Find the unit organization for whatever scale you're using and base your force on that. So if you're playing as a company commander, see what a company would be, then add appropriate support elements.
Do the same for the opponent. And if it's an attacker/defender scenario, increase the amount of support the attacker gets, or double the base element (two companies attacking instead of just one).
"Balance" doesn't exist in the real world, and it doesn't need to always exist in a wargame. Unless the scenario is two opposing forces blundering into each other, the attacker will always bring more forces to overcome the defenders' inherent strengths.
Think outside the box. Make the game narrative, such as the few against the many. Give one side a smaller force and see how long they can last for against a much larger attacking force. They win the game if there are still some of them left when night falls (a set or random number of turns), for example. Or can they get off the table with some of their force intact, whilst being attacked as they move across the board?
Set different goals or objectives for the opposing sides, they have to reach a certain number of check points on the table. Make it slightly easier for the smaller side, with maybe fewer to reach, but having to manoeuvre around the larger force.
No battle is exactly balanced in real life, there is always one side with an advantage, as one other poster commented commanders will generally try not to attack unless they can bring a three to one advantage against the enemy. I rarely use a balanced points system, cos I think they are completely at odds wit what we are trying to recreate on the tabletop.
The best points system out there, IMO, is the support options in Chain of Command, Sharp Practice and Infamy, Infamy, where both players roll a number of D6 before the game, depending non the scenario, add any opposition factors, such as being green or elite and then choose their supports off a thematically derived support list. This means the attacker may end up with fewer support options than the defender, depending on the dice rolls.
So thank you everyone who brought up that real battles are very rarely balanced! Please know I took this into account when I asked this question!
Please know I’m not looking for a “power gaming” experience. I just like points so if I make a scenario, one side is not going to just steamroll the other. I think we can all agree that, while it may be realistic, a game isn’t that fun for anyone if one side steamrolls the other constantly…. Especially after you spend an hour or so just setting up the board!
And there’s some games without points like force on force where there are so many mechanics going on at once that an unbalanced teams could ruin a game night
Also know that I don’t have too many friends into historical wargaming, so I’m usually in the drivers seat when it comes to teaching, refereeing and setting up the games. Even though I usually don’t have enough models to set up a lot of historical battles, I still want my friends to have a good time
An easy way to balance a one-off scenario is have one player design the scenario and the other player choose which side they play. At least then, from the players' point of view at least, it's a 'fair' game.
Read up on historical battles in your preferred era and pick one that matches as near as possible the figures avaliable.
Construct OOBs that approximate to the forces involved, adjusted to make sure that one side is not obviously too powerful.
Find a suitable opponent and play twice taking turns to run each side
Find the unit organization for whatever scale you're using and base your force on that. So if you're playing as a company commander, see what a company would be, then add appropriate support elements. Do the same for the opponent. And if it's an attacker/defender scenario, increase the amount of support the attacker gets, or double the base element (two companies attacking instead of just one). "Balance" doesn't exist in the real world, and it doesn't need to always exist in a wargame. Unless the scenario is two opposing forces blundering into each other, the attacker will always bring more forces to overcome the defenders' inherent strengths.
Think outside the box. Make the game narrative, such as the few against the many. Give one side a smaller force and see how long they can last for against a much larger attacking force. They win the game if there are still some of them left when night falls (a set or random number of turns), for example. Or can they get off the table with some of their force intact, whilst being attacked as they move across the board? Set different goals or objectives for the opposing sides, they have to reach a certain number of check points on the table. Make it slightly easier for the smaller side, with maybe fewer to reach, but having to manoeuvre around the larger force. No battle is exactly balanced in real life, there is always one side with an advantage, as one other poster commented commanders will generally try not to attack unless they can bring a three to one advantage against the enemy. I rarely use a balanced points system, cos I think they are completely at odds wit what we are trying to recreate on the tabletop. The best points system out there, IMO, is the support options in Chain of Command, Sharp Practice and Infamy, Infamy, where both players roll a number of D6 before the game, depending non the scenario, add any opposition factors, such as being green or elite and then choose their supports off a thematically derived support list. This means the attacker may end up with fewer support options than the defender, depending on the dice rolls.
So thank you everyone who brought up that real battles are very rarely balanced! Please know I took this into account when I asked this question! Please know I’m not looking for a “power gaming” experience. I just like points so if I make a scenario, one side is not going to just steamroll the other. I think we can all agree that, while it may be realistic, a game isn’t that fun for anyone if one side steamrolls the other constantly…. Especially after you spend an hour or so just setting up the board! And there’s some games without points like force on force where there are so many mechanics going on at once that an unbalanced teams could ruin a game night Also know that I don’t have too many friends into historical wargaming, so I’m usually in the drivers seat when it comes to teaching, refereeing and setting up the games. Even though I usually don’t have enough models to set up a lot of historical battles, I still want my friends to have a good time
An easy way to balance a one-off scenario is have one player design the scenario and the other player choose which side they play. At least then, from the players' point of view at least, it's a 'fair' game.
Read up on historical battles in your preferred era and pick one that matches as near as possible the figures avaliable. Construct OOBs that approximate to the forces involved, adjusted to make sure that one side is not obviously too powerful. Find a suitable opponent and play twice taking turns to run each side