SG2 ] Points System

6 posts ยท Mar 8 2004 to Mar 8 2004

From: Kevin Balentine <kevinbalentine@m...>

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:37:15 -0600

Subject: SG2 ] Points System

This is our system. It was developed by myself, Cameron Fairchild and Randy
Stoda.

Base
Man - 1 point

Small Arms Here is a suggested cost schedule for the small arms which takes
into account not only the weapon's firepower, but also it's effective range
and impact. I loathe math, but for anyone who cares, the formula I used
follows the list.

Improvised firearm -     .1
Light autopistol -        1
Heavy autopistol -        2
Machine pistol/SMG        2
Assault shotgun -         3
Hunting rifle -           2
Low-tech assault rifle -  2
Low-tech AR w/ GL -       3
Advanced assault rifle -  3
Advanced AR w/GL -        4
Gauss rifle -             4
Gauss rifle w/ GL -       5

***

Now, here is the idea behind the costs -

First, a weapon's basic value is going to be its firepower, but that firepower
is multiplied times the fraction of effective range bands it
has. So, for all of these weapons which are close-range use only,
their firepower is X 1/5, or X[one range band/five possible range
bands].

Next, the impact "zero point" is set at the usual D8.
For each die-type up or down from that D8 that the weapon's impact
is, a point is added or subtracted to the cost.

Finally, a point is added to the cost of the weapon for each die shift it
gives you in close combat - this is consistent with what we've
discussed before for the costs of close combat weapons.

Rounding and fudging - Most fractions are rounded to the nearest
whole number. This is pushed a bit to differentiate between the light and
heavy pistols and to make the light pistol the TRUE bottom of the curve,
instead of having the "improvised firearm" be the bottom of the curve.

On the improvised firearm - it is so out of the realm of the other
weapons on the list that it's cost is almost just made up out of thin air,
with these considerations - it should cost SOMETHING, because it is
more effective as a firearm than nothing at all. It costs a fraction instead
of a whole number because, as I said, it is outside the scale of the other
firearms. And it costs a fraction of a point because I thought as rarely, if
ever, we use it at all, dealing with that one
fractional cost won't be a pain in the ass. Consider the following - a
20-man pack of Regular natives with bows or muskets can only fire
out to 8", will roll only a D10 for firepower if all 20 of them fire at the
same time, and will roll only a D4 for impact. That makes that whole
20-man group not even as effective firing as only 3-men with
advanced assault rifles w/ grenade launchers - in fact, much less
effective when you count the impact and the range.

Support Weapons Make the points cost of a support weapon the average of its
penetration die and firepower die.

Regular SAW = d8 firepower + d10 pen/2 = 9 points
Rotary SAW - d10 firepower + d10 pen/2 = 10 points
Infantry Plasma Gun = d6 firepower + d12 pen/2 = 9 points

I think for missile and rocket launchers, the cost ought to be for the
launcher and one round - additional rounds cost HALF the cost of the
launcher.

Armor D4 is no armor (basic battle dress), right? So if we zero out that
rating (D4 = 0 points), then the other armors should point out at their die
type MINUS four points... partial light (D6) = 2 points, full light (D8) = 4
points.

Specialists Medic = 6 points (in this case, it is not a question of what die
is rolled,
but rather, HOW MUCH OF AN IMPROVEMENT over non-medic
treatment the medic's results can be)

Sniper = 30 points (plus his weapons, equipment, etc.)

Flamer = 4 points (2 points for two close combat die shifts, then doubled, for
terror weapon)

ECM = die type in points in addition to other trooper costs (this is for

a trooper only - vehicle ECM costs are covered in Dirtside's points)

Jump packs = 4 points (2 points for the extra 6" movement, 2 points for the
benefits which flight can allow, like jumping over terrain)

Since SG is scaled for skirmish combat, there is nothing wrong with paying
only for slow tracked and slow GEV speeds on vehicles instead of the fast
speeds

Power Armor Per man: Fast Power Armor = 20 points
(D12-4 = 8 points for armor die... 2 points for faster
movement... 2 points for auto medic... 8 points for doubling die roll in close
combat, based on the fact that the average die used in close combat will START
at D8 before shifts)

