Post by davshar on Sept 5, 2006 19:06:57 GMT 1
It is generally accepted that, with two reasonably competent players, the SP has an inherent advantage, though the degree of that advantage will, no doubt, be argued forever. I would like to suggest the core reason for this Imbalance and a solution for it.
In a recent post I argued that VP should not be used but, after listening to the counter-arguments, I must agre that VP in WotR fit Churchill's bon mot about Democracy: 'The worst form of government; except for all the others'.
But in Mr. Weaseley's reply he made an observation that I now think is the most imteresting and important of all the hundreds and hundreds I have read on this forum. He mentioned that in 'reality', that is, in the novels as opposed to the game, Sauron took only 2 VP and then lost one of those back. This stopped me cold.
The more I thought about this the more it seems to me that this is not just an interesting observation from someone who knows the books and the game very well but a lead to the core problem of the game: the Imbalance between the two sides. And the more I thought about it the more it came out What the Hell Is Going On Here? First, let us consider this most curious fact from the angle of the reality, the story of the trilogy.
Sauron has huge armies, growing all the time, much larger than anything the Free Peoples can muster. He needs them. He needs the Ring too but this is mostly to insure his personal immortality. Yes, the Ring exerts a kind of extended aura that boosts the morale of his orcs and minions and depresses that of the Free but it is not a be all and an end all: Sauron cannot use the Ring alone to bring the Free polities crashing to their ruin. As has been pointed out by numerous commentators Tolkien's world is a 'low impact magic' one; wizards can't wave their wands of rings and wipe out entire armies. Therefore, even if Sauron gains the Ring he still needs to win a military victory over his enemies; thus his swarm of armies.
But, until near the end of the book, somewhere that would be late in the game, what does he do with this huge war machine? Not much, apparently. He does not turn them loose for a blitzkrieg across Middle Earth, he does not attack Lorien or Rivendale, he does not even attack Gondor until the near end. Sauron orders Saruman to build and army and attack the Roharim. His treacherous minion does so and the siege/battle of Helm's Deep is a close run thing, indeed, as Welllington said of Waterloo; even a few thousand Mordor orcs, a fraction of Sauron's great hordes, would have turned the tide in the favor of the Shadow, yet Sauron sends no help.
Why not? The answer to this was locked in Tolkien's mind so we will never know. All we do know is that Sauron used only a fraction of his military before the attack on Minas Tirith. He is goinf to have to beat the Free Peoples eventually so why not get on with it? Is he just the George Mclellan of Dark Lords, never quite convinced he has enough of a numerical advantage over his much smaller opponent? We don't know.
Now, let us look at this from the angle of the game. First it should be noted that there are two kinds of 'balance' in a simulation/wargame. The first kind is that between historical accuracy and playability. The second is that between the two sides as expressed in numbers of soldiers, replacement capacities ect. These two kinds are, of course, symbiotic, but the first is of greater importance.
Does any SP player in the game wait until, say turn 12 or 14 to unleash her orc armies? I doubt it. Yet this would be the 'historically' accurate thing to do. But the designers placed no strictures whatever on the SP use of troops, thus coming down resoundingly on the side of playability. But on the FP tey placed all the strictures of the books; the fear of Sauron and the disorganizations and rivalries relfected in the longer time it takes them to activate and get to war and in the far fewer Action Dice.
This is the main cause of the imbalance in the game, for it creates an assymetrical warping of the military factors in favor of the SP.
Thus the FP must contend with a huge Sauron superiority in warriors, a vast Shadow advantage in geo-political and geo-military positioning, no rules forcing Sauron to act in an 'historican' way for even part of the game and all this capped off by the FP being bound, handcuffed, by rules that do require her to act in an historical way.
In looking at numbers as the prime reason for the Imbalance I was blinded by the visual aspect of the game; all those hordes of red orcs and the small clusters of blue FP. The main problem is conceptual, not numerical (though I still favor allowing the FP to re-muster every second or third battle causalty).
I don't blame the designers; they were caught in the Agincourt Dilemma. It is impossible to design an interesting, that is, a balanced game based on this battle (at least, I have never seen one). The reason is that, historically, Henry V totally mismanaged the campaign and got himself trapped by a French army 5 to 6 times the size of his own. The only thing that could have saved him, not just from defeat but from oblivion, was if the French launched a frontal attack with only their knights. The French obliged him and the English longbows slaughtered them. If you game this and let the French player move as he wishes then he uses his large numbers to double envelope and surround the English and win. So, several makers of games on this battle actually added a Stupidity Rule, which required the French to make the frontal attack. The problem is obvious.
