Asymmetry in AT games

Due to the recent re-release of Space Hulk and Barne's article on Netrunner has got me thinking that one of the key aspects of the ameritrash movement that I can't recall having been discussed much here is asymmetry. One of things that seems to drive people's interest in ameritrash games (and their replayability) is a reason for defining why you are different from the other player(s). Whether this is something very simple and obvious like in a two player game where each side is fundamentally different (Netrunner, Space Hulk, Twilight Struggle), or each player is given something unique to them, such as variable player powers (Cosmic Encounter, Talisman, Dune, TI3), or even the ability to customize your force/deck (Blood Bowl, Magic).

Off the top of my head the only title that is classic ameritrash that doesn't have some defining characteristic to make players unique in some way is Risk, though that was improved when it was made asymmetric with the introduction of different victory conditions for each player. On the other hand most euro players (and mainstream board gamers too) seem to love starting on a level playing field with every player starting from an identical position.

Are there any classic AT games that are symmetric (I haven't played Titan so that could be one) and seem to break this theory? Has this been discussed to death before and I missed it.

I haven't seen the topic before. I think a lot of it comes down to how you define "asymmetrical." The way it's been talked about with MEQ and Netrunner (neither of which I've played, correct me if I'm wrong), it sounds like there is very little overlap in the similarity of the turn structure, victory conditions.

But then there's meaningful vs. nonmeaningful symmetry. E.g. you start with an indigo plantation, I start with a corn one! TOTALLY DIFFERENT! Except not really. Or, in chess, White moves first.

So what's meaningful and what's not? I dunno. Maybe one consideration is radically different strategies, to the point where one side's strategy is impossible or at least suicidal for the other side. Despite the differences in starting position in chess and Puerto Rico, you can go for builder/trader or complications/grind as either side.

Space Hulk I think is meaningful. It's impossible to play the Genestealers as long-distance suppression fire types, and laughably suicidal to play Marines as hand-to-hand specialists. Plus there's the missions that add completely different victory conditions -- you could say this about many wargames actually.

Twilight Struggle, yes, but not as much as Space Hulk. Identical victory conditions and ways to spend Ops Points take away some of the awesomeness of completely different cards.

I did think of two eventually. Nexus Ops and Cutthroat Caverns have identical player positions, and for both titles the fans have been craving some asymmetry in the form of variable player powers. Not going to happen with the former but the latter gets them in the first expansion.

What dysjunct said.

Titan is about as close to perfectly symmetrical as you can get, and I'd defintely call it a classic. Other than that, I don't know, ToTAN maybe?

I don't even know if "asymmetry" really describes what Barnes is talking about in his review. He's talking specifically about asymmetry beyond the usual I-have-a-different-special-ability, or I-get-more-dudes-than-you; games where each player is pretty much playing a different game than the other one even though there is some mechanical overlap.

There's not a whole hell of a lot of those, I can only imagine that's because it's very hard to do unless the game is limited to two sides.

There are three categories of asymmetry as far as I can see:

A) Where players are really playing different games that happen to intermesh (Netrunner, MEQ)

Where players have something unique to them in the game (Cosmic Encounter, Talisman, Axis and Allies)

C) Where players can customize their play experience to suit their tastes (miniature games, Magic)

Some games are hard to categorize, like Space Hulk which I think fits best into category B, but really has elements of all 3. The bulk of all the classic AT titles tend to be in B, and the minute you hit C you tend to move outside the realm of AT and into the world of lifestyle games.

As far as I can tell Titan is the only classic AT title that doesn't have some form of asymmetry between players that people have not been clamoring for some to be introduced.

Is setup asymmetry an important form, or just a triviality?

For example, Risk has only setup asymmetry. Once the armies are placed, the game plays in exactly the same way for everyone. (classic risk, not new edition, or Mission Risk, etc.) Nexus Ops is the same sort of thing. You get money for setup, with later turns getting slightly more. What you buy with that money is up to you, though. Again, once the game gets rolling, a rockstrider is a rockstrider.

Cosmic Encounter has a truly symmetrical setup (barring Worm/Symbiote/Miser/etc), but obviously has lots of asymmetry once the game gets rolling.

I think AT favors asymmetry in gameplay, but it's possible there's a preference for both in the same game.

Asymmetry's pretty much par for the course if your game's going to be thematic, I guess. Symmetry in a game with theme means contrivances, which means abstraction, and you can just extrapolate it out from there.

I actually don't Chess-like symmetry if the game is going to be a straight-up strategy game. Dungeon Twister is the best example for that. A lot of people around here seem to really hate it because it's abstract and the theme is pretty thin, and they're right about that. I don't really give a shit, though, because as a pure strategy game, it kicks ass. Sometimes it's nice to just sit down with another player and try to out-play them rather than seeing who's best at wrestling with a bunch of random elements.

Here is an article I did both for F:AT and BGN about Asymmetry...got a little discussion going to. Great, actually ESSENTIAL topic when it comes to AT...probably one of its defnining elements.


http://www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgamenews/comments/ken_bradford_23_answers_to_questions_about_ken_bradford_asymmetry_value/

No one's mentioned War of the Ring? That game is the poster child for asymmetry as far as I'm concerned.

We've talked about the asymmetry in this week's TrashDome. Britannia has a very peculiar form of asymmetry, I guess it could be in Ancient_of_Mumu's B category.

Another AT classic with pretty much symmetrical game play (except for setup): WARRIOR KNIGHTS.

Even in setup though, it starts symmetrical. everyone starts with nothing and goes around picking cities. so the actions of the players create the assymetrical setup, not the game(sort of). you can find instances in all kinds of games, including stuff like power grid and Settlers of Catan

I dunno, I think that any game with a geographical element (i.e., a map) will be inherently asymmetrical, assuming the map has any bearing on how the game is played.

Asymmetry is the bread and butter of a good many wargames as they're generally driven by their topic, which usually features a "winner" and "loser" from the start. So, then, it becomes driven by "how do you make it fun to play the losing side" and "how does the loser have a chance to actually win the game." A good example of this is Espana 1936--the Republican player basically plays to hang on [the victory conditions are essentially "must still exist at the end of turn 10"], while the Nationalist player almost certainly has to be on the attack for much of the game. Any game that covers the WWII East Front late in the war is similar--the German player is simply *going* to get his ass kicked, it's merely a question of how long and for how hard [and that's really why there are a lot of very bad games on this topic--it's easy to design a game that makes it nearly impossible for the german to win at all; harder to make one that plays with a hair of historicity and is still fun to play the always-retreating German].

Not so good examples are something like Devil's Horsemen from GMT's GBoH series. The command system basically allows you to activate all the best Mongol horsemen, who then ride circles around their weaker opponents. It may be historically appropriate, but there's just not a lot of fun to playing the non-Horde side as they just get slaughtered. The system just doesn't seem to work that well for this topic.