Stargrunt "one" points system?

> In message <B0000136119@urza.n-space.com> "Mike Wikan" writes:

Does anyone know if Stargrunt "one" has a points system? Would it be relevent,
has the game radically altered?

Jon (Tuffley), if SG1 has a relevent points system, would you
mind if someone posted it? or, if you have a half-finished
point system for SG2 that you junked, can you post that?

> Does anyone know if Stargrunt "one" has a points system?

Firstly, SG1 also had no points system - funnily enough, no-one ever
asked for one either, or commented on its absence... maybe we were selling to
a different kind of player then:)

We kicked around a few vague ideas for the SGII points, before deciding that
none of them were a) relevant or b) functional; the decision to consciously
omit points was not taken lightly, but after much discussion with players and
playtesters. The opinions I received from 90% of the playtesters supported the
arguments against points systems, so that is the way we went. As they say, you
can't please all the people all the time!

We can probably come up with a ROUGH kind of points system to make
pick-up
games easier to organise, if that is what people want; but I suspect that as
soon as we do this then certain players are going to start working out the
numbers, hunting for the loopholes, and generally exploiting whatever
they can find - even if we state they are GUIDELINES, some people are
going to take them as gospel.

Oh well, we're not going to change human nature so we'll just have to see what
develops from these discussions....

I take exception to the implication that losing is never fun for the loser. I
enjoy my games, win or lose, if its well fought and well played. If I start
from a hopeless situation I may have aims that have nothing to do with my
force's survival (delaying actions, moralle, whatnot).

> On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> PS:

We're playing a game here. At least I am.

Games are supposed to be fun.

F-U-N. Fun. I'm sure you've heard of the word.

Grossly imbalanced games are never fun for the loser and only fun for the
victor if he happens to belong a perverted sect of newbiebashers.

Before you go off yacking, let me clarify: Grossly imbalanced in way not

taken into consideration in scenario, terrain or victory conditions.

P.S.
"Major, take your unit and attack hill 457!" "I can't do that, Colonel, the
enemy have got three battalions against my company, it would be a meaningless
suicide..."

> We can probably come up with a ROUGH kind of points system to make

While I haven't had time to actually play SGII yet, (shame on me) One idea for
a "rough" point system would be one like SJG's Ogre where everything is rated
as an armor unit. Maybe there is a way to rate everything in terms of "man"
units (grunt units?). A basic man should be 1mu. Then a guy in
power armor could be 2mu's where and unarmored man could be worth 1/2?
Excuse me if I'm really off here but while I personally prefer point systems,
I don't absolutely have to have them to enjoy playing a game.

> PS:

...And rule 2.3.4.5.2.1.2.34 paragraph 2, sentence 3 says our troop type
can't attack them.   :)

                 +++++++++++++++
    +------------+             +----------------+

> We're playing a game here. At least I am.

So are we all, though I think there might be a few Historical period players
who'd take you to task over this!

> Games are supposed to be fun.

Now, where's me trusty old dictionary.....;) Surprising as it may seem, fun is
still one of the main reasons why I do
all this at all - I mean, if it was simply to make a living I could have
been an accountant instead.... [ducks flame shots from the 12.735 accountants
on this list] More seriously, in my experience the FUN comes mainly from the
attitude of the players.
> Grossly imbalanced games are never fun for the loser and only fun for

I've often had more fun playing an "unbalanced" game that I actually lost than
a supposedly "balanced" one that I won. At least if you lose an unbalanced one
you can console yourself that the odds beat you rather than the usual
wargamers' excuse of "bad dice tonight"!

> Before you go off yacking, let me clarify: Grossly imbalanced in way

I couldn't agree more, which is exactly why in the rulebook we suggest using
such variables as the Motivation levels to help even out otherwise unbalanced
forces, whether you're playing a prepared scenario or not. Used properly, this
means that you can have an enjoyable game with almost any forces that two
players happen to turn up with on the club night, so you don't even have to
talk beforehand and agree how many points to each bring along! Of course there
will always be some powergamers in any group who will insist on bringing every
bit of their "super army" along, but hey, that's
what Low motivations, exhausted troops and pre-game bombardments are
made
for... :)

[As an alternative, you could always pair your players off, give them a
square gridded battlefield (maybe around 8x8?) and tell them to each bring
along an army consisting of one Royal Leader, one Royal Leader's Consort, two
Fortifications, two Clerics, two Cavalrymen and eight
Infantrymen...they might even already know the rules, and then no-one
will have to think up a scenario!!]

> P.S.

Ah, but what if this sacrifice is necessary to the overall battle strategy? A
"suicide" attack by one company to allow the rest of a division to safely
disengage from a hopeless position...? I'm not trying to nitpick or score
points here [sorry, no pun intended:)], just to suggest that even a
one-off game can be looked at as part of a larger picture, irrespective
of whether you are running an ongoing campaign or not. One of my own most

> On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, Alex Williams wrote:

> I take exception to the implication that losing is never fun for the

Let me get this straight: You enjoy excercises in futility?

Hey. let's get together for some tennis. Maybe I could win a match for
once, because there wouldn't be any strings in your racket -- and you
say you'd still enjoy it.

