Oh Nooooo!!!!!! I've started the point system flame war again (he says
slamming a fist on the haylon spray).
Thanks Daniel. That IS why I included the "or update it" clause.
While I do not use the point system much any more, it was (and is) a good tool
to get a feeling of how a unit that I have not fielded will effect play
(powerful vs not powerful). But it is not a good tool to guarantee that a game
will be balanced.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> > I think that an updated DS3 should be next on the priority
[snip]
> > -----
> -----Original Message-----
In message <2A5C49585B46EC42BB99D3000F725D4707470E@col1smx01.dscc.dla.mil>,
"Be
> ll, Brian K (Contractor)" writes:
I think the lack of a points system is a barrier to SG2's "crossover" appeal
to 40k'ers. While I don't mind it, it does make game setup more difficult, and
IMO is really foreign to mainstream SF mini gamers. Remember: the rest of us
can just ignore it (although,
really, who will? Anybody play DS2 w/out points?)
I'd like to see variants on a straight-up points system-- you can
generate a force in your spare time, but when you arrive to the board, it is
changed somewhat.
Peter Pig's AK-47 has a really cool way to do this. When creating
your army, you allocate army points to "political points." You then
go through a 3-4 action flow chart, spending the points to take an
roll. For instance, if you're a Superpower backed force, one of the actions in
the flowchart could be (this is of the cuff, but similar) that the CIA tries
to assassinate your opponent's leader. Roll a d6.
On 1-2, it fails, the plot is discovered, and one enemy unit of the
opponent's choice could fight at High mission motivation. On 3-6, it
inspires your country, giving you more recruits and you can field an
additional line infantry unit of green status. Various results might disband
units before the game or dictate hidden deployment or VTOL insertion.
Another way to do this would be like Necromunda, in which a scenario for the
game is rolled for or chosen, and this dictates which forces of your army you
can use and how they are set up. If you're ambushed, you might have to roll
for units randomly until you have chosen 33% or more of your force in points
to use on the table, with the rest possible reinforcements during the game. It
could even dictate high or low mission motivation, etc...
> "Casquilho, Daniel" wrote:
I have two words for you, brain, and washing. I know a good deprogrammer that
could help:) And afterwards you'll even be able to get them to do your laundry
and wash you dishes.:)
As for point systems, I like the idea that you can put so many points into an
army and know how powerful it is but, and here's the big but, how correct are
the points? Mostly they're pretty arbitrary, even in FT where everything has a
set value you always have the arguments that the points are wrong. I'm a big
fan of designing a fleet or army group as you would in real life (gasp) and
then using that as a base. I get a lot of complaints from the rest of my group
here about my huge chain of command that I have for my SGII company but it's
actually laid out as a company so that it's all pregenerated and I just put
platoons on the board.
I tend to use points as "money" but I normally work out a scenario or have an
order of battle in mind for the parent organization so most of my battles take
the form of "lets draw a battle group from an armored
regiment/brigade
and put it up against a battle group from an infantry battalion". Sometimes I
don't even work out the points until after the battle is over.
Currently I'm working on a scenario with a GEV force (1er Escadron, 2e
Regiment Etranger Cavalrie) vs. a Tyranid Swarm or that could be FSE vs.
Savasku. This is intended to be a test of some morale rules I'm writing for
the Tyranids but I also worked out the point cost to give me some idea if the
two forces, neither of which have been fielded before, are wildly mismatched.
The totals are about 3000 pts vs. 2500 pts so I think they are about right
provided the morale doesn't totally skew things. But I'm not trying to balance
this to the exact points cost I'm just using this a sanity check.
Chris D-W
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> "Casquilho, Daniel" wrote:
I am
> > just working with the people I have :-)
Jaime, we only complain about your command levels when you insist on
running a company commander when you only have a slightly re-inforced
platoon on the table, man!
Just because a force is larger than a regulation platoon doesn't automatically
make it a company...