Now, I don't think anyone wants a rule that forbids the SP to move any of her armies west of the River Anduin or north of Dol Guldur until turn 12 of the game. But this is what happened 'historically'. Ah, the retort will come, but this is a game and, like all such games of what ifs, Sauron, in the books, could have decided to loose his armies much earlier than he did. I agree, but why does this work only one way? The Free Peoples in the books could have decided to have been less afraid of Sauron, to have cooperated more fully and earlier and so attained a greater degree of initiative. If one, why not the other?
Now these things the Free Peoples could have done are simulated in the game by the Action Dice. Therefore, I argue that the permanent number of Action Dice, that is the number before additions caused by activating Gandalf the White, Aragorn and/or Galadriel are simply too low for proper play balance and the best way to achieve a more exciting game is to give the FP six Action Dice at the start, with the possibility of building to eight.
This will make it more exciting because the FP will actually be able to do something in the early and middle games besides hole up in strongholds. In particular, the FP armies will be able to fight a manuever war; there will be enough Action Dice to move the Fellowship, active and advance nations, recruit, and still have enough left to move armies. Or use a lot Dice to move one army a long way.
As R.E. Lee realized when fighting much larger Union armies in Northern Virginia, when two opposing armies are using the same weapon systems the smaller force will eventually lose through attrition if forced into a siege position; only by manuevering efficiently can the numbers disparity be overcome.
I tested this theroy in two games. Two games, of course, mean nothing except two games; I hope others will try the system. The FP, which I played in both games, got 6 Action Dice to start and got to bring back every third eliminated FP unit. Because I had strengthened the FP their VP requirement was raised to 6. There were several interesting results.
First, the games tended to be long, but not terribly so; perhaps 20% or so longer. Second, the games were more interesting because the FP could actually concentrate good sized armies fairly early and manuever them to attack vulnerable SP armies or settlements. This also led to more pitched battles and less sieges, which I also find more entertaining, though I realize that this is a matter of taste. Now, this initiative on the part of the FP is an opened window that starts closing from the beginning as the SP numerical superiority will assert itself if the game goes on long enough; the FP is indeed in the position of the Confederacy relative to the Union (militarily if not morally). Third, the War extended into areas beyond the Misty Mts-River Anduin-Rohan-Gondon pendulum that tends to attract most of the combat in most games. And, finally, the basic framework of the game was not really distorted. I think those who are afraid that any changes in the basic rules will ruin gameplay don't give the game credit for enough strength and ability to absorb changes; this is not a fragile game.
So, for what it is worth, there is my take on what will probably always be the single most argued over question in WotR: does one side have an inherent advantage, which side is it and what, if anything, should be done about it.
As always I would appreciate any comments or criticisms.
Thanks.
In a recent post I argued that VP should not be used but, after listening to the counter-arguments, I must agre that VP in WotR fit Churchill's bon mot about Democracy: 'The worst form of government; except for all the others'.
But in Mr. Weaseley's reply he made an observation that I now think is the most imteresting and important of all the hundreds and hundreds I have read on this forum. He mentioned that in 'reality', that is, in the novels as opposed to the game, Sauron took only 2 VP and then lost one of those back. This stopped me cold.
The more I thought about this the more it seems to me that this is not just an interesting observation from someone who knows the books and the game very well but a lead to the core problem of the game: the Imbalance between the two sides. And the more I thought about it the more it came out What the Hell Is Going On Here? First, let us consider this most curious fact from the angle of the reality, the story of the trilogy.
Sauron has huge armies, growing all the time, much larger than anything the Free Peoples can muster. He needs them. He needs the Ring too but this is mostly to insure his personal immortality. Yes, the Ring exerts a kind of extended aura that boosts the morale of his orcs and minions and depresses that of the Free but it is not a be all and an end all: Sauron cannot use the Ring alone to bring the Free polities crashing to their ruin. As has been pointed out by numerous commentators Tolkien's world is a 'low impact magic' one; wizards can't wave their wands of rings and wipe out entire armies. Therefore, even if Sauron gains the Ring he still needs to win a military victory over his enemies; thus his swarm of armies.
But, until near the end of the book, somewhere that would be late in the game, what does he do with this huge war machine? Not much, apparently. He does not turn them loose for a blitzkrieg across Middle Earth, he does not attack Lorien or Rivendale, he does not even attack Gondor until the near end. Sauron orders Saruman to build and army and attack the Roharim. His treacherous minion does so and the siege/battle of Helm's Deep is a close run thing, indeed, as Welllington said of Waterloo; even a few thousand Mordor orcs, a fraction of Sauron's great hordes, would have turned the tide in the favor of the Shadow, yet Sauron sends no help.
Why not? The answer to this was locked in Tolkien's mind so we will never know. All we do know is that Sauron used only a fraction of his military before the attack on Minas Tirith. He is goinf to have to beat the Free Peoples eventually so why not get on with it? Is he just the George Mclellan of Dark Lords, never quite convinced he has enough of a numerical advantage over his much smaller opponent? We don't know.
