> At 08:09 PM 4/22/97 +0300, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
Here we go with the old "point system good/point system bad" argument.
Sigh.
I haven't seen a point system yet that isn't broken. In fact, it's near
impossible for a single number to represent the ability of a unit. Take the
following historical example. Choose between a squad of Polish cavalry
(circa 1939, no anti-tank weapons) and a Panzer III. My money's on the
panzer and it's machine guns. How about a Panzer III and a 57mm
anti-tank
gun? Depending on terrain, it could be even odds. Now, how about that 57mm gun
and the Polish cavalry squad? My money's NOW on the cavalry. So, with
this endless game of rock/paper/scissors, how do you make one number
represent the combat effectiveness of a unit in all situations. You can't! A
unit's effectiveness depends just as much on the composition of the enemy and
its fellow units than its own abilities. Only if both sides are configured
EXACTLY the same will a points system work. Yawn.
Point systems, once an aid to scenario design, have resulted in the Games
Workshopping of the hobby. Grand defenses, stunning offenses, and
hopeless/heroic delaying missions have been replaced by that most rare
of modern military occurances: the balanced meeting engagement. Instead of
someone designing a memorable scenario where--shudder--one side might be
better off than the other (thus requiring some actual tactical THOUGHT), the
hobby has devolved into an endless march of "bring 2000 points of Orks, I'll
have 2000 points of Squats" slugfests over even terrain. Why they don't just
play Checkers, I'll never know.
Hmm. I'm probably over harsh. A point system does allow the same sort of unit
building that exists in CCG deck building and Full Thrust ship design. You try
to outguess your opponent on the unit design side in order to give you the
edge you don't have in terrain or numbers. This in itself would not be a bad
thing, except that it encourages game publishers to build powerful figures (or
in CCG parlance, "rares") that cost a lot (in points or money) but overpower
the opponent. Get your players into an arms race and you'll never be wanting
for sales. Alter the games rules every couple of years, and you've got the
marketing juggernaut that is GW. Arguably, FT needs it more than any other
game, as ship combat games have little in the way of terrain in order to
balance a scenario. Just be prepared for the endless bickering over whether A
batteries are overpowered, or pulse torpedoes are over priced, etc., to
contine ad nauseum.
I personally don't think that a point system is evil. But your comments show
the horrible downside of point systems: they destroy the imagination. Instead
of having to think about a game, you just pick an arbitrary number and build a
force accordingly. While your at it, you can show your expertise
in the game by min/maxing the force to the point of absurdity. Now if
these games did what WRG's Modern Wargame rules (1920 to 1950) did, that is
MAKE players choose a mission and alter their points appropriately, I could
live with it. But most point games, ala WH40K, encourage tournament games of
even numbers. If one side has a terrain advantage, it need only dig in to win
the scenario. Even out the terrain, and the game becomes a dice rolling game.
Now we're starting to see sad comments like yours where if the game,
regardless of elegant, intuitive mechanics, fast pace, and--most of
all--FUN, doesn't have a point system (even a completely arbitrary, and
broken one) the game must be crap.
After all this, I have to say that I think Jon should include a point system
in every game he designs. I don't suggest that he actually spend much time
on it, as it's going to be broken--by definition--anyway. But it's
obvious
that he'll miss selling his excellent designs to the point-system
fanatics unless he adds one. And it can be of some use to beginning players so
that they can at least have a vague, ballpark idea of a unit's effectiveness.
The customer is always right, after all.
So, Jon, include those point systems. It's no big deal to me. I'll just ignore
that section, anyway. Although, truth to tell, the page would be much more
useful if it simply said, "Notes:" and was left intentionally
blank...
> Allan Goodall wrote:
Sigh.
> I haven't seen a point system yet that isn't broken. In fact, it's
Take the
> following historical example. Choose between a squad of Polish cavalry
Not so....
The Silloette vehicle system has four seperate stats-
THREAT VALUE:An, "overall" ability stat. OFFENSIVE VALUE:Combat value of a
unit's weapons and the accuracy with them (so you have The Cannon Of The GODS,
can you *aim it*?) DEFENSIVE VALUE:Armor, speed on various movement types, how
nimble the buggers are, and such.
MISELLANEOUS SCORE:Things such as communications, sensors, ECM/ECCM
gear, little "perks" that don't fit in the other two stats.
While tanks are heavily armed(big Offensive Value), and well armored(High
Defensive
Value), an anti-tank gun can outshoot a tank(HUGE Offensive Value), but
is stuck like a rock(low Defensive Value).
> So, Jon, include those point systems. It's no big deal to me. I'll
Or you could work out a system like the one above....
Just my 0.02 cents....
Jon
Once again the need for a campeign to shape the scenario shows itself.
> At 23:17 22/04/97 -0400,Allan Goodall you wrote:
> unit's effectiveness depends just as much on the composition of the
> After all this, I have to say that I think Jon should include a point
I might have a solution to this that I'm working on, it involves 2 simple
interactive point systems that gives a balanced,but far from identical fleets.
