How to balance inherently asymmetrical forces?

[The Glyphstone]

When you have a wargame/battle game between two players, but the forces they command are fundamentally different, how do you still come out with a balanced and fun conflict? I've got an idea bouncing around in my head for a simple versus game pitting a convoy of armored+armed tractor-trailers against a swarm of weaker but numerically superior Mad Max-style biker gangers in a apocalyptic wasteland setting. But every experience I've had with tabletop battle games says its very difficult to properly balance "small+powerful" versus "large and weak", so I'm curious how to go about doing it right.

[Bohandas]

What if you did two rounds and switched sides

[GeoffWatson]

Playtest, playtest, playtest.

[Glimbur]

Asymmetric objectives. Bikers want to get loot and not die, and of course convoy wants to keep loot but is less worried about killing bikers. Weight it differently for the different sides.

[Dienekes]

Well, in Starcraft, it involves a lot of playtesting and iteration over and over until they got it right.

But the general formula is make certain at different points in the game different races have slight, planned, advantages over the other, and being certain that the next point of the game involves switching out that advantage. So it essentially becomes a cycle of advantage until a winner either uses that advantage overwhelmingly efficiently, or is able to successfully navigate and delay until they get to their advantage state in order to get the win.

[Erloas]

It really does just come down to playtesting and actually being willing to look at what those results are rather than what you want them to be. (I think GW was really bad about that, designing units and abilities first and not being willing to change them when they were shown to be out of balance but trying to fix it some other way).

I think the biggest two points army construction and variable game objectives.

A very robust army building criteria, something that makes players take a balanced force for their army. You can't have counters and counters to counters if someone builds a one-dimensional list, those tend to lead to big wins or losses and are usually not that interesting after a few games, win or loose. What is well rounded for one army isn't the same as for another, but it should be well rounded given the design of the faction. It also means if you do happen to get something wrong players can't take too much advantage of it.

Scenarios/Objectives are another big one. Which is related to army comp indirectly as well. If you don't know exactly what you have to do every game, if you have to plan for multiple different situations, it means you can't just play the same game every time. A strategy that works well for one scenario probably won't work as well for others. The only part to watch out for is that it is perfectly fine if someone builds a list that is always going to struggle to win a given scenario because that was their list choice, you just have to make sure that the army as a whole has builds that can work well in any scenario.

There are a lot of other possible things I could add, but most would be dependent on the type of system.
I guess there is another universal, the more randomness that is in play the harder it is going to be to balance. Making something very powerful but highly random will almost always be hard to balance. And even more importantly, it won't feel balanced, even if it leads to a win or loss exactly 50% of the time, selective bias will make it feel much worse.

[The Glyphstone]

What if you did two rounds and switched sides

I'm not sure that would really be a solution - if one side is far better than the other, that's just taking turns who gets a guaranteed win.

Playtest, playtest, playtest.

Well, sure, but the concept needs refining before numbers can be assigned to anything.

Asymmetric objectives. Bikers want to get loot and not die, and of course convoy wants to keep loot but is less worried about killing bikers. Weight it differently for the different sides.

That sounds like it might be harder to balance, rather than easier, if you are evaluating two non-parallel objective sets. It would certainly up the fun factor, though.

Well, in Starcraft, it involves a lot of playtesting and iteration over and over until they got it right.

But the general formula is make certain at different points in the game different races have slight, planned, advantages over the other, and being certain that the next point of the game involves switching out that advantage. So it essentially becomes a cycle of advantage until a winner either uses that advantage overwhelmingly efficiently, or is able to successfully navigate and delay until they get to their advantage state in order to get the win.

It really does just come down to playtesting and actually being willing to look at what those results are rather than what you want them to be. (I think GW was really bad about that, designing units and abilities first and not being willing to change them when they were shown to be out of balance but trying to fix it some other way).

I think the biggest two points army construction and variable game objectives.

A very robust army building criteria, something that makes players take a balanced force for their army. You can't have counters and counters to counters if someone builds a one-dimensional list, those tend to lead to big wins or losses and are usually not that interesting after a few games, win or loose. What is well rounded for one army isn't the same as for another, but it should be well rounded given the design of the faction. It also means if you do happen to get something wrong players can't take too much advantage of it.

Scenarios/Objectives are another big one. Which is related to army comp indirectly as well. If you don't know exactly what you have to do every game, if you have to plan for multiple different situations, it means you can't just play the same game every time. A strategy that works well for one scenario probably won't work as well for others. The only part to watch out for is that it is perfectly fine if someone builds a list that is always going to struggle to win a given scenario because that was their list choice, you just have to make sure that the army as a whole has builds that can work well in any scenario.

