It’s been interesting over the years reading about all of the various rule modifications, bidding, and setup variants all in an efdort to balance the game.
Of all the discussions, I may have missed where the goal of balancing, or definition of “balanced” means? Is it to enable the game to be won by either side assuming player skill and strategy are equal, or to allow for more historically aligned unfolding of events? The latter seems illogical, as trying to create calculated, pre-set outcomes in a game of a real war that itself was navigated through a global fog of war would require cumbersome rules that restrict player creativity and inhibit fun gameplay. The entire premise of playing a historical event themed game being to see how YOU would have done it differently would seemed to be lost. That being said, using iterative setup variants - 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, etc, does create nuanced scenarios challenging a player with “How would you have done it, from this point on?” with victory conditions varrying through the years from complete conquest, to holding off conquest for as long as possible.
That being said, the former goal of balancing - enabling the game to be won by either side - is achieved via setup modifications/bidding, permanent or phased gameplay rule changes, and altered victory conditions. Additional rule modifications for gameplay interest inherently have an effect on balancing even when equally apllied to all powers, as the economic and current unit positions magnify or reduce the impact of the rule.
Finally, the question behind the question, why do all of the above balancing? While the answer may seem obvious to each of us in it’s own way, have we paused to ask ourselves, what is the ultimate purpose of bringing balance to game that is fundamentally about creating imbalance? How does answering that question change our approach to “balancing” techniques. Do we try to achieve balanance by equalizing - bringing all variables towards the center of the balance beam - or by diversifying - sending variables for each power further toward the extremes? The result of the latter would be playing with powers that have very distinct and unique strengths and weaknesses, versus all powers being more or less equal in terms of functioning, with current unit mass and economic prowess being the only differentiators.
Two cents: I find playing with more distinct and variable national attributes to be far better (and more fun) at achieving balance. Consider in real life, how a tight-rope walker uses a long pole to balance rather than trying to squish their entire body down to a single point over the rope. Historically we see this as well in the war: the US didn’t build a Tiger tank to balance out the Germans Tiger, they mass produced the Sherman and gained air superiority. The Germans didn’t build a bunker buster to defeat the Maginot line, they used mechanized forces to manuever around it. The US didn’t send 2 million Marines to invade mainland Japan, they used the atom bomb. Finland didn’t build up armor divisions to counter the Soviets, they strapped on ski’s and lit bottles of booze on fire… I digress!
Curious to hear others thoughts and philosophies on this, and maybe spark some new thoughts around game mods!
