Game balance

Among the several topics that the author talks about in his article, I found the "game balance" as the most interesting one to talk about because this system not only makes the games more fair and fun, but it also can make games become very boring to players.

In many circumstances, game balancing seems very important to game players because the game will be unfair in the other way around. Example that the article talks about is the Warcraft: Orcs and Humans, which the Orc players producing warlock units will almost always win. In this case, players will soon find the game boring. Therefore, keeping the game balanced is very important in games.

One example that the author raises up that has a good balance is the Age of Empire II. In the game, every kind of unit or soldier has certain powers but also weaknesses. For example, "the cavalry is very effective against archers and siege weapons but are vulnerable to pikemen." (p103) Although having the both sides equally, the game is somehow unfair in some ways. As an Age of Empire player myself, I found that certain countries can easily be overpowered by other countries. This situation is even more obvious and worse when individual is playing against another individual than group games. In addition, the game can get very boring when playing it for long and players have been familiar with the dominant strategy that applies to different game.

Question: What are some ways to make a game fair but still keep it interesting?