PANZER GENERAL (DOS) PBEM RESEARCH CENTRE
ARTICLE 002

SCENARIO BALANCE IS AN ELUSIVE CONCEPT

A) IDENTICAL OPPONENTS

A lot of game balance theory is based on an, admittedly, unrealistic assumption that, the opponents involved are omniscient and, hence, perfectly matched at the highest caliber level possible. Once this assumption becomes ITSELF part of the theory, in certain "symmetrical" games the question of the "first move advantage" can be of paramount importance.

Let us briefly consider two dimensional (3x3) tic-tac-toe. It has long been practically known and mathematically demonstrated as well that, the "first move advantage" IS NOT sufficient to carry the day for the player that goes first, given "optimal" moves on the part of his opponent. In other words, this game, when played by two omniscient (well, even "well informed" will do !) opponents, will always inexorably peter out to a draw ! What about three dimensional (3x3x3) tic-tac-toe though ? Interestingly enough, again, it has long been practically known and mathematically demonstrated as well that, the "first move advantage" IS sufficient to carry the day for the player that goes first EVEN in the face of "optimal" moves on the part of his opponent. In other words, this game, EVEN when played by two omniscient or just well informed opponents, will ALWAYS lead to the player that moved first WINNING ! The "god" that does not get to move first is doomed from the start....

What can one say about chess, that venerable "symmetrical" grand daddy of all wargames ? Its perfectly "symmetrical" starting position constitutes a seductive invitation to our intuition to proclaim it "balanced". What about white's "first move advantage" though ? Could this be as devastating as in the case of three dimensional tic-tac-toe ? Well, to date, nobody has been able to demonstrate mathematically that white's first move is the prelude to an inexorably unfolding, winning strategy IRRESPECTIVE of what black does to counter this. In fact, the practical, decades-long, over the board acquired experience from playing the game has resulted in a voluminous body of knowledge known as "chess opening theory". The current opinion of chess theorists and grandmasters alike is that, white's "first move advantage" is only a transient factor and that, in fact, best play by black dissipates its advantageous effects around turn 20 ! In other words, although no definitive proof exists, chess is treated by the overwhelming majority of serious players as a theoretically perfectly balanced game. Nevertheless, just to be on the safe side, in most "official" chess competition events players alternate playing white and black (this has everything to do with FAIRNESS and does NOT render chess "INHERENTLY" BALANCED in case the experts and all the rest of us are actually wrong about the importance of white's first move....).

Turning now to Panzer General (PG), we immediately realise that things are much much more complex and uncertain than in chess.

1) Chess has only one scenario (i.e., the "standard" set up of the pieces) while even "plain vanilla" PG, out of the box, comes with 38 scenaria !

2) The "standard" setup position in chess is obviously symmetrical. This concept is obviously inapplicable in the case of PG !

3) Since PG scenaria are clearly not symmetrical, the "first move advantage" issue is just one of many other considerations that enter the assessment as to whether a scenario is "inherently" balanced.

4) Ideally, PG play would involve some a priori assurance that, if two IDENTICAL (but not necessarily omniscient) players were to play a particularly calibrated scenario (e.g., specific prestige and experience settings) over and over again, each one would be chalking up victories 50% of the time. That is ALL ! All scenario balancing efforts here would revolve around this A PRIORI assurance. This does NOT mean that every game would go down to the wire (e.g., fighter combat uncertainties, weather capriciousness and other imponderables just cannot be excorcised !).

5) Unlike chess which has enjoyed a reasonably stable player rating system for decades, PG play is essentially virgin territory ! We do NOT have PG theorists and grandmasters to play test scenaria for the rest of us. We do not even have a crude system to assist us in rating players on the basis of relative game mastery. Consequently, we would not even know where to begin if someone were to ask us to match players of roughly the same playing caliber over the silicon board....an important precondition for the practical testing of "inherent" scenario balance. Therefore, whatever scenario specific conclusions we were to derive concerning "inherent" scenario balance, they would of necessity be rather TENTATIVE for some time to come......

B) UNEVENLY MATCHED OPPONENTS

Unevenly matched opponents locking horns in the context of games have been with us for many centuries. This is a historical fact. Although the underlying unfairness of such contests has, for the most part, been readily recognised, the standard response has always been that the less skilled players should grin and bear it. The principal reason given has been that, players generally improve their playing skills over time by confronting better skilled players and learning from such encounters. If this learning process were to involve some ignominious defeats, well, it would be a reasonable and, perhaps, unavoidable price to pay to IMPROVE.

I think that PG is not unlike other games when it comes to the issue of unevenly matched opponents. The setting up of scenaria for ideal competitive play is, most certainly, a laudable objective. As already mentioned under A above, although such an endeavour would be no picnic, it would certainly be something extremely desirable to eventually achieve. However, the actual modification of an ideal competitive play scenario's parameters to take into account "perceived" or "objectively documented" differences in player skills so as to re-introduce balance and excitement into play is an entirely DIFFERENT matter....

i) First and foremost, even if there were no downside to doing so, one would need a very sophisticated calibration scale to match players ratings differences with specific "re-balancing" prestige and/or experience settings. From where I stand, this looks like a technical PIPE DREAM, plain and simple !

ii) Even if such a technical fix were feasible, I am of the humble opinion that its ultimate effect would be DETRIMENTAL to play quality. Although it would introduce balance in the short run and, hence, some transient enjoyment, it would impede players' skills improvement and, hence, deliver an indirect but powerful blow to their play enjoyment down the line.... You see, I am also of the opinion that players generally improve their playing skills over time by confronting better skilled players and learning from such encounters ! Given an appropriately well thought out and fostered FRIENDLINESS and EDUCATION play culture, these uneven matches should not leave any appreciable bitter residue behind....

The author, Panos Stoucas, is a long time Panzer General (DOS) PBEM enthusiast and is currently the "Facilitator" of the PG (DOS) PBEM RESEARCH CENTRE. He can be reached at pstoucas@istar.ca