Any thoughts or suggestions? 

For example - if you have a map that you can play with 2-10 players - can you set starting bonuses to make it more fair across the board.  Obviously 1v1 player one has a huge advantage in most maps.   But then how do you balance against larger games?  Can you do it without splitting duel maps out into a separate scenario?

Specificall, I'm thinking about my Random Mazes remake.  Several map sizes.  I put a table on the wiki, which I can't seem to copy into the forum very well, so just check out this link:

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=boards:random_mazes:random_mazes

I also have tried writing a simulator to see how the benefits of 1st round position evolve over rounds.  It's not very sophisticated.  Basically works like this:

Given P Players, T territories & U units per territory, give each player UNITS = T*U/P units.

In order calculate a player bonus of B = UNITS/U/D  (D is per territory bonus equivalent.  I set this to 2 to help account for continent bonuses that would also be earned.)

Each player attacks with a fraction (agressive factor) of their bonus and kills 1/.85 enemy units for each of their units, evenly divided among enemies.

Players continue in order, and I see unit and bonus counts each round.

For example.  For a 3 player game on my maze map with 12x12 territories:

For 3 players.  Bonuses: [-1, -1, -1]

Initial Units: [144.0, 144.0, 144.0]

Player 0 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 24.0, 21.6,12.7058823529
Player 1 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 21.8823529412, 19.6941176471,11.5847750865
Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 19.9515570934, 17.9564013841,10.5625890495

After first round: [124.25263586403422, 122.91976389171585, 121.70449826989618]

Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 20.708772644, 18.6378953796,10.9634678704
Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 18.6593826702, 16.7934444032,9.87849670777
Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 16.810422282, 15.1293800538,8.89963532574

After 2 round: [107.54538109492303, 104.92259896263786, 102.54357591996938]

Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 17.9242301825, 16.1318071642,9.4892983319
Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 15.9055501051, 14.3149950946,8.42058534977
Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 14.105615373, 12.6950538357,7.46767872691

After 3 round: [93.44954003649292, 89.55617691433682, 86.04425377559876]

Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 15.5749233394, 14.0174310055,8.24554765028
Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 13.551771544, 12.1965943896,7.17446728801
Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 11.7707064729, 10.5936358256,6.23155048565

After 4 round: [81.60101459678393, 76.43425593281357, 71.80130948460342]

Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 13.6001690995, 12.2401521895,7.20008952325
Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 11.5390277349, 10.3851249614,6.10889703614
Player 2 bonus,attackWith,uLoss = 9.74872048754, 8.77384843878,5.16108731693

After 5 round: [71.69104715366085, 65.2269818661296, 59.46719497397309]

I've bolded the summary numbers.  Bottom line - players start with 144 units, and by the 5th round - considering average play/luck/etc.  They have ~72, ~65, & ~59 units respectively basically just from their seat position.

So then I also have the ability to set 1st round bonuses and see how this affects things down the line.  But I think this post has gone on long enough. 

Hope those drunken ramblings make sense.   I can post more #s if anyone is interested, or wants me to explain the assumptions made or run other scenarios.

With most if not all of my boards, I allocate progressive first round bonuses to equalize seat position, so I have to say that I have not done the type of quantitative research you have. Nevertheless, I'll share my less than objective thoughts.

First, and of course excluding dueling maps, I think it's quite a bit more complicated than a simple ratio of units or territories to # of players. You know how to create well-balanced maps O, so I'm pretty sure you won't disagree when I say it can vary dramatically on a map by map basis.

When I'm play-testing my maps, I make subjective decisions regarding allocation for sure, but I put a lot of thought into them.  My process involves playing a number of games, going back and looking at the luck stats (especially early in the game), strategic decisions and mechanics of the board (are there neutral walls to be broken? ..many choke points ..quick bonuses, etc. and were early seats able to capitalize on those positional advantages?

It's pretty apparent, at least to me, that the number of players in the game is inversely proportional to seat advantage. So typically I find myself making two or three scenarios for ranges of players.. E.g, 2-3, 4-7, 7+.  Finally, I keep an eye on the board's charts after it's been in circulation, and make additional tweaks based on the straight win/loss breakdowns by # of players - as well as occasionally analyzing the gameplay and luckstats, etc of those games.  The result: most of my boards are quite balanced, and certainly more balanced than most boards out there that don't take advantage of progressive allocation. In fact, if you look at the charts for games with 3+ players on my 4 most recent boards. Ren Wars, Anarchy, WOtR, and New Earth, you'll find that the first seat is pretty much never the top winner.  Sample sizes are still relatively small compared to boards like Colossal Crusade and WGWF, but with those boards, the first seat is pretty much always the top winner from 3-8 players, and with CC, the advantage is rather significant.

Actually, I was quite surprised to find that once you get to 4+ players on WGWF even though 1st seat consistently wins the most, it's not as dominant an advantage as I expected, leading me to speculate that opening position may play a greater role in determining the winner.  WGWF is reasonably balanced where it comes to seat position.

At first glance it may appear that I've overdone my allocation alterations, but I have a suspicion that many players simply don't know how to play 1st seat given only one or two less bonus armies to start.  In some cases, the best move may very well be to take your one or two armies, place, optionally fortify and pass - in effect trading your 1st seat for the last seat, but with an additional two army bonus.

Then there's the whole debate about why it's such a big deal in the first place. After all, over time you will sit in the first and last seat a similar percentage of the time.  Not to mention that on a number of boards, and with good players, all are aware of the first chair advantage and probably skew their play accordingly.

