The prerequisites for a successful wargame

I think that a game is only interesting if the sides are evenly matched and your own playing conditions are a challenge. A truly exciting game is one in which victory and defeat are on a knife's edge and everyone feels their own impact on the outcome through their own actions and is thus involved in the struggle for victory. (for relevant self-efficacy see think tank)

In contrast to the usual approach, I am of the opinion that it is not a matter of balance in numbers (equal numbers of fighters, spears, whatever), but only of balance in the strength of the group in the respective game. As this is an almost impossible task, it also explains my calmness towards subsequent attempts at equalisation. The fact that small inequalities remain is unavoidable and not a problem.

Furthermore, I think that the terrain and the tasks you are given must be designed in such a way that there is a symmetry of forces. The playing field does not have to be symmetrical.

I have a similar view to Blizzard, who try to balance the different game groups (which are different in their characteristics) as well as the game maps / locations.

The following factors must be taken into account when balancing:

• Number
• Weapons (long weapons, bows)
• Experience
• Agility
• Command skills
• Alliance ability

A group of 7 veteran long weapons should be equivalent to a group of 20 melee fighters.

It is often advisable to have more than two groups. This causes alliance problems. Here, 2,4,6 groups of equal strength should be formed, as otherwise a permanent alliance against the 3rd group is quickly created.

The following factors must be taken into account when balancing:

• Bottlenecks
• Height differences
• Obstacles
• Starting point
• Running routes

The easiest of these to change is the starting point. The time and the approach to the bottlenecks are of particular interest here.

If there is only one bottleneck, games often degenerate into stagnant situations. Interesting games have more than one path to each destination and the paths are more or less equal. Games in which the paths have different values for the respective groups are particularly interesting.

For example:

Path A has a bridge bottleneck that can be easily mastered by the group with the superior spears. is easy to master.
Path B is characterised by an open field. The group with the superior number of runners can operate well here.
Path A is therefore a man-eater for the group of runners.
Path B is therefore a man-eater for the spear group.

The following factors must be taken into account when balancing

• Time
• Path
• Difficulty

Interesting here are always tasks that are confrontational and both groups are aware of this.

For example:

Group A: Guard this path that leads to location A.
Group B: Reach this location A.

Changing alliance requirements are exciting when there are several groups.

Group A: Get objects from groups C and D. Don't lose your own objects.
Group B: Obtain objects from group D and A. Do not lose your own objects.
Group C: Obtain objects from group A and B. Do not lose your own objects.
Group D: Concerned by group B and C objects. Do not lose your own objects.

In large games, it makes sense to create an independent group that intervenes in the game depending on the game situation. The independent group can thus influence weaknesses and strengths and normalise imbalance situations, but should not intervene in winning or losing in a biased manner. This group can also serve as a communication system for the game management.