"If you like point systems in your rules..." Topic

I just noticed something about myself, looking at my dedicated rules book bookshelf.

I buy game systems that include points sight unseen if it's for a genre or era I'm interested in.

Game systems that don't provide a point system I usually inspect very carefully before handing over my cash.

Yet, I generally don't play point based games.

Mike Snorbens wrote:

All points systems are inherently broken.

I have to ask, Mike, have you ever played "Seastrike"? I belive that is the definitive counter-example that falsifies the above statement.

To answer the original question, there is an appeal to lots of people in trying to solve the economical/engineering/OR problem of finding the optimum mix to meet a specified problem under uncertainty.

A very good pal of mine who I've been wargaming with since 1971 once designed the optimum AFV to exploit the points system in the WRG 1950-75 rules. This produced a slow SP with "F" armour, a 165mm demolition gun, laser range-finder and a quadruple 12.7mm MG turret (secondary armament below 20mm was free). We never did try such a thing out on the table top, but I doubt it would have done all that well.

All the best,

John.

"Most people I know don't have time to research and design intricate scenarios,"

Why does a scenario have to be intricate? "I'll take this platoon (it's been in combat so really only consists of two effective squads) and defend this bunker and trench. You take these two full strength platoons and attack". Mmm .. that took all of a couple of minutes to design – not exactly difficult!

"Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean we should throw out the idea and not work on improving it if possible."

Alright, so how would you go about designing a points system that is not inherently flawed?

"I have to ask, Mike, have you ever played "Seastrike"? I belive that is the definitive counter-example that falsifies the above statement."

Know of it, never played it. What was so wonderful about it that its points system did not suffer from the inherent flaws of every other point system?

"Just wanted to get the thread back on track."

I'm intrigued as to why you asked the question, Ed. IIRC, your games don't use points systems do they?

>IIRC, your games don't use points systems do they?

Most have the ability to, in one form or another…

Mike, I'm not sure there's not much point in discussing things with you but I'll try anything once. A scenario with unbalanced forces should have other victory conditions in it so that both sides feel they have a fair chance of winning or achieving their goals. A lot of people wouldn't go for consistently slapped together at the last minute scenarios or want to believe that the scenario gives both players a theoretical equal chance of winning. A good scenario may take more thought than let's throw two random units at each other and see what happens. Although that can be fun too. I have no problems with unbalanced scenarios but in most games I've played everybody wants a fair chance. Points systems are just a tool to try and measure that. Use them or not is your choice.

As to designing a good points system.
#1 Use statistical analysis to develop a formula. Create a baseline unit/creature statistics and use it for determining any subsequent values.
#2 Apply the values based on in game effectiveness to all units in the game. Not this one is cheaper/better just because. If it's better it pays, units with identical stats should cost the same. We're interested in game/scenario balance not who had better production in real life.
#3 Continually check/test your assumptions and be willing to rework the numbers if the information shows that it can be improved. Use theoretical examples of in game situations to check your assumptions. Isolate the relevant areas of the formula for testing in varying situations. If you want to check melee effectiveness don't worry about movement values for head to head tests. Shooting values should be based on rate of fire and effectiveness. Test the units after assembling all the various stats/values together as sometimes the whole really is better than the sum of it's parts.

The ultimate goal is to have a variety of choice in designing a scenario while knowing that an equal points value on both sides means that each army has an equal chance of winning. Terrain considerations can also be worked into any formulas or scenario design as it should be possible to measure the effect of terrain in game.

Simple enough in theory but trickier to do in reality. Everybody has differing opinions on what is "balanced" and fun. I can understand why some people wouldn't want to do the necessary number crunching. I like Stargrunt but had trouble introducing it to my group because there were no force charts or detailed guidelines on force design. A lot of people want guidance and points values are a way of giving them some while still allowing flexibility and choices.

5150 has points for everything except Attributes already in it. That includes weapons, vehicles and combatants.
ATZ has points in it.

Trying to find a good reason to include points.

>Trying to find a good reason to include points.

Something better than lots of customers like it?

Something better than lots of customers like it?

Maybe we should have a TMP Poll to see how many gamers actually use them. Bill?

"A scenario with unbalanced forces should have other victory conditions in it so that both sides feel they have a fair chance of winning or achieving their goals."

Absolutely! But the problem is defining what you mean by "a fair chance of winning". I see no need to have a "fair chance of winning" all the time, it can often be far more interesting (and dare I say realistic?) to be faced with a hopeless situation and see how long you can hold out …

"A lot of people wouldn't go for consistently slapped together at the last minute scenarios"

I have never found this to be a problem.

"or want to believe that the scenario gives both players a theoretical equal chance of winning."

That is impossible, since there is no way to calculate the chance of winning, then there is no way to prove that both players havce an equal chance.

"A good scenario may take more thought than let's throw two random units at each other and see what happens. Although that can be fun too."

True, but again it depends on your definition of "good scenario".

"I have no problems with unbalanced scenarios but in most games I've played everybody wants a fair chance. Points systems are just a tool to try and measure that."