> If I start from a hopeless situation I may have aims that

You contradict yourself here, or maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

If you fight a delaying acting, and die to the last man but delay the enemy,
guess what?

YOU DIDN'T LOSE!

YOU WON!

> On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> I've often had more fun playing an "unbalanced" game that I actually

I find close calls the most enjoyable of all games.

> Ah, but what if this sacrifice is necessary to the overall battle

It isn't, unless the victory conditions say it is.

> Rooskies in the end, but by God I made them commies pay for every

What if it had been too unbalanced to even let you inflict any casualties?
Would you have enjoyed just removing your figures from the table? Would you
have gloated: "By God, it took him 3,534 dice rolls to completely kill me. His
wrist must be sore by now."

> Let me get this straight: You enjoy excercises in futility?

> once, because there wouldn't be any strings in your racket -- and you

Exercises in futility can be lots of fun. I enjoy horror roleplaying in genres
in which the `heros' are likely to die painful, messy deaths by the end of the
series and everyone playing knows it and takes pleasure in getting there. It
can be a blast to play `the bad guys' who're destined to lose in the end but
get to have all the best melodramatic lines on the way.

In my mind, the game's the thing, and if it looks like it'll be an enjoyable
game, I'll run a platoon on power armoured troops in an Alamo setup against
your constantly reinforced line infantry with the goal soly to see how long I
can hold out. Yes, with the inevitable loss and death of my entire force.

> You contradict yourself here, or maybe I didn't make myself clear

And how do you account for this greater overall context with a measly point
system? How does having 300pts of troops whose goal is to delay your force for
six turns get computed? And how does their changing
morale state factor in?  And how does this help you, self-admitted to
be interested only in equal pick-up games, feel like you didn't get
run over?

Maybe its just because I'm not a power-obsessed, success-driven
weenie; I play for the experience, for the pleasure of playing, not just so
that I can put another mark down on my scorecard and gloat about having taken
another one out. I play because I really enjoy the game, win or lose, and like
to match wits against an opponent and the Hand of Fate.

> On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, Alex Williams wrote:

> Exercises in futility can be lots of fun. I enjoy horror roleplaying

In roleplaying, you don't have an opponent. You can't win or lose a RPG.

This is an important distinction.

> In my mind, the game's the thing, and if it looks like it'll be an

So what? Your pre-defined goal is to see how long you last. Note that
this goal, as presented, offers no way to gauge your performance. You'd either
have to switch sides and replay, or play against a set time limit.

This is an interesting idea you have: Abolish victory conditions so both

players can deceive themselves to think they've achieved something.

> And how do you account for this greater overall context with a measly

With victory conditions and scenario templates.

The points are there to gauge relative strengths to help decide what kind of
scenario would be appropriate for the forces involved.

"Looks like you outgun me 10 to 1. How about a 'last stand' type of battle?"

> How does having 300pts of troops whose goal is to delay

It doesn't have to. The points let you choose an appropriate scenario. They've
done their job. Now you can forget about them.

> And how does this help you, self-admitted to

Gee... I'm currently running a self-made FT campaign. How's that for
pick-up? Don't put words in my mouth.

But true -- the campaign would never have started if FT had flopped
at the pick-up test phase. I'm interested in pick-up games because
running 10 campaigns simultaneously doesn't work (been there, tried that)
and if the game won't fly as pick-up, it likely won't fly at all.

As for the second part, if I have a fair shot at achieving my victory
conditions, I can feel I've made a difference.

If I lose, I lost because I made a mistake or the other guy was simply better.
Not because I never had any chance to begin with.

If I win, I really accomplished something, instead of just playing out the
inevitable.

> Maybe its just because I'm not a power-obsessed, success-driven

And who is? C'mon, if you mean it, say it.

Would a power-obsessed, success-driven weenie be interested in giving
his opponent a fair chance?

> I play for the experience, for the pleasure of playing, not

So it's tennis then? I can even supply your stringless racket.

It's not about winning or losing. It's about having a chance. There's no

matching of wits and no fate if you're predestined to lose (or win).

In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970427205121.26191A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:

Roleplaying has it's place in wargaming, I think. The gameplay itself is a
major draw for me, trying to win against someone
with the same motivation (and out-play them, or learn from a well-
deserved defeat) but sometimes a self-imposed sense of "realism"
over and above that imposed purely by the mechanics can make a game more
enjoyable. Sacrificing all your ships because there is a slim possibility that
you will roll many sixes and he many ones may result in the same defeat
(999,999 times in 1,000,000) as disengagement, but the latter seems more
honourable, more "realistic". (This example can be put down to the lack of
even simple victory conditions in FT, I note.)

> This is an interesting idea you have: Abolish victory conditions so

...Ah, real life...

> > And how do you account for this greater overall context with a

This is *very* appropriate to Stargrunt, particularly since the same force can
be given different "motivation levels". A small force making a last stand
would definately have a High motivation and
fight, man-for-man, much harder than a superior force that wants to
annihilate them with minimal losses.

