by wandering
DeDaan wrote:
Hmmm, I don't know. If I would be the weaker player, I would refuse any handicap. The only way I like winning is when both players start at equal levels. What is it worth if I win getting 20+ influence more at the start of the game than the rules say? I rather lose all the time. At least I learn from my own mistakes and the clever play of my opponent.
Yes, well, my wife doesn't like losing very much - and I don't enjoy easy wins as well, so we need to employ some handicap system so that our games are exciting enough for the both of us.
DeDaan wrote:
Anyway, if you really want a balancing system, I would try to change the game as little as possible, so giving a small amount of influence plus some VPs, based on the assumed difference. Maybe you could even say that the stronger player has to reach 30 VP (or another amount) instead of 20 to win. Giving the China Card to the other player may lead to a very strange situation, since the USSR need it too much to prevent an early DEFCON loss.
Changing the VP limit is nice, I haven't thought of that. Combine it with a VP bonus for the weaker player before final scoring (either as an extra bonus, or instead of higher VP cap for the stronger player, which would not apply for the final scoring) and we get a really good and scalable system. It will become unwinnable eventually, unlike the extra influence system I suggested, but I'm not sure it's a bad thing.
Will give it a try, thanks.