In most games I've played people see no need for a fair chance. In fact as I suggested above, some players relish the prospect of fighting impossible odds! Spartans at Thermopylae anyone?

"Use them or not is your choice."

Absolutely!

"As to designing a good points system."

If only … what you suggest is correct, but I question how many rules designers have actually done that. I suspect the vast majority think up some numbers that "feel right", play a few games and that's about it. Rigorous mathematical analysis such as you describe for any game of even moderate complexity would require a degree in maths or better and some serious computer number crunching …

"The ultimate goal is to have a variety of choice in designing a scenario while knowing that an equal points value on both sides means that each army has an equal chance of winning."

IMHO, sadly unachievable. Particularly the bit about "equal chance". First, show me how you would calculate the "chance of winning" and then demonstrate the maths behind it and I might chnange my mind …

"Terrain considerations can also be worked into any formulas or scenario design as it should be possible to measure the effect of terrain in game."

Which of course most points systems don't – one reason why they are inherently broken.

"Simple enough in theory but trickier to do in reality."

Um … not even simple in theory!!

"Everybody has differing opinions on what is "balanced" and fun."

So you are on a hiding to nothing anyway. In that case a points system is nothing more than a smoke screen giving the illusion of a "balanced game" – "I must have an equal chance of winning, we've both got 1000 pt armies".

"I like Stargrunt but had trouble introducing it to my group because there were no force charts or detailed guidelines on force design."

Did you read why the designers did not include a points system? Set up a scenario or two and give each of the players a task in the game. Either they accept the task and get on with it or whinge and say that it is impossible. In the latter case give them an extra unit or two until they feel happy, THEN get on with it. No points required.

"A lot of people want guidance and points values are a way of giving them some while still allowing flexibility and choices."

True, a points system gives some guidance, but that guidance can be (and usually is) flawed. Why should cavalry be worth twice the value of infantry? Why not 1.5 or 1.8 times? How are you going to calculate the real worth of cavalry compared to infantry?. Flexibility and choice, yes, but the problem is that that flexibility and choice is something a real life commander doesn't have.

Points Systems are Inherently flawed so they are unbalanced.
Unbalanced scenarios are unbalanced.
Throwing figures on the table are unbalanced.

So? What's the difference?
All roads lead to Rome.

You are always playing unbalanced games so who cares how you do it.

I like points systems.

I can e-mail my friend, and tell him to make a 100-point army for the next time we meet, and play a fast fun game using the figures that we want to use. So convince is my #1 reason for liking points systems.

Points systems allow me to use the figures I want to use, not figures dictated for me to use by a scenario, rule book, or some GM who thinks they can make a balanced scenario off the top of their head. #2 Force Creativity

Points systems give me a point of reference. If I am a playing a WWII game and don't know anything about WWII I might not know a Tiger tank is not equal to a Sherman. With a "flawed" point system I could just look at the points for a Sherman and a Tiger and know I might need more Sherman's to take on a Tiger. #3 Game Reference.

#4 People like them. Look at your most popular games systems. Warhammer, Flames of War, Warmachine. They all have points systems. BTW if you don't agree with me as what are the most popular miniature game systems are, you are deluding yourself.

#5 They are fun.

………………..Doug

"Absolutely! But the problem is defining what you mean by "a fair chance of winning". I see no need to have a "fair chance of winning" all the time, it can often be far more interesting (and dare I say realistic?) to be faced with a hopeless situation and see how long you can hold out … "

I agree it can be fun. More often than not with the people I know prefer some semblance of balance. It comes down to personal choice.

"or want to believe that the scenario gives both players a theoretical equal chance of winning."
"That is impossible, since there is no way to calculate the chance of winning, then there is no way to prove that both players havce an equal chance."

If you do the statistical analysis properly you can determine probabilities of who will win and if they have close to equal chances.

"As to designing a good points system."
"If only … what you suggest is correct, but I question how many rules designers have actually done that. I suspect the vast majority think up some numbers that "feel right", play a few games and that's about it. Rigorous mathematical analysis such as you describe for any game of even moderate complexity would require a degree in maths or better and some serious computer number crunching …"

And you believe that all game designers are incapable of crunching numbers? It all depends on what level of detail and balance you want and how far you are willing to take the calculations. Just because it can't be done in a couple of minutes doesn't mean it's not worth trying. I like well thought out games myself.

"The ultimate goal is to have a variety of choice in designing a scenario while knowing that an equal points value on both sides means that each army has an equal chance of winning."
IMHO, sadly unachievable. Particularly the bit about "equal chance". First, show me how you would calculate the "chance of winning" and then demonstrate the maths behind it and I might change my mind …
"Terrain considerations can also be worked into any formulas or scenario design as it should be possible to measure the effect of terrain in game."
Which of course most points systems don't – one reason why they are inherently broken."

