The only reason I want a points system, for any game, is so I can figure out
how to integrate the forces into a campaign game. I need some way of judging
(for potentially a large group of people) how many soldiers, tanks, ships,
etc. they can produce/train/field based on their national economy.
An actual game would have nothing to do with points. Players who get lots of
hi-tech troops to a critical point at the right time are going to beat
the snot out of an opponent whose strategic thinking isn't up to par. That
said, the campaign is no way to play "fun" games to introduce someone to the
hobby. Most, if not all games will be heavily unbalanced, yet the loser may be
able
to declare a strategic victory because he held back the hordes/gained
time/etc. But that won't be apparent on the table.
OTOH, we do have a set of standards indicating maximum allowable force
compositions that prevent a very powerful player from totally overwhelming a
less powerful one. But it all fits within the context of the campaign
> At 07:53 PM 5/28/97 -0400, you wrote:
You are playing the wrong game! If you want to try a campaign with an entire
planet or nation, you should move up to Dirtside!! A campaign in Stargrunt
should cover no more than maybe the activities of 4th Company or perhaps 1st.
Platoon. This game is NOT about strategy, its about TACTICS. It makes no
difference in the long run whether 1st. Platoon met its objectives or not, it
will have no real bearing on the entire war. The reason for playing is to play
a small engagements on the whole of a huge
battle! It is the challenge of overcoming the obstacles that a small
unit leader would face. Let's face it, Lt. doesn't give a shit how the war is
going, as long as he follows orders and keeps his and his troops butts alive.
This is what Jon meant about doing well despite your troops. Stargrunt is
about having fun. You said, "the campaign is no way to play "fun" games to
introduce someone to the hobby" so why would you want to do
it? Sure campaigns are more realistic, but they are certainly not fun.
If
you're just playing to gain the strategic edge on someone so you can
overwhelm them in a lop sided battle, this game is not for you. All
battles are NOT balanced, it rarely is in warfare, but who wants to play them?
I have no interest in playing a one sided battle, no matter which side I'm on.
That said, most people want a points system to play "Balanced" games without
having to "think" about force composition and scenario objectives. You want a
points system to play a campaign game?
As
we can see, a points system means nothing. The only reason we would strive
to make a balanced game is so it will be FUN to play!!!! Both sides
having a chance to pull off victory!! In the scope of the war it may matter
squat that 1st. Platoon took that building during the game. If they would
fail, HQ would just send up another platoon to do it or call in an air strike
to blow the building away. The point is, as a force commander, you are given a
job to do. Your enemy is given the job of stopping you from completing your
objectives. That is the basis for all scenarios. Once you've completed that
task, you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done. If you screw it
up, you can look at it and ask, "What did I do wrong?" In the end the game
should have been fun. If you try to turn this in to an all expansive campaign
game, you will fail. If you try to place a "points" value to any thing in the
game, it will prove you wrong. Need inspiration? Grab any war history book,
don't read the whole thing, just some of the battles. Then juice it up with a
more futuristic tone, and Bingo! You have a scenario.
Hello, The reason I want a Point system for Star Grunts is so that I can run
between the three games for a mini campeign, maximum campeign or just to have
a ball park to quickly generate one off games... I like the idea that during a
larger battle a single platoon may be fighting the critical battle (yes they
do happen, ask Bob Dole about it, or my Uncle at Casino, or the Navy at
Midway...) and that we can create that scene as part of a larger scenario.
Phil P.