I hope that when I air it Jon T. will give it
a run through his 'fleets book' so that it can be 'tweeked' as necessary TTFN
Jon(T.C.) #:-)
SDL
> On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Allan Goodall wrote:
> I haven't seen a point system yet that isn't broken.
Neither have I. But the relatively good ones still provide a useful reference
point. And it's generally easier to fix something than make it
from scratch.
> In fact, it's near
Make that "perfectly represent" and I agree.
> Point systems, once an aid to scenario design, have resulted in the
Geez, and it's all my fault? I have to defend GW here, as much as I hate
'em: Early GW games were much more laid back and used points as an aid to
scenario design. It's after Ansell sold the firm that the tournament crap
really came in -- and even then they didn't invent it. I think our
beloved historical friends did.
Heck, the only good version of 40K has a very extensive random scenario
generator. Adeptus Titanicus also had a scenario system. They used to publish
scenario packs for WFB. Then some bright boy came up with these idiotic
mission cards and whatnot.
> Hmm. I'm probably over harsh. A point system does allow the same sort
Exactly! Ship and tank design are *the* most important reasons I ever bought
anything from GZG. You can't do those without point systems.
I hate pre-fab settings. I never use any. I'm not going to. Thus any
game that restricts me to a list of Official Designs(tm) doesn't meet my
needs. I want a game that can be customized for my settings without excessive
work.
And "make up any stats you like" doesn't really cut it.
> You try to outguess your opponent on the unit design side in order to
Agreed to a point. With a design-your-own system there's no need
for the Official Megawhatever(tm).
> I personally don't think that a point system is evil. But your
Whose imagination are you implying? Mine? How about backing that statement?
Now... I said that without a point system, the only real choice for a
one-off game is identical forces.
I *didn't* say that *with* points system you'd have to use equal points.
I think your telepathic powers must malfunctioning, or maybe a quick trip to
an optician might help with reading words that aren't there.
It's just that without prolonged experience with the game or a point system,
it's pretty nigh impossible to give even ballpark figures for relative
strengths. Especially in a game that is not rooted in historical data.
Let's do a little test here. Say A has: 10 hypergoogles 5 uppityuppities 3
megasmashers 1 general (Napoleon)
While the opponent, B, has chosen: 25 plasmazoids 4 egocannon 12 larvae 1
Cheshire cat
To make an interesting game instead of a pointless slaughterfest, which side
would YOU appoint to the defense of Hill 621?
Gee, it's hard to know when you haven't played the game, isn't it? It's still
hard to know after 10 or 20 or 30 games. At one game a week, it could take a
year or two before you can make meaningful assessments. Maybe you haven't
fielded a Cheshire cat before. How can you tell how effective it will be?
Sure, you could do the math or punch it in a computer simulation to find out.
But that doesn't really match my idea of a fun gaming eve on Friday.
> Instead of having to think about a game, you just pick an arbitrary
How's that different from picking an arbitrary unit size, e.g. "bring a
company's worth of troops"?
> While your at it, you can show your expertise
Well, that's why I try to mend these broken systems.
> Now if these
Actually, I own and play WRG 1925-1950.
> But most point games, ala WH40K, encourage tournament games of even
Make that "current edition of WH40K".
> doesn't have a point system (even a completely arbitrary, and
Ahem. I never said that. I said "useless" and "otherwise fine". It's a bit
like having a fancy electronic gadget without the owner's manual. Sure you can
spend hours learning through trial and error, but who has the time and the
interest? Sure you can have your friend who already has
one show you the ropes -- if such a person exists.
As far as I know, I could be the only one in the entire country who actually
plays and owns FT. Who's going to show me the ropes?
> So, Jon, include those point systems. It's no big deal to me. I'll
Well, I feel the same about the Official Background(tm) pages...
Hey, mind if I ask: How do you design your Ft ships then? Do you just use the
vanilla designs? I'm really curious.
> At 12:59 PM 4/24/97 +0300, you wrote:
> Heck, the only good version of 40K has a very extensive random scenario
You know, I completely forgot about the random scenario designer. That
definitely was an interesting idea that never went anywhere. I remember when
the _Book of the Astronomicon_ came out with canned scenarios (actually,
a full campaign). And I also have a couple of the old Warhammer campaign
packs. They were great. You're perfectly right, before Ansell sold the company
it was actually pretty cool.
> I personally don't think that a point system is evil. But your
Actually, you said that without a point system a game was unplayable. I find
SG2 perfectly playable without a point system. I've also seen a number of
historical systems that are perfectly playable without point systems. I
suppose I inferred that the only way to play the game was to balance the
forces with some sort of point value. If you don't use identical forces, why
do you need a point system? With a little experience with the game, you don't
need the points.
> I *didn't* say that *with* points system you'd have to use equal
Hmm. Could be the new glasses. My prescription changed.
> It's just that without prolonged experience with the game or a point
You missed one thing. I agree with you with one caveat, a game IS quite
playable "out of the box" if you don't have experience in it and there is no
point system. However, it requires the game designer to include SCENARIOS.
I went through my stack of game rules, and this is one of the biggest failings
of game systems: no scenarios! Jon's not too bad about this, but some systems
are horrible. I've seen a number of systems that include a point system but
never show a scenario. Presumably the designers playtested the game. Why not
include some scenarios? If I remember correctly,
_Napoleon's Battles_ has no point system. Instead, the game comes with a
significant number of historical scenarios.
