From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:16:00 -0500
Subject: DS3 points and game balancing
One quick thought (silly though it is): Legionares versus Terminators - Something tells me an original generation terminator wouldn't have like javelins, pikes or other things inserted in the occular sensors. They tended to stay broke. And rockslides, spiked pit traps, stone-throwing ballistae, trebuchets, etc. could all kill off the Terminators. Otherwise, if all you had was sword weilding infantry, you might need a Legion to take out a terminator - how? By running its batteries down (getting tired killing them). As an extreme, this fight wouldn't be that entertaining. But it could be points balanced, even were your game not to allow a disproportionate chance of success to each Legionaire. The only question would be where the balance lies.... 100:1, 1000:1, 10,000:1, etc. Pick up games and balance of games Pick up games require some sort of consensus definition of technology and force levels in order to not be oddly unbalanced. (Witness FT CanAm 1). This is why scenarios almost always exceed pick-up games in balance and fun. DS2 wouldn't really preclude you saying your infantry stands were using muskets and had no IAVRs as a consequence (thought it does not make specific allowance for the reduced efficacy of the musket). But when you meet the ACAV, expect to take a beating from the APSWs. SG2 has one strongpoint: No points system. It FORCES you to balance by scenario, rather than balancing by a (possibly breakable) point system. DS2 and FT leave illusions of balance. Sometimes they do result in balance (with a good point system, more often than not in a straight up fight). So the point system isn't a bad thing really, as long as you keep in mind that it is a guideline and can sport artifactual issues that can really make some games that are strictly point (and not scenario) balanced un-fun. Scenario balancing is tougher, requires a better knowledge of the game and the potentiation and synergy of forces within that game and on the terrain the game will be played on, and obviously includes some assumptions about the players playing it. Point balancing is easier, but sometimes very deceptive. One good thing to do is to borrow good scenarios (even as baselines) from experienced players and scenarios that have been playtested at conventions and other places. These make a good starting points. It is my hope that (when life calms) stargrunt.ca will sport a number more of the scenarios I've designed, played, etc. over the years and that part of the design notes for each scenario will be a description of some of the thought that went BEHIND the scenario details (map, units, etc). Maybe such analysis will provide some insight to newer or less experienced players as to the WHY of adding certain units, splitting units a certain way, or having particular terrain. Once you have experience with playing/designing, you can usually put together something reasonable with an eye to the gotchas. This is often harder when you are new/inexperienced. So the trick is to soak up knowledge from those who are "further along". I suspect (heh heh) we'll maybe see DS3 with a dice based combat system (FMA like) and a revised construction system including points and capacity with a few more choices. My crystal ball suggests this is a strong possibility. But nothing shall be graven in stone until Jon has a