic but will probably use examples from 40k.

In general I think Games Designers do an admirable job - I've never not had fun playing a game yet - that's the most important thing. For me inbalance creeps in (or at least the feeling of it) when a rule goes against one's thought process. Wargames are abstract systems using measurements and probability/luck to determine outcomes, using a system of statistics that reflect the background of an army they are facing - this alone means certain units will be 'better' than others, although designers often address this with points values. To me some rules I've come across, from at least a 40k perspective, have been or are counter-intuitive. I hate the fact that only Troops can capture 'objectives' - to be honest I find the vanilla scenarios in 40k dull and lacking any real substance, I fail to see what could be so vitally important about a rocky outcrop or old ruin, like someone's been scattering objectives like confetti over a small area of a warzone. I'm still baffled as to why my best, Elite troops aren't capable of capturing an objective if it's so damn important - I've heard all the reasons why this is the case - but it doesn't gel with me. The fact that most Codex's allow for an option to take them as a Troops choice, if I take a certain character, helps a little - but still makes little sense.

I've thought before it's impossible to get true representation from 40k due to the 'rule of 10' and how the numbers 1-10 have been used for every stat-line, despite the disparity that's opened up between them. In 2nd Ed stat lines were vastly different, because the stats were never intended to accomodate a Tyranid Bio-titan or Daemon Primarch like they do today.

In GW's case if there is a crystal clear inbalance in the points from their Tournaments (if they bother supporting any) and they notice the amount of x units or armies being taken, then they have a problem and should address it in more immediate terms - ideally they'd ditch their secrecy altogether and have open beta rules for a new edition/army, even within a restrictive environment such as beta weekends at Warhammer World. There are several units which come to mind that are ridiculous for their points values/rules compared to similar armies, notably Grey Hunters and Long Fangs - why should Long Fangs be able to split fire? Because they're old and experienced? Dark Reapers are pretty old and experienced, perhaps even more disciplined because their very souls are continually at stake, yet they don't have this kind of ability? You could then argue that all units should be able to do this etc...

Finally I think the main problem with GW is the amount of time between Codex/Army books, as well as the continual update of editions and the fact that 40k has a tradition whereby the main structure of the game will never, likely, change. GW can't do an update of Core Rules that makes all Codex books redundant, so that dictates rule decisions. Personally I'd favour a universal orders system and 'true' background representation, although GW would never do that on account that Marine players would only need 20 models and a vehicle in a 1,500 pts army I also think that background and visual flavour play a large part of why people choose one army/faction over another, although within those armies it's more or less just an aesthetic choice.

For 40k and GW in general I feel they are constantly running, so much so that they can't keep up with themselves, whilst they do little to change that - sure we get FAQ's but usually far too late - you'd think they would do enough testing to pick up these problems. Ideally you'd want as little rules clarification as possible and they seem to have a tendency to overreact to things which are OP - like psychic powers becoming more or less void at the start of 3rd Ed, to the point of making them almost redundant.

Games Developers will never write rules which the vast majority of people agree with, people are always going to hate how their army changes if their toys are taken away (as the Sisters dex is proving at this point) - that's just part of their job I guess. Ultimately it's about fun, if the rules/points allow for that as much as possible - that's great. This whole subject links back to the WAAC vs. Casual debate...again

Sorry for the long post all, I hope at least some of it makes sense/is relevent

Again some really good points. If some of you posted your thoughts on the blog you might get some better answers from the likes of Alessio Cavatore (Shuuro in the comments) and Jake Thornton (Quirkworthy).

@Ellif I'm covering scenarios on Thursday and tomorrow is all about the scenery. If there's one thing that unhinges games quicker than most things its the thing we play them on... the battlefield. I think points are a good place to start, however in my local gaming group we've played games with 'handicaps' like in golf with certain matchups... but ultimately its just enthusiast papering over the cracks.