> Instead of having to think about a game, you just pick an arbitrary
> company's worth of troops"?
My point exactly. So why do you need the point system?
> But most point games, ala WH40K, encourage tournament games of even
Point taken.
> doesn't have a point system (even a completely arbitrary, and
Actually, you said that without a point system a game was unplayable.
> It's a
We may be arguing over semantics. I agree with you that without scenarios, or
a point system, or a historical basis, it's very difficult to learn a
miniatures game. And I did concede that a point system is useful for first
learning the game. I still contend that a game is not "unplayable" without a
point system.
> Well, I feel the same about the Official Background(tm) pages...
I agree with you there. Luckily Jon's games don't rely on the background. I
have a number of SF and fantasy miniatures games that I've played but
completely ignored the background.
> Hey, mind if I ask: How do you design your Ft ships then? Do you just
No sweat. I come up with a background of my own and an interesting scenario,
and then build the ships accordingly. I use the class of the ships as a rough
guide to their overall capabilities, and then mount the weapons based on what
I want out of the scenario. In my Age of Iridium games, I gave one side an
edge at close range and the other an edge at long range. I also gave
one side shields, and the other side anti-shield weapons. I'm more
interested in "throw weight" anyway (i.e. how many weapons can come to bear at
each range band). Because I was using broadside style ships, I gave the
defender more ships than the attacker. The game may need some tweaking to
completely balance it, but I don't think it's hopelessly out of whack.
Considering that the weapon match-ups can be problematic for a point
system (a pulse torpedo is worth more points against shielded ships than
unshielded ships) I just ignore the points. Well, sort of. I used the points
for victory points; I'd probably use mass next time for that, too. For Star
Trek games, I designed the ships based roughly on scenarios from the show.
> On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Allan Goodall wrote:
> Actually, you said that without a point system a game was unplayable.
You need to take that within context. I was referring to our typical pickup
games. I have literally yards upon yards of shelf space devoted to games. I
can barely manage one night a week for miniatures games (and that's only
because I dropped RPGs as too time consuming). It's
very likely we'll be playing an "off-season" game once every 6-12
months. At that rate it's impossible to maintain a good touch with the system.
> If you don't use identical forces, why
And you clipped my example which showed what for. To assign relative
strengths. If you don't know which side is outgunned without trying, how
can you balance the scenario conditions?
> With a little experience with the game, you
I guess we disagree just how much experience is needed.
> You missed one thing. I agree with you with one caveat, a game IS
True enough. I just have a personal problem with scenarios. I want to have
games I can play with the miniatures I own, not vice versa. While I
don't make a big fuss about Official(tm) minis, the visual appeal is a big
point in miniatures games.
If I don't have, say, a lizard army, any scenario that calls for one is
useless to me as I won't be fielding halflings and asking everyone to pretend
they're scaly. It irritates me to no end not have a key figure, so I probably
end up not playing.
This is of lesser impact in SF games, but even then number of figures
available etc. can screw the setup.
> some systems are horrible. I've seen a number of systems that include
Yup, that's bad.
> _Napoleon's Battles_ has no point system. Instead, the game comes with
...and it reminds me of computer games: "Once you've played through these
'till you're sick of them, we'll sell you a sequel using just some new data on
the same engine." Or Avalon Hill's: "You've bought the game, now
buy the counters."
> >How's that different from picking an arbitrary unit size, e.g. "bring
Brigades, companies, men, tons, tanks, planes, dollars, points...
You're counting beans anyway.
If you're counting anyway, why not count points? Point systems are (or should
be) designed to cover "soft" factors other counting methods simply ignore.
Take an invading army. One million soldiers. Tanks, planes, bombers, heavy
artillery.
Take defenders. 200 000 conscripts. Lack of military training. Virtually
no AT weapons, obsolete air force, not even uniforms for the men.
That's the story the traditional figures tell.
Which side would you put your money on?
But I'm here because we won (don'cha hate the russkies for losing now?)
Traditional counting methods just don't cope with things like superior
motivation and plain guts.
Say you just designed the above scenario, "Defense of the Winter Planet". Are
you going to play it several dozen times to see if the balance of hard numbers
and soft factors is right? Or would you just let the players have
a go at it, even if it turns out horribly one-sided? Would you hire a
seance to ask Fred T. Jane's opinion?
A correctly done point system supplies you with the information no traditional
counting method can.
Points DO have a bad habit of becoming the lord instead of the serf they're
supposed to be. But any other counting method can fall prey to abusers just
the same.
If you're not counting, you're left with identical forces (gets boring) or
scenarios (limited supply, not necessarily suited to available figures, must
pay for more).
> Actually, you said that without a point system a game was unplayable.
...in my context. Rarely playing, with no first-hand input from other
more experienced players.
> The game may need some tweaking to
In essence, you're replacing the points system with your expertise. Though it
helps that you're designing both forces and you're not actually playing either
of them. OR would you really give your guidelines to the players and let them
design the ships themselves?