There are a lot of other possible things I could add, but most would be dependent on the type of system.
I guess there is another universal, the more randomness that is in play the harder it is going to be to balance. Making something very powerful but highly random will almost always be hard to balance. And even more importantly, it won't feel balanced, even if it leads to a win or loss exactly 50% of the time, selective bias will make it feel much worse.

At least in my head, I see the list building being more a matter of customization - adding extra armor to your truck versus a machine gun turret, or giving a biker grenades, etc. Which, obviously, means more things to balance, but on the flip side having the 'core' components be relatively fixed would hopefully make it easier. If a naked, un-customized convoy can win a game against naked un-customized bikes a smooth 50% of the time, that would seem to be an ideal starting point. The trick is figuring out how to weigh the relative strengths and weaknesses to make that happen.

[Man_Over_Game]

Playtest, playtest, playtest.

This is the way.

On a computer, it isn't hard to track how effective one strategy is and adapt around it. You could, for example, apply a 5% nerf to a consistently winning side, dividing that 5% across all of the things that the winning player spent most of their resources towards. For instance, if I spent 40% of my resources on a single unit type, and then spent various 10% on 6 other unit types, the 40% would get a 2% nerf to its stats while the others get a 0.5% nerf each. Then I play again and see what happens, repeating this process every time. Eventually, it hits a point where singular strategies don't work, and my opponents are regularly able to beat me.

With a board game, this is a lot more complicated. The easier way of doing this is by having symmetrical gameplay and then slowly changing things one at a time. This works well for war simulation games, but it gets really complicated when you're talking about intricate duel systems. It's for that very reason Netrunner is a masterpiece for veterans of the MTG/Duel genre, as it almost feels like two different games that interact with each other in a very reactive duel.

From my understanding, the best way to do this with a board game that can't be simulated with symmetrical gameplay is with good playtesters. They're able to logic the best decisions after some experience with the game, and then know more-or-less how impactful that's going to be before it happens. Once the game is able to become stale for them, that's when you know you have a problem as the winning solutions are too easy and not counter-able enough to keep the game interesting.

What if you did two rounds and switched sides

CRAWL, a Diablo-esc party game, does this rather well.

There are 3 dead players and 1 living player. The dead all possess monsters and traps trying to kill the living. The living earns experience and gold by killing monsters (who are all dead players). If a dead player happens to land the finishing blow on the living, the dead player takes their life and now is a living player with their own gold and experience, while the previous living player is now dead.

It is an excellent game and has some amazing design elements for it. It's worth playing just for the learning experience, there are a lot of great stuff that's incredibly subtle but very pointedly designed to add to the experience, like how players can't look at their inventory unless they're in the shop (keeping players from getting distracted mid-game, as well as making it difficult to tell which player has the best gear and thus in the lead).

[Zuras]

There’s no substitute for playtesting. The issue isn’t just balance—even if both sides have an equal chance of winning, if one sides best tactics are boring or one dimensional while the other side has multiple viable options, that probably doesn’t count as “balanced” from a design standpoint.

[Man_Over_Game]

There’s no substitute for playtesting. The issue isn’t just balance—even if both sides have an equal chance of winning, if one sides best tactics are boring or one dimensional while the other side has multiple viable options, that probably doesn’t count as “balanced” from a design standpoint.

Some folks like that, though. Consider the DnD Fighter vs. Wizard, on a competitive level. For some, simple IS better.

[Erloas]

So you're thinking "each army has X base units and Y points to customize them" which would be a really solid game build option. Having a relatively constrained game size and unit count will make it much easier to balance and control.

So other things to consider, is this a 6 turn game with slower turns and likely many units dying in 1 or maybe 2 rounds of fighting; or is this a lot of quick turns where most units are going to take a relatively lot of punishment before being taken out?

I think one player moves 1-2 units, the other player moves 1-2 units, is going to be easier to balance with asymmetrical forces. Blind movements planned before then taken at the same time could also work very well.

My first instinct is that a system/component damage design like Battletech, (I think Crimson Skies uses a similar system but it's been too long since I played to remember if that was the game I'm actually thinking of) would work better for a system of known unit counts and with units of more relative power (compared to the weapons being used against them).
My feeling is that it will make balancing unit count differences a lot easier than a damage system where 1-2 shots are likely to take out a unit.

[NRSASD]

Asymmetric objectives. Bikers want to get loot and not die, and of course convoy wants to keep loot but is less worried about killing bikers. Weight it differently for the different sides.

This is the way I'd do it. Besides giving forces different stats and abilities, just changing their win state makes them substantially varied. The board game Root does this really well, where you have an expansionist empire, a defensive empire, an insurgency, and chaotic neutral gandalf each as viable factions. With expansions, you have a sleeper agent religious cult, a merchant guild with mercenary armies for hire, a colonial empire, and a terrorist organization all vying for control, using variations on the same mechanics. The big difference is in the scoring.