Well at the moment I'm involved with producing and selling Armies of Arcana. Buy a rulebook from me and I'll show you the formula. It may not be perfect but we are still working on it. There has been a lot of testing done on the combat effectiveness of varying stat lines and while it may not be 100% it does give you a good measuring stick by which to judge. If two units that have the same amount of points in combat value go head to head they will have an equal chance of winning even if their stat lines are different.
Just because most systems don't do something doesn't mean it isn't possible. As a designer you need to decide yourself what level you are willing to take things to. Most opt for simplicity over balance and all should be judged on an individual basis. Your argument is like saying, "I have a hammer with a loose head and it doesn't work well. Therefore all hammers are crap and we should stop using them." The majority of gamers are willing to accept less than perfect if the game is enjoyable.

"So you are on a hiding to nothing anyway. In that case a points system is nothing more than a smoke screen giving the illusion of a "balanced game" – "I must have an equal chance of winning, we've both got 1000 pt armies".

If you say so. I'm willing to accept close to balanced over totally unbalanced in my games. Players aren't created equal either and good ones will win consistently over poor ones even if the armies are identical. Can't discount luck either. Points values just show theoretical probabilities not what will actually happen.

"Did you read why the designers did not include a points system? Set up a scenario or two and give each of the players a task in the game. Either they accept the task and get on with it or whinge and say that it is impossible. In the latter case give them an extra unit or two until they feel happy, THEN get on with it. No points required."

Yes you can do it that way. I never said that points systems were the only way to play games. Just a useful tool to help with scenario design. Nobody says you have to use them even if they are included in a game.

"A lot of people want guidance and points values are a way of giving them some while still allowing flexibility and choices."
True, a points system gives some guidance, but that guidance can be (and usually is) flawed. Why should cavalry be worth twice the value of infantry? Why not 1.5 or 1.8 times? How are you going to calculate the real worth of cavalry compared to infantry?. Flexibility and choice, yes, but the problem is that that flexibility and choice is something a real life commander doesn't have."

So you're saying that in the history of warfare no commander ever had a choice of which troops to commit to battle, which to hold in reserve and which to send elsewhere? Interesting. What if a person doesn't want to run purely historical battles that have enough documentation to let you know what forces were involved? I like options and choices. You like total control and pretend that that means accuracy. Different strokes for different folks.

There's not much point in continuing this conversation, as I've already explained why I like points systems and there's no need to keep cluttering the thread when we likely won't ever come to an agreement over this.

"If you do the statistical analysis properly you can determine probabilities of who will win and if they have close to equal chances."

OK. Pick a set of rules and do the statistical analysis. Start another thread so as not to clutter this one and prove to me that it can be done. I presume you don't have a Maths degree and a spare Kray handy?

"And you believe that all game designers are incapable of crunching numbers? It all depends on what level of detail and balance you want and how far you are willing to take the calculations. Just because it can't be done in a couple of minutes doesn't mean it's not worth trying. I like well thought out games myself."

To "crunch the numbers" for a game of reasonable complexity (i.e. most popular wargames) requires a large amount of effort and a lot of computing power. Most designers don't have the skills or the resources.

"There's not much point in continuing this conversation, as I've already explained why I like points systems and there's no need to keep cluttering the thread when we likely won't ever come to an agreement over this."

You're probably right, since you appear to not have a sufficient understanding of the statistcal analysis that would actually be required to produce a points system that even approached a properly balanced system.

"I can e-mail my friend, and tell him to make a 100-point army for the next time we meet, and play a fast fun game using the figures that we want to use. So convince is my #1 reason for liking points systems."

Fast and fun, possibly. Evenly balanced, not a chance.

"Points systems allow me to use the figures I want to use, not figures dictated for me to use by a scenario, rule book, or some GM who thinks they can make a balanced scenario off the top of their head. #2 Force Creativity"

Who said that a scenario says you can't use the figures you want to use? You can use any figures you like, its the numbers of figures that a scenario will limit. Force Creativity is something that every general throughout history would dearly have loved to have. McClellan in the ACW was always asking for more men!

"#3 Game Reference."

It's called research. How do you think the game designers decided that a Tiger was more powerful than a Sherman? Honestly, wargamers of today want it all served up to them in pre-digested bites …

"#4 People like them. Look at your most popular games systems. Warhammer, Flames of War, Warmachine. They all have points systems."

That proves nothing except that game designers seem to think that points systems are needed. Stargrunt II is popular and doesn't have a points system.

"#5 They are fun."

Just your opinion. Fun is a subjective thing.

"So you're saying that in the history of warfare no commander ever had a choice of which troops to commit to battle, which to hold in reserve and which to send elsewhere?"

No, but that was a selection from an existing pool of resources (troops), over the content and composition of which the general had NO CONTROL.

"Interesting. What if a person doesn't want to run purely historical battles that have enough documentation to let you know what forces were involved? I like options and choices."

So do I. I am not talking about only running "historical battles". It is just as easy to set up three or four possible armies (with or without options) for each player and let them choose which one to play in a given scenario as it is to do one each. Particularly as it is a lot quicker than having to calculate if you've got exactly 1000pts in each one!

"You like total control and pretend that that means accuracy."

I do not advocate total control or think it implies accuracy. Whereever did you get that idea?