@Warspawned I have no problem with underpointed units if it serves a thematic purpose, say Warjacks in Warmachine being more potent by the point because its thematic. I'd even buy into the Dark Elf Hydra being part of the GW's push to have more monsters in WFB if every army had a comparable unit that was equally as effective. I think I had a chat with an ex-GW staffer 2 years ago now who said what the GW needed to do was develop a version of 40k and fantasy and develop all the codexes and army books at the same time and test the game to make sure it was as balanced as possible, even open beta them and then just do a total reboot.

I think he was right. Its impossible to maintain any sort of balance when you're pissing about around the edges and refusing to note that there's an elephant in the room. Thing is making things totally random is one way to even things out, like they have with 8th Ed WFB, but its unsatisfactory because randomness precludes skill. They need a total overhaul.

First turn advantage can be removed by weapon ranges not reaching across the entire table to kill half the transports in one turn.


The major flaw is the codex system.

3 books a year, which leaves some book so outdated they are worthless.

Along with, point costs keep dropping.. nothing stays standard with that, and armies are getting new rules that are bigger and better everytime to sell models.


The biggest flaw to me is the mission system.. You do not play until there is a winner.. you play until the turn count is up.

Some games i catch myself thinking, its my bot of 4th turn, if i do this and this i get 2 turns to contest that and he only gets 1 then i have a 33% chancing of winning.
or.. the same playing killpoints on when the game ends in your favor.

Then it ends up just being a.. who plans when the battle ends to when the die roll ends the game.. instead of.. play until there is a 100% winner.

Hate to use game vs game examples but as i love both games and not leaning toward one or the other i will in this case.

40k - Win condition is who ends up in the right spot with the most killpoints when the game happens to hit its random game length.

Warmachine is - Win condition is when someone flat out wins and not based on when a random game length comes.

Your a little off the mark with only a GW/ Warmahordes centric train of thought.

Starship troopers had a reaction system, and Rogue Trader was based on RPGish play with humans as the baseline race.

Only reason that the game HAS IGUG is because they are too damn lazy to try something new and are lost in the kool aid of selling product rather then playing a game.

"Balance" is pretty subjective, and there are other factors that come to mind when your discussing "Game balence" as opposed to faction balance.


Some games are just awful as far as thier armies sense of proprtion. Take 2n edition necrons. They came out there was a pretty much OTT style of play where the offending player would pull out the obligatory 3 squads, the necron lord, and the destroyer/ scarab swarms and you were pretty much stick in the confines of the system. Not able to react to the necrons taking over the tanks/ scrabs swarm block/ destroyers pretty much owning everyone, and then you had a pretty P.O.'d opponent.
Then they went on to 3d edition, and they were "Balanced" to the confines of the "Obligatory" confined space that you were forced into with the structures of the army constructions, and then even more as the evolution of the "Codex of the month club" started.

GW centric, because other games, such as L5R, Battletech, Void, and others off the top of my head were 110% better then Games Workshop.

3d edition fantasy was a little more balenced in the form of armies baselined and raised and lowered in proportion to thier make up.
Some were shootier, others were hand to hand, but on the whole- race centric, ability centric, and army construction were the rule of the day.
I played 3d edition fantasy and the magic system had a thrid X factor that added to the game that also had a point to the army balence. You were not as constricted to the spcifics, and your compositionary magics had a part in parcel to the makeup of 3d edition fantasy, as well.

What does "Balance" really mean though?

IGUG has no part in the concept unless your talking strictly Game mechanics, and in that point, the earlier versions of Warmahordes, and GW were built on some basic concepts based on some of those old school %'s, and the armies were made up off of those old school D100 charts, which in hand with the basic rules set, gave the players a sense of proportion based on the D 100 choices depending on the army's makeup. I poped out with chaos, I have 100X100X100 choices that could effectivly pop up and be used in concert with the rest of the army choice base that came up.
We play 500Pts, we have such and such rolls to make it to 500pts, no more no less.
Balance is achieved, unless your talking about the choice in question. If you got the "Cycloptic eye, which gives you a -2 to your attack" or "Slime trail" which inhibited movement, but added an acidic trail? The balance is not so much a factor, as is D100 rolls, which also were an addition to your choices of your characters ability.