[Zuras]

There’s no substitute for playtesting. The issue isn’t just balance—even if both sides have an equal chance of winning, if one sides best tactics are boring or one dimensional while the other side has multiple viable options, that probably doesn’t count as “balanced” from a design standpoint.

Some folks like that, though. Consider the DnD Fighter vs. Wizard, on a competitive level. For some, simple IS better.

Sure, if you’re talking one option out of four or more. If you only have two sides, they both need multiple viable strategies, or at least multiple ways to implement a single strategy, for the game to be any good.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Way back in the day, there was a game that Steve Jackson did called O.G.R.E. that did asymmetrical forces well.

The key, I think, to asymmetric force combat, is to permit each side the ability to leverage their strength in some way if the player is clever, but also risk putting themselves in a position to be punished if they tried to 'play it safe'.

There's also the classic Starcraft reference with respect to asymmetric combat. Warcraft was... not asymmetric, not really. Mechanically, the units (other than the casters) were nearly identical. Starcraft, however, had three very different factions with very different units and very different means of leveraging those abilities. With Zerg, you had cheap units and you could spam them out fairly rapidly. With Terran, you had more tactically flexible units, Marine was the only base unit that could shoot air, but not necessarily more powerful. Protoss has always been quality over quantity, having fewer more powerful units. Any discussion of asymmetric battlefield combat gameplay is going to have to eventually bring it up as an example, with SC2's multiplayer (not campaign) as a refinement on the process.

The Warhammer games, especially the Total War series, would be another good example to draw upon, with resources unique to each faction and extremely different playstyles.

[The Glyphstone]

I think my biggest problem with playtesting is a lack of playtesters. I'd basically be doing it all by myself, which is going to produce strictly limited effectiveness, and I don't have anyone else around I can try and wrangle into the idea. The best I can do is mathematical simulation balancing, which is again not super useful since a game wouldn't be played in an empty white room at perfect average rolls.

Looks like this will have to be another thing that gets locked away in the idea-vault for a later point in life, but it's good to know the hurdles I will have to bypass at that point.

[Slayn82]

I love your scenario. Let me try my hand at it. The convoy is crossing the Biker's Territory.

A Bike can go in a lot of places a transport truck can't cross, and they have more overall manpower than the members of the convoy by definition. Thus, the routes of the convoy should be limited, while the Bikers can move more freely.

Meanwhile, the Bikers start dispersed on the territory, and need to detect the convoy and amass a larger force to do the strike. While radio comunication could easily solve the issue, let's say there's a lot of radio interference going on due to overall conflict, and that prevent's enemy radio comunication while the convoy got some kind of encryption algoritm allowing them to still keep contact of their own, or they just use laser pulses. Maybe there's land lines on the territory, but just a few nodes have contact. Maybe Bikers fear using radio because it gives their position to Drone Strikes.

Meanwhile, the convoy can have some scouts, to attempt to infiltrate and destroy the biker's outposts on the path before they can detect and start alerting others on the area. Maybe the biker's gangs don't see eye to eye and unless they have strong leadership, they spend a lot of time discussing before they can start attacking the convoy. Thus, those leaders are targets of interest for the Convoy's scouts.

On a limited fight, the convoy should be stronger than a few biker's gangs, but with enough gangs and leadership, the bikers not only attempt to kill convoy members, but also throw molotovs, destroy tires, damage engines, and have smoke bombs and traps to turn vehicles. Due to a time limit, convoy must cross the territory, so damaged vehicles are either abandoned, or salvaged for crew and parts. Abandoning a vehicle may cause bikers to leave your trail for a time, but they may get stronger in unnexpected ways - food may help convince other gangs to join, weapons left behind can be used against you, leaving crew lowers convoy's morale. Salvaging takes time, so it's like passing initiative for the Bikers to get more organized, and it's risky if they are still attacking the convoy.

[The Glyphstone]

That does sound like a great way to expand a match into some sort of campaign mode.


EDIT: Okay, so stealing a few bits from above and grafting into headthoughts, this is the rough concept bouncing around right now sans numbers (which obviously would need playtesting, and thus present a hard-stop to this eventually).


A map/match area has either Road or Off-Road terrain, with the Road forming one or more continuous paths from the entrance edge of the map to the exit. A map could also feature things like hills, trees, rivers, etc. to provide a more varied environment.

Trucks move at normal speed on Roads, but suffer reduced speed Off-Road, heavily incentivizing that they stick to a defined path. Bikes move faster than Trucks, and suffer no speed penalties Off-Road, allowing them a significant mobility advantage.