"Light" Power Armor = 18 points
(Two points less for the D10-4 = 6, instead of the
D12)

Heavy (slow) Power Armor = 18 points
(D12-4 = 8 points for armor die... 2 points for auto
medic... 8 points for doubling die roll in close combat)

Test Leadership Ratings Here is an alternative if we wish to point them out
instead of drawing
them randomly -
Untrained - x .25
Green - x .5
Regular x 1.0
Veteran - x 1.5
Elite - x 2.0

Again, leaders should be drawn, but if we wanted to
point out the squad paying for leaders -
3 - x .75
2 - x 1.0
1 - x 2

Artillery and Vehicles Cost as per Dirtside

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:03:31 +0000

Subject: Re: SG2 ] Points System

> Kevin wrote:

> This is our system. It was developed by myself, Cameron Fairchild

The one problem I see with this point system, and I think Chris' has a similar
issue, is that you pay the cost per figure. There's no cost for a squad. In
other words, a squad is a "figure container" and should have a cost associated
with it.

As several of us have mentioned in the past (maybe not on this list, but other
lists) two squads of 4 figures are not the same as one squad of 8 figures. The
two squads have an advantage over one squad. If it costs the same, because you
are buying figures individually, to create one squad of 8 as two squads of 4,
there's a problem. Unless this is integrated into an SG2 point system, it will
always have a big hole that munchkins can exploit.

This is a big reason why it's so difficult to invent an SG2 point system.

From: Kevin Balentine <kevinbalentine@m...>

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:18:18 -0600

Subject: Re: SG2 ] Points System

> On 8 Mar 2004 at 16:03, agoodall@att.net wrote:

> The one problem I see with this point system, and I think Chris' has a
squad is a "figure container" and should have a cost associated with it.

I just looked through and saw that this wasn't in the notes I posted. We
handle this by charging points for "command levels." For every unit a
commander can pass actions
on to, it costs 10 points. A platoon leader of a four-squad platoon
costs an added 30 points, because he can give orders to three squads (assuming
he's in one of the squads, he can't give orders to his own squad).

That is a built in point structure for the squads, an extra 10 points per or
there about. That way if someone wants to run around with a platoon that has 8
squads of 4 men instead of 4 squads of 8 men, he can do it, but giving orders
will be 70 points instead of 30 points.

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:39:13 -0500

Subject: Re: SG2 ] Points System

> agoodall@att.net wrote:

True, but a team with 4 guys at FP3 is a lot more fragile than one with
12 guys at FP1, so there ought to be a cost-per-troop, perhaps in
addition to a cost-per-squad.

> This is a big reason why it's so difficult to invent an SG2 point

Oh, it's not difficult at all. Making an *accurate* one, however...

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:33:47 +0000

Subject: Re: SG2 ] Points System

> Laserlight wrote:

> True, but a team with 4 guys at FP3 is a lot more fragile than one

Yes, it is more fragile. It will lose FP faster, so that should be taken into
account. The smaller squad is less likely to break or rout before it loses all
of its men, though, and that should be taken into account. (In other words,
smaller squads take a greater percentage of casualties to make them combat
ineffeactive than does a larger squad.)

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:40:02 +0000

Subject: Re: SG2 ] Points System

> Laserlight wrote:

> True, but a team with 4 guys at FP3 is a lot more fragile than one

More...

Another thing is that two 4-man squads require 2 suppressions to make
them totally ineffective while one 8-man squad needs only one
suppression. (The flip side is that the two squads need to take two rolls or
spend two actions to remove all suppression, while a large squad requires only
one).

If you have two squads going at one squad, even though the number of men is
equal the two smaller squads have a much better chance of keeping the bigger
squad suppressed. The big squad could split fire and attempt to suppress both
small squads, but it can't do anything else, and can only
do _that_ if it wasn't itself suppressed. The two small squads can fire
at the big squad and move. The bigger squad has a better chance of causing
casualties, but I think this is offset by the lack of flexibility.