> On Apr 22, 23:17, Allan Goodall wrote:
and P
...
> I haven't seen a point system yet that isn't broken. In fact, it's
Take the
Bingo.
> Point systems, once an aid to scenario design, have resulted in the
You need not restrict yourself to "modern" here.
> someone designing a memorable scenario where--shudder--one side might
Even that is more sane and sensible than the WRG Ancients/DMA/DBM folks
who use their points system to justify battles beween Samurai and Roman
legionaries.
What I would find useful, rather than any sort of scenario-points sort
of system, is an economic cost system. Regardless of how effective X is vs. Y,
I'd
like to know how much it costs _to _produce. Bugger how well it works.
This would be very useful for campaigns, where scenario points are, well,
pointless.
> In message <9704231007.ZM14043@sake.zycor.lgc.com> "johnjmedway" writes:
Instead of
> You need not restrict yourself to "modern" here.
Err... doesn't the above paragraph apply to most periods?
I think it is unfair to ascribe this to GW. Not everything is their fault. I
may not be as old as Allan, but I'm sure points values and
tournament games pre-date the GW-boom.
> > someone designing a memorable scenario where--shudder--one side
I believe the justification for fighting Samurai and Romans is that, well,
it's a *laff*. I've got one army, you've got t'other, play a game. The points
are there to keep thing as honest as one can keep them with a points system
(not very).
In this case the Samurai get some Irr Cv(O) that dismount as Bw(S) which some
people might claim are a bit cheesy.
I think the DB* games are a relatively good example of how a points system
isn't necessarily crap, or irredeemably broken. It is definately worth noting
that there is a sort of context generation
aspect to game set-up where it is determined who attacks/defends/
sets-out-the-terrain, what time of day/night the battle is fought,
what sort of terrain can be used, what sort of weather conditions prevail.
Players chose to send out flank marches and have to defend their baggage
train. A player can gamble on buying defensive barriers and naval units. That
sort of context elevates the game from being just another bland meeting
engagement (and, hey, armies *did* go looking for each other). Also the game
resolves into a range of Victory Points with 10 points shared between the
players.
> At 10:07 AM 4/23/97 -0500, John Medway wrote:
> Point systems, once an aid to scenario design, have resulted in the
Quite true, but most medieval and ancient battles consisted of one side
deciding that this was as good a spot as any to fight and then waiting for
the other to show up, or laying siege to a castle/city until it fell or
someone else showed up. While hardly balanced, most battles could be seen as
some form of meeting engagement by choice.
> Even that is more sane and sensible than the WRG Ancients/DMA/DBM folks
This is an example of what I mean: wargaming as a tournament hobby almost
exclusively. You almost never hear of ancients players re-playing Cannae
or Bannockburn or Marathon anymore. They seem more worried about how their 500
point Successor army will do against that Early Imperial Roman army.
> What I would find useful, rather than any sort of scenario-points sort
This
> would be very useful for campaigns, where scenario points are, well,
That's actually not a bad idea.
> At 06:21 PM 4/23/97 GMT, David Brewer wrote:
> I think it is unfair to ascribe this to GW. Not everything is their
Oh, sure, call me an old goat. IMPLY that I'm senile. Suggest that I... what
was my point again...?
True, point systems predate GW. However it was with the mid 80s (GW being
the prime culprit) that even-point based games became the primary method
of playing pickup as well as tournament games. WRG's WWII rules had a point
system, for instance, but still stressed scenarios.
> I think the DB* games are a relatively good example of how a points
Of all the point based systems I've seen, the DBM and Armati systems are
probably the best. Even still, they are the exception that proves the rule.
There was a recent discussion on the Armati mailing list about tournament
armies. The discussion revolved around Byzantine armies and how one player
thought they seemed over powerful. In the end, it was determined that there
were several particularly nasty armies, including the Byzantines, Alexandrian
Successors, and Romans. While a weak player with one of these armies could
lose to a strong player with another army, it was determined that these armies
did have a considerable edge. This lead to a discussion of how warband based
armies (i.e. Caledonians and Britons) were at a major disadvantage against
Roman legions. The suggestion was that Caledonian armies should either have a
higher point total or that specific scenarios giving them a defensive
advantage should be used.
Note that this illustrates the basic philosophy of even-point armies.
The exception, to fix a perceived problem, is to play a scenario or to throw
out the point system altogether. It also shows how a 50 point Roman army is
NOT equal to a 50 point Caledonian army. If the two sides aren't even, why
even bother with a point system?
Well, the answer is that it allows CCG-like pre-game building. Instead
of a deck, players build an army. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a
different type of enjoyment, but it is still enjoyable. However, one of the
big problems with some CCGs is that there isn't very much to playing the game,
that deck building is the main purpose. I find that I prefer scenario play to
point play, even though I too have spent many hours designing armies to a
specific point total.
I also think that this shows a trend towards stressing a win over game play.
As we can see in professional sports, "it's not whether you win or lose, it's
how you play the game" just doesn't apply anymore. Sure, winning is the point
of the game. It makes your opponent play that much harder. But it's
never been the be-all and end-all in my games. I enjoy the after action
discussions, where we discuss how the game could be better played. In the end,
we evaluate our play based not on the opponent but on the overall scenario.
It's possible for someone to have lost the battle, but take pride in the fact
that it was a close thing even though they were greatly outnumbered.
Ironically, I've seen fewer blowouts in uneven games than I
have in point-balanced meeting engagements.
I'm not necessarily against point systems. They have their place. Some
players really want them, and they are an aid for pick-up games or when
you are new to the game. But it really gets my goat when someone says that a
game is crap--even without having tried it--simply because it doesn't
have a point system, which is usually broken to begin with.
SNIP
> I think it is unfair to ascribe this to GW. Not everything is their
Hey Allan, how does it feel to be the very acme of ancientness? ;-)
Points values go back as far as H G Wells "Little Wars", i.e. before the 1st
World War.
snip
Cheers,
> At 11:47 PM 4/23/97 -0400, Allan Goodall wrote:
> Of all the point based systems I've seen, the DBM and Armati systems
The reason Roman Legions, Byzantine and Alexander armies were so successful
was their use of combined arms tactics. As time went on and new technologies
developed, the range of potential combined arms grew as well. The Battle of
Hastings showed that if a well disciplined force using combined arms can hold
it together, they will generally defeat a larger army than themselves. What
would be unique though is to evaluate the mobility of a given army and then
give the more mobile side a proportionate control of the ground that they
occupy. The Caviate is the question of strategic mobility, since chariots etc
can be very tactically mobile but not strategically.