If BDS is going to have a simple points systems, this would seem to be a
natural complement. Particularly because it gets JMT off the hook for pointing
up the different levels of motivation, which certainly deserve to be scenario
chosen.

> I take exception to the implication that losing is never fun for the

ok, this is going to be a long rant, so that I don't end up posting a lot of
short rants on the same subject....

1: Fair games do not mean even points. fair games mean that both players,
being of equal skill, will have an even chance of winning the scenario. If the
forces are not equal in power, then the scenario should be "tilted" to make up
for that (ie, you don't need to kill everybody or survive yourself, you just
need to kill one particular person or some such). To say you enjoy games where
you lose does not mean you enjoy games that you can't win at all. If I give
you a standard infantry grunt, make your objective to wipe out a tank that is
waiting in open terrain, that game will not be fun, and you will lose. If I
make the objective to sneak past
the tank waiting in waist-high weeds, that game might be more fun, even
if you did lose.

2: to decide the size of a game based on points is no less fair then a game
based on the size of the combat unit (platoon, squad, etc...).

example: you say, "hey, bring a platoon with you tomorrow, I've got a scenario
planned out". You bring a standard type of platoon with infantry, a couple
heavy weapons. I bring my shock platoon from Legions of steel (in point terms,
it's worth about 3X yours) that's not even close to even, where you may have
expected 2 platoons to be much more equal in power.

a point system is not a mathematical certainty, and problems arise when it is
used as such. However, it does allow someone to make an approximation as to
the relative power of their 2 forces. It does nothing to preclude scenario
games, and is in fact a usefull tool when designing a scenario.

> On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Brian Lojeck wrote:

> ok, this is going to be a long rant, so that I don't end up posting a

Well spoken.

I fear this has degenerated far enough that some people would refuse to
believe me if I said the Earth isn't flat.

Thanks for the intervention. Maybe we can all cool off a bit. At least I

will, I'll be away for a few days...

I'm thinking of spending money that I don't have.:) For people who have played
both, which is more enjoyable or better? Dirt Side II or Star Grunt II (I
already play Full Thrust II).

> I'm thinking of spending money that I don't have. : )

It all depends on which scale you like to fight in or collect for.

I personally prefer SGII as I think it plays well and I like the
personalisation I make with my forces ("Hey the sarge is down, man! What
the hell do we do now!?!  Where's that C-Vac!?!?!?!") and the detail of
the play. Simple, yet realistic, fast and entertaining as I can get a really
good feel for what's going on.

I like DSII, but the one problem I have with it is the "Draw counters for
damage" system in it. My friends and I have countered this by using a table to
roll on which you use a D100 for. The odds are only slightly changed as you
can roll the same damage result several times which you can't do with the
chits. However it too plays well, is fast and realistic and I enjoy
playing it though I must say I like the feel of skirmish-style games
better than grand tactical engagements.

The ground rule is whether or not you want to colect and use 25mm men and have
squad skirmishes or whether you would prefer to play out grand engagements
envolving companies of infantry and armour and collecting the minis for them.

I like them both a great deal. I think I've gotten the most mileage out of
DSII, though. There is more "web support" and It's very fun collecting a nice
army configured the way YOU want it built. We've
been doing a LOT of Bring-n-battle games at about 20,000 points per
side. If you can live eating hot dogs and rice for a couple weeks, I'd
recommend buying both. They interface very nicely.

> I like them both a great deal. I think I've gotten the most mileage

This an average sized battle force in your neck of the woods?

Do others have forces of this size? Do I have to go out and buy more minis
now?? <sigh>

> side. If you can live eating hot dogs and rice for a couple weeks,

Macaroni and cheese w/hot dogs works well, too, and is cheap. I can
get 2-3 meals out of one box of M&C, and then have source materials
(eg, the empty box) for building terrain for my DS2/SG2 stuff.  :-)

Mk

> At 09:44 AM 5/1/97 -0500, you wrote:

Spoken like true bachelors.... Right now I'm hard pressed to weedle $35.00 out
of our budget to buy 5 TaunTaun figures. Good thing I bought my armies back
when I was single.

I'm a fried egg sandwich and ramen man myself, with frijoles cheese and rice
burritos for some variety.

Remember that styrofoam bits and sand are free terrain materials... I've spent
many a winter (I was a contract Archaeologist, working during the 'good'
weather, starving in the Winter, most years) making terrain.
Styrofoam, 'stucco-ed' with sand and spray-painted makes nifty 25mm and
1/285 /300 scale buildings......
Scrap balsa, model parts, those disused crappy minis, you'll never paint....
Use 'em in your terrain... It sucks to be poor, I know, but don't worry keep
on plugging and you'll be able to enjoy a 'real' life someday. I thought it
would never happen, but I'm working at a good job, with hip folks that pay me
what I'm worth (hell, maybe more than that......)

Anyway, the upshot of the whole thing is that I'm no longer a pauper, and can
sometimes buy not only a couple of cool games, but, sometimes
the mini's to go along with 'em ! I still keep building lo-cost terrain
for fun, but that's just 'cause I'm a cheap bastard, not 'cause I can't afford
it.

Gene

> ----------