Those two choices were off the top of my head, they had others, but pregame, post game also had things to do with the contribution to the characters stuff.

When we discuss the 7th and 5th edition of the game ( seeing as 8th is such a farce) we are completly off the mark when we compare it to what Warhammer/ RT used to be, to the current game that these so called experts pulled out of thier fourth point of contact.

these guys have a constrained objective, and they are not the same "Game designers" that came up with the original concepts, and the left and right limits of the game mechanics.

I think that is why I have such a problem with the onset of what "Mantic" is trying to do and why I'm a little put off with thier pissy attitude with thier so called "New" game.
That new warpath is only a variation on a theme, even if they dio have some good looking likies and chewies, and they seem to have made a good shwoing of the hype, when all they are doing is a variation of 3d-4th edition 40K, and they are not even using any of the things that worked, before the codex spam.

Is balance important?

In some ways, but not so much that you are forced to pigeion hole yourself into the same playstyle that "everyone else uses to keep up with the joneses." and that in my current opinion is one of the biggest detractors from some of the games we are seeing poping up these days. You arn't even playing your game anymore, your using duchebag tactics, and someone elses army list based soley on how they did with it. Hence- 40K and warmahordes is a list based dyed in the wool clone war.

A better way to have approched it was as they did when the games both came out, and then kept a baseline "neutral" statistic or X factor to the game.

Completly balenced armies and games would be like seeing two equally matched fighters trade shot for shot and beat each other to death, based exactly on the "balence, strategy, and capability of each of the contestant.

Hi all.
The theory of balance , is that complete balance is just theroretical!
I can ballance a 2 ton flywheel to within accepted peramiters (+/- 2grms/m2).It will work as intended, but is not perfectly ballanced!

In the same way a game can have an aceptable level of ballance.

The rough guide to game ballance is if both opponents can choose freely from all options available , and have an equal chance of winning .Then the game can be considered to have an adiquate level of game balance.

However , HOW a game is developed is VERY important in reguards to the level of balance achiveable.
Games developed for ballanced compative play,tend to define end game play, then use the most apropriate game mechanics and resolution methods to achive the game paly required with porporional results and the minimum of fuss.

This usualy means a straight forward rules , covered by 2 or 3 resolution methods.
And so the characteristics are used to cover ALL the in game action.
No need for special rules that contradict the core rules!

Most games cover special abilities/equipment with the straight forward methods below.
By adding a value to a dice roll.OR allowing a re-roll.OR ignoring one condition.

EG
A vehicle with a 'targeter' may add +1 to all to hit rolls.
A leader with 'Resolute' skill can re roll a failed command roll.
A vehicle with 'Amphibiuos' counts water features as open ground.

Also it is important to evaluate the elements of the game at the level of interaction.
If the game is UNIT interaction game.
Then evaluating the UNITS is the sensible way to balance the game system,

A game that is UNIT interaction based, that evaluates individual models in the unit, then revises these values at the army level has little chance of achiving any decent level of balance.(Cough 40k/WHFB cough.)

Most games written for ballanced compatative play have provable levels of (im)ballance.Eg they show how they allocate Points Values.

If the system has intuitive straight forward rules, that deliver proportional reaults , this is far easier than if the system is an abstracted holistic mess.

I have tried to keep to non specific theory.But I can show actual examples to illustrate these points if you like?

@Grot6 I think some of my friends would piss themselves laughing at you calling me GW / Warmahordes centric, or my train of thought anyway. Haven't played 40k for nearly 8 months now must be and the last game of Warmachine was 2 months ago, and I've never really been big on those two systems any way.