A convoy is formed of...3 trucks, facing off against 3x-4x their numbers of Bikes, but each Truck will be able to absorb 4x-5x as much damage as any individual Bike. The Bikes have the advantage in platforms but suffer more heavily from attrition.

For scoring, the Convoy by default only scores points for Trucks that successfully reach the exit point of the map. Destroying Bikes doesn't award any positive points, but can deny points to the Gang. The Gang score points for both Trucks that are disabled/destroyed, and for surviving Bikes when the match ends. In a vacumn where no trucks or bikes are destroyed, the Convoy's score will be larger than the Gang's score.

Devoid of special upgrades or customization, this should create a setup where the Gang player can control the terms of the engagement with their mobility, but doesn't have the option to simply avoid a fight altogether if they want to win. They have to close into fighting range to attack the powerful trucks and get loot, but that in turn exposes them to return fire against their more fragile units.

[Durazno]

Since we're also talking about the turn structure, for this particular scenario, I'd suggest that it would make sense for everyone to move at once, and then resolve combat and other actions separately. (Maybe some bikes could also have nitros that would allow them to get a burst of speed in the "action" phase.) Unless a vehicle deliberately stops, they're all going to be in constant motion, and I think simultaneous movement would capture that.

[The Glyphstone]

I do like preserving the feel of constant motion, but how do you do that in a tabletop format? Double blind movements are way too complex for this sort of game, and alternating moves doesn't work well with the numbers disparity between Convoy and Gang.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I do like preserving the feel of constant motion, but how do you do that in a tabletop format? Double blind movements are way too complex for this sort of game, and alternating moves doesn't work well with the numbers disparity between Convoy and Gang.

Car Wars did it with an impulse system. Basically, every turn is broken up into impulses, 16 in Car Wars but you can break it up arbitrarily. Vehicles moving at different speeds move on different impulses. So, for example, a vehicle with a move of 4 will move on Impulse 1, 4, 8, and 12. Each impulse also gives the players an opportunity to conduct other actions, with perhaps a limit to number of actions per turn. That way, since the Gang has many different vehicles with many different movement values, there's always something moving on any given impulse, but not so many that it takes forever.

So let us draw up an arbitrary example vehicle to look at it a bit:

Scout Buggy. Speed 8, Attacks 3:1, Damage 1, Light, Ground

This vehicle has a Speed of 8, so it will move every other impulse in a 16 impulse turn. It can attack a total of three times per turn, but only once per impulse, and will deal one damage per attack. It is a Light vehicle, meaning it doesn't have to make a roll to avoid getting bogged down in rough terrain. It is a ground vehicle, so it cannot pass over water hexes or over cliffs.

Compare and contrast with the following:

Heavy Convoy Escort. Speed 3, Attacks 4:2, Damage 3, Heavy, Armored

With a Speed of 3, it is only moving on Impulse 2, 7, and 12. It can attack 4 times per turn, but can burst fire twice per impulse, dealing three damage per hit. It is heavy, so it has a penalty to avoid getting bogged down and will get bogged down in terrain that normal and light vehicles won't have to worry about, and it is Armored, which reduces the damage it takes per hit.

A one vs one match between these vehicles will be extremely unbalanced in favor of the Heavy Convoy Escort because the Scout Buggy technically cannot hurt the Escort unless he crits, however there's no way the Escort is going to be able to get the Buggy into range unless the Buggy lets it. If the Escort is dumb enough to start trying to chase the buggy down, it can quickly get bogged down and stuck, eliminating the threat entirely. But if the Escorts stick close to the convoy (their job), the buggies are going to need to bring in some heavier fire support to crack that armor.

Having said that, the Gang might have a half dozen buggies, while the convoy only has a couple Heavy Escorts. And the convoy vehicles themselves aren't Armored, so they can easily perform hit and run tactics and slowly whittle down any exposed convoy trucks.

[The Glyphstone]

I had a vague idea that Car Wars exists, but I hadn't really looked at it closely. Having poked around now, it seems like I'm trying to redesign the spike studded wheel by making a more chassis limited and thematically focused version of the game. At the least, it hits the same notes of heavy customization in a post apocalyptic setting.

[Erloas]

Gaslands also does a speed based movement timing.

You could also do an action point system, where you alternate turns but don't necessarily do everything a unit can do in a single turn. So maybe each motorcycle has only 2-3 actions, movement, shooting (but only a single weapon system per bike), and some with some unique ability. But each truck can move, has several different attack systems, and one or two special abilities. So one or two bikes moves and/or attacks, then the truck can shoot a few weapon systems, then back to the bikes, etc.
Whether or not a unit could just shot or just move would be a design choice. If you would have to design it to force each unit to do something before some parts can reset or not would really just come down to design.