A game could be perfectly balanced, yet have large strategic space issues. For a made up example to show it off in the extreme:
Imagine a Rock-Paper-Scissors variant where there were two additional elements, Nukes and Anti-nukes. Nukes beat Rock, Scissors and Paper, while anti-nukes lose to everything except Nukes, which they beat.
Technically this is balanced. You could calculate a valid mixed strategy. While balanced, it has terrible strategic space. The whole game becomes about Nukes and their foil. (The correct solution is to choose Nuke 1/3 of the time, anti-nuke 1/3, and the others 1/9 of the time each. I had originally put "nukes most of the time with antinukes occassionally, but I checked here, and found I was mistaken.)
It is not the same as a dominant strategy, but it has a similar feel.
An example of poor strategic space in a real game would be Battlelore. In Battlelore, Clerics have a small set of very powerful spells. The result of this is, you either take a maximum level cleric, or you have to specifically select leaders to counter a level three cleric (normally by diluting their availability to those spells).
In game forums, strategic space issues all play out with the same conversation. X isn't balanced says one, someone counters with some reasonable theorycraft about how it really is balanced, and a long argument continues about balance, where balance isn't the real issue.
Strategic space issues aren't always so glaring. Warhammer 40k has an interesting situation with Space Marines. They have a fantastic statline for a main troop type. In a tournament a viable army is either a Space Marine based one, or it has to encompass some specific counter to the marine. Without marines I think army lists in a tournament could be much more diverse. It isn't really that much of a problem for two reasons. The strategic space taken up by Space Marines fits the background. Most of the art and story focuses around these troops. The strategic space taken up by these troops also fits the sales figures. Space Marines outsell everything else Games Workshop does.
Warhammer Fantasy doesn't seem to have a similar issue with troop types. The closest would be High Elves, where their gimmick is that they have "best of breed" troops in every class. Whatever they field, it is the best of that type you can get in the game. However High Elves are very expensive so they field tiny armies, and in Fantasy, "quantity has a quality all of its own".
Warhammer Fantasy has more strategic space issues around the magic system. Every so many editions the magic gets too strong, and the game becomes more about spells and your magic users, rather than the rest of the troops you have on the table.
Starcraft 2 has some strategic space issues around Protoss. Both Terran and Zerg have some elements of flexibility, which is part of their faction identity. Zerg can decide on troops to build much later than the other sides, while Terran has a lot of flexibility in the buildings and technology.
Protoss has expensive units, and less ability to change tack. This means they tend to focus on a small collection of small builds. In season one and two the 4-gate build took up too much strategic space, especially in mirror match ups.
Strategic space is most important in games with "many paths to victory". As well as balancing the various game elements, the paths and strategies need to be balanced. Part of this balance is not having any strategy taking up too much strategic space, such that it is too important to the feel of the game. An example of a Euro with poor strategic space would be Princes of Florence. Jesters are too effective and flexible. Even when their cost is set by auction, the appropriate price for them is too much of the games currency, and they distort the game, even when bought at balanced amounts.
Strategic Space is quite hard to get right in a game. It is much easier and faster to identify pure balance issues. It generally takes many more playtests to get a feel for when an element of a game takes up too much of the decision making. It is something worth doing I feel. You do get a good feeling for a game when it gets the strategic spacing right.
Reading the beginning of this, I was thinking about Princes of Florence - a game I simply won't play any more because of the Jesters. I'd always thought of it as a balance issue. And it does, it always comes down to thinking "Am I going to play this strategy, or work to foil it?" It's the first consideration. It should be a "many paths to victory" game, and a good one, but it isn't, it is all about that one strategy.
ReplyDeleteNotre Dame does it better, and so far in our play 7 Wonders does it really well. Regularly gaming with Neil is a pretty good way to find out if one strategy can kill the enjoyment in a game.
7 Wonders certainly feels right as a game. If there is an issue, I suspect it will be around how viable science is. It seems much tighter as a three player game. That it plays at all with 7, and still fairly fast is a big factor in its favour. I suspect the duplicates of cards, and the possibility for bad draws may detract from it as a great game with more players, but there isn't much else faster or more elegant with 6-7 players.
ReplyDeleteI've been wondering this with the Cotton King strategy in Brass. It is difficult to beat. Ironworks can be useful but requires luck or other people to let you win. Shipyards are a good strategy for coming second. Jarratt and I have been looking for a viable Port strategy but haven't hit on it yet.
ReplyDelete