I mostly play Infinity with Malifaux, Anima Tactics and Spartan Games systems right now. I grew up playing Rogue Trader with my dad and I enjoyed Starship Troopers to the point it died a death. I have never been a solely GW based gamer, playing Battletech was always a major part of my hobby until the late 90's when it seemed to die in my area and couldn't find opponents. I must still have some stuff hidden away in boxes somewhere. I think many people have missed the theoretical point I was making about rules. Rules create a system and systems are inherently imbalanced, they have to be to get any movement going, they might eventually come back to a sort of equilibrium but nevertheless any system has within it imbalance. The point about the first turn was made to illustrate that even a game most people would consider perfectly balanced, chess, is wrapped up in a debate that has been going on for centuries about whether going First or second in chess is an advantage. Reaction systems or not, simultaneous movement or not, there will be imbalances in any ruleset. Alessio Cavatore made the classic comment regarding rules and the division of 1 when 1 is balanced and each rule divides that balance. The argument therefore goes either have 1 rule or none at all.

I accept the fact that any game system will have its quirks and indeed its loopholes or tricks. That's always been part of the game for me, and indeed part of the fun, my articles are just my musings on what I've witnessed over 27 years of wargaming and I've always heard the same debates over and over again. Pretty much regardless of system actually. Rules are the first bugbear experienced gamers will normally pick up on, followed by points systems or however you choose forces. For most its then scenario's but for me the battlefield and it scenery are more important to balance, but scenario's and missions can too add instability, the final thing is language. We all use it and some of us use it well or so we believe while others not so well. For instance my first article clearly hasn't communicated my point well... or you're all just piss poor at interpreting messages coded in written English!!! Just joking. Either way I think debating it is fun and interesting and I love hearing others thoughts on it. I think perfect balance is a redundant thing in wargames and I don't mind that, however 'fairness' as a concept should be striven for and I fear some of the bigger game systems out there are doing a bad job of that at the moment.

I've mainly used GW and Warmahordes examples because I'm not too sure how many people out there are even aware of things like Alkemy, Star Grunts II, Starship Troopers, Infinity, Confrontation etc. However all those systems have their foibles and blemishes as well. You either accept them or you don't. The biggest determinant as to whether I find a game balance or fairness acceptable is if I still find it fun even though I know it has its problems!!! Today's article will be on scenery and the battlefield and I've used Man O War as my chief example, there's a blast from the past!!! I agree with regards to the dyed in the wool clone wars as well, read this:

http://thefrontlinegamer.blogspot.com/2011/07/internet-army-lists-death-of.html

I'm just after a bit of fairness in games. Luckily I've always found games that I believed were 'fair'. Cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Third article on scenery has gone up on my blog:

http://thefrontlinegamer.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-any-game-system-ever-truly-be_10.html

Cheers

The problem with the "Balance Argument" is that it usually boils down to: "If my army can kick the Warhams out of you, then it's balanced and good. If I lose, that means your army is cheesy and unbalanced."

Hi Worglock.
If a games ballance is purley down to the subjective assesment of the developer(s) in isolation.(Eg 40k/WHFB.)
Then any value based on opinion only can never be validated objectively.
'Dear games developer , can you please tone dowm Rock, Paper is ok as it is ,thanks Scissors.'

The ONLY way to achive acceptable level of game ballance involves lots of playtesting!
(Armies of Arcana was in Beta testing in the games community for 8 years.)
This allows a full understanding of the relationship between characrteristics and in game performance.
And after extensive playtesting the developer can describe the in game values as relative points values.
These can be transfered in to formulae to calculate PV.
After these have been proven to be acurate in isolation, the developer can then test them to find synergistic imbalances.

EG
If unit X =100 points.
And one of unit X constantly performs as equal to 100pv.

But 2 units of X performs significantly better.(+30%).

And 3 units of X is even more effective than 2 units of X.(+60%)

Then the list could be
Units of x.
1= 100pv.
2= 260pv
3=480pv

This prevents gamers from taking advantage of synergistic imballance.

The other method is to simply limit the number of units of a particular type .
Eg
0-1 chioce.
OR
1 specialised unit, for every 2 core units.