Now, let us look at this from the angle of the game. First it should be noted that there are two kinds of 'balance' in a simulation/wargame. The first kind is that between historical accuracy and playability. The second is that between the two sides as expressed in numbers of soldiers, replacement capacities ect. These two kinds are, of course, symbiotic, but the first is of greater importance.
Does any SP player in the game wait until, say turn 12 or 14 to unleash her orc armies? I doubt it. Yet this would be the 'historically' accurate thing to do. But the designers placed no strictures whatever on the SP use of troops, thus coming down resoundingly on the side of playability. But on the FP tey placed all the strictures of the books; the fear of Sauron and the disorganizations and rivalries relfected in the longer time it takes them to activate and get to war and in the far fewer Action Dice.
This is the main cause of the imbalance in the game, for it creates an assymetrical warping of the military factors in favor of the SP.
Thus the FP must contend with a huge Sauron superiority in warriors, a vast Shadow advantage in geo-political and geo-military positioning, no rules forcing Sauron to act in an 'historican' way for even part of the game and all this capped off by the FP being bound, handcuffed, by rules that do require her to act in an historical way.
In looking at numbers as the prime reason for the Imbalance I was blinded by the visual aspect of the game; all those hordes of red orcs and the small clusters of blue FP. The main problem is conceptual, not numerical (though I still favor allowing the FP to re-muster every second or third battle causalty).
I don't blame the designers; they were caught in the Agincourt Dilemma. It is impossible to design an interesting, that is, a balanced game based on this battle (at least, I have never seen one). The reason is that, historically, Henry V totally mismanaged the campaign and got himself trapped by a French army 5 to 6 times the size of his own. The only thing that could have saved him, not just from defeat but from oblivion, was if the French launched a frontal attack with only their knights. The French obliged him and the English longbows slaughtered them. If you game this and let the French player move as he wishes then he uses his large numbers to double envelope and surround the English and win. So, several makers of games on this battle actually added a Stupidity Rule, which required the French to make the frontal attack. The problem is obvious.
Now, I don't think anyone wants a rule that forbids the SP to move any of her armies west of the River Anduin or north of Dol Guldur until turn 12 of the game. But this is what happened 'historically'. Ah, the retort will come, but this is a game and, like all such games of what ifs, Sauron, in the books, could have decided to loose his armies much earlier than he did. I agree, but why does this work only one way? The Free Peoples in the books could have decided to have been less afraid of Sauron, to have cooperated more fully and earlier and so attained a greater degree of initiative. If one, why not the other?
Now these things the Free Peoples could have done are simulated in the game by the Action Dice. Therefore, I argue that the permanent number of Action Dice, that is the number before additions caused by activating Gandalf the White, Aragorn and/or Galadriel are simply too low for proper play balance and the best way to achieve a more exciting game is to give the FP six Action Dice at the start, with the possibility of building to eight.
This will make it more exciting because the FP will actually be able to do something in the early and middle games besides hole up in strongholds. In particular, the FP armies will be able to fight a manuever war; there will be enough Action Dice to move the Fellowship, active and advance nations, recruit, and still have enough left to move armies. Or use a lot Dice to move one army a long way.
As R.E. Lee realized when fighting much larger Union armies in Northern Virginia, when two opposing armies are using the same weapon systems the smaller force will eventually lose through attrition if forced into a siege position; only by manuevering efficiently can the numbers disparity be overcome.
I tested this theroy in two games. Two games, of course, mean nothing except two games; I hope others will try the system. The FP, which I played in both games, got 6 Action Dice to start and got to bring back every third eliminated FP unit. Because I had strengthened the FP their VP requirement was raised to 6. There were several interesting results.
First, the games tended to be long, but not terribly so; perhaps 20% or so longer. Second, the games were more interesting because the FP could actually concentrate good sized armies fairly early and manuever them to attack vulnerable SP armies or settlements. This also led to more pitched battles and less sieges, which I also find more entertaining, though I realize that this is a matter of taste. Now, this initiative on the part of the FP is an opened window that starts closing from the beginning as the SP numerical superiority will assert itself if the game goes on long enough; the FP is indeed in the position of the Confederacy relative to the Union (militarily if not morally). Third, the War extended into areas beyond the Misty Mts-River Anduin-Rohan-Gondon pendulum that tends to attract most of the combat in most games. And, finally, the basic framework of the game was not really distorted. I think those who are afraid that any changes in the basic rules will ruin gameplay don't give the game credit for enough strength and ability to absorb changes; this is not a fragile game.
So, for what it is worth, there is my take on what will probably always be the single most argued over question in WotR: does one side have an inherent advantage, which side is it and what, if anything, should be done about it.
As always I would appreciate any comments or criticisms.
Thanks.