Just tossing in my $0.02

I like where this could go......i like what ozy and M are doing with duels and limiting the bonus for first person....id like to see first round 1,2 next round 3,4 then normal bonus's kick in......perhaps a limit of attacks based on round. Round three only allows three attacks and so on. This might limit the advantage of first seat?

Mad Bomber wrote: I like where this could go......i like what ozy and M are doing with duels and limiting the bonus for first person....id like to see first round 1,2 next round 3,4 then normal bonus's kick in......perhaps a limit of attacks based on round. Round three only allows three attacks and so on. This might limit the advantage of first seat?

These are all great ideas, and it would be nice to have them.  I have given thought to the value of fixed 2nd round bonus structure, but the limited attacks per round idea is new to me, and I like that as well. That said, I think that there are more important fish to fry, in large part because IMO they are just not necessary. I'll conjecture that just about any board on this site can be equalized with the existing fixed 1st round system.  As it is, most designers don't even use them, which is a shame. That, and I don't think their potential has been fully explored either.  For instance, I'm not sure if there are any designs/scenarios out there that allocate MORE bonus armies to a player seated down the list in the first round than that player would normally receive.  If there is, it's probably one of my boards,  but I'd have to check.

Ozyman wrote:

Thanks M.  Took me a while to get back to this.

While I'm dreaming, I'd also love to see better control over map options so that I don't need to create so many different scenarios.   For example, within a single scenario I wish I could:

* set different starting bonuses and card values for different sized games.

* have more granularity over what fog is allowed.

* give players control over more map options like return to attack, simul-place, etc

Yepper - the first might be tough, but for the next two would be very cool

Ozyman wrote:

* set different starting bonuses and card values for different sized games.

* have more granularity over what fog is allowed.

* give players control over more map options like return to attack, simul-place, etc

I remember when I first came over here from TOS. the paucity of player control over options here seemed constricted by comparison, but I have come around to the opinion that less is better. E.g. It would not be uncommon for me to be playing a game on TOS and realize that I had misplayed because of the unusual game settings, or worse, that the creator of the game purposely made game settings that were unintuitive making the game unfair if you weren't paying attention. For the noobie, it was somewhat of a minefield.

"Designer Approved Scenarios" are the solution this site currently uses to address the issue.  First, the range of designer features is by and far more powerful than any set of options you could give players, but more importantly, the designer retains control over keeping a board not just fair, but accessible.

Yes it's cumbersome, and limiting because creating a large number of scenarios is not always realistic, but designer approved scenarios can provide a range of game-play options that are adequate to player needs, and if they're not, it should be possible to petition the designer to create or change a scenario if necessary.

Start to add onto the list of player options and you risk making things confusing for the average player, and inadvertently make the board less accessible, and even unfair. (I expect some blowback from this assertion, and that's OK, it's my opinion give what I know now). It's a rabbit hole that was debated here a LONG time ago, and as a designer, I have done my best to be sensitive to the fact that player options are limited, and put out scenarios that offer a range of game-play.

M57 - I'm not sure if it was clear, but for all those things, I'd still like them to have to  be turned on by the designer.  So for example, a scenario would have a default value for return to attack, but then would also have a check box for "allow game host to override", which by default would be off.  Similar to how fog works now.

Just seems silly to have to create a separate scenario for things that can be really minor, and leads to an explosion of combinations/scenarios.  Wouldn't be so bad if you could just copy a scenario, but you have to export the XML/images, create a new scenario, and import the XML/images - kind of a pain if you are doing it a lot.

Ozyman wrote:

M57 - I'm not sure if it was clear, but for all those things, I'd still like them to have to  be turned on by the designer.  So for example, a scenario would have a default value for return to attack, but then would also have a check box for "allow game host to override", which by default would be off.  Similar to how fog works now.

Just seems silly to have to create a separate scenario for things that can be really minor, and leads to an explosion of combinations/scenarios.  Wouldn't be so bad if you could just copy a scenario, but you have to export the XML/images, create a new scenario, and import the XML/images - kind of a pain if you are doing it a lot.

+1. I misunderstood.  Absolutely. To the degree that that designer could offer the creator of the game a range of options, either through static scenarios, or via specifically defined 'override' variables, then yes.  But that sounds complicated, and these things would have to be thought out in detail. E.g, letting players adjust first round bonuses may be an invitation for someone to abuse the setting.  Making the game anything but fair.

my guess is that if a designer went thru the trouble of balancing starting round bonuses, then they wouldn't make that option available for game hosts. but some of the others would be nice to have the ability to override defaults (fog, return to attack/placement, etc) and wouldn't necessarily make the game unfair.

however, all Ozy is saying is to give the designers that option. 

As I recall, in the early days of the site when these things were being developed - keeping the game creator's options as simple and lean as possible was highly valued. Membership was lower then, but even now, and especially with the more exotic boards, there are a limited number of games open, and finding a the right scenario of a game that fits your criteria for play can be daunting. The right time per move, fog, size, team games, and tournaments all come into play for many people. E.g. I can tell you that the addition of the 2-day game alone was fiercely contested.

I don't know what the health of the site is right now, but I would speculate that the decline of activity in the forums and board design over the last few years suggests that the site is at build-out (at least in some aspects). Tom hasn't rolled out any significant upgrades in a few years. I don't know where things stand with 'active' membership, but I suspect that is at equilibrium if not possibly in decline. 

I don't doubt that a thorough search of the forum archives would reveal that many of the things discussed in this thread have been discussed in depth in the past, especially things like back to attack, and card scale, all of which were part of the baggage from TOS.  Be careful what you wish for.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but having more options could be confusing for the average player and the dilution of open game settings could actually create less choices for all.