Just because perfect balance is unatainable, dosent mean that acceptable level of game ballance is beyond the grasp of most competant game developers.(If they are allowed ,or inclined to persue it.)

Note that provable levels of game balance are only prefered for games developed for ballanced competative play.Games that are senario driven can be ballanced simply through the options available.

As reguards to the playing area.It is important to establish the size and how the area is populated with terrain .
In senarios the playing area is usualy described in detail.
For competative play , the amount of terrain and its spacing should be determined.

EG For competative play we reccomend a playing area of 6'x4'.
With 30% to 60% terrain coverage.(At least 30% should be LOS blocking.)
Minimum spacing of terrain 6" apart, maximum spacing 18" apart.

I believe games can be balanced. Here are my ideas.

A game with identical forces on both sides, and simultaneous movement, clearly could not have any imbalance from advantage of unit type or movement priority. It would be perfectly balanced.

Wargames are mathematical abstractions, governed by equations. The core point of equations is that they balance. It should be possible to create a complex equation or set of simultaneous equations to describe the operations of a wargame, and make it balance. The reason why we see various games and codexes as being unbalanced is because the variables in the equation have the wrong values.

A complex mathematical equation is in effect how programmers create an RTS or turn based wargame such as Dawn Of War or Advance Wars. What I mean is that DoW like any computer game is a mathematical system and can therefore be balanced. (I don’t know if it is.)

Following from the above, game balance testing should be done by computer. You would take a game such as DoW and strip off the graphics. You set up the game database (unit characteristics) with the values you want to test. You run the game in self-running mode (computer versus computer) and collect the results into another database so you can analyse them.

The analysis can also be done by computer, and the results could be fed back into another computer to vary the unit characteristics you want to test. Normally in 40K you will vary the point value but you could equally well change the range value or movement value, and that may be a way of balancing a unit when you want to keep the point value constant. (When I say you set up a computer, you could probably just set up several programmes running on the same computer.)

Clever programming would allow the creation of a genetic algorithm system which would learn from previous trials and bias the computer to select the most successful units. A different kind of algorithm could be used to reset the points values (or another characteristic) in order to balance the unit though reiterative trials.

The key point of this system is that you would be able to run trials and get results very quickly. Running without graphics, the core game engine could probably do thousands of game turns a minute. Automatic analysis of the results would very quickly show which units were overvalued or undervalued in the points system, or generate balanced values. The system could also be used for “what if” modelling.

The key to your game is that no one would want to play it.

Everytime you changed the terrain layout or wanted to switch out a unit, or change a senario, you'd have to consult the computer to see if it required a change in forces, stats, etc.

No Thanks. I'm fine with imperfect gaming systems that don't require a computer.

The computer is only used to run millions of simulations to ensure proper balance of units and costs. These are printed in the army lists.

Players choose armies, work out lists, and so on and play the game. The difference to 40K is that the balance has been extensively tested.

Good point. Of course, in addition to computer models, I think that 40k could use more human play-testing as well, but that's about as likely as...

My point was twofold. First, no matter how balanced the computer makes the game, as soon as the terrain is introduced (unless it's a mirror image on both sides) the game is no longer balanced.

Also, one single army list of points values can't ever be perfect for different army selections because the units will interact differently to achieve different strenghts.

Example, taking everything on the army list once will likely not be as effective as meeting the same points level with a more carefully chosen selection of units. Thus the game is not balanced because though both players have met the same points values, one has a more effective army.

The computer can model terrain within the simulation. It's already done in DoW and Advance Wars.

Regarding selection of different strengths of units, surely that is the point of involving a human in the game?

To put it differently, it is clear that Unit A (Rhinos) is underpriced and Unit B (Tau Sniper Drones) is overpriced in 40K.

Using my computer based balancing system, Unit A and B will be fairly priced. The player will still need to choose whether to put the unit in his army, and how to use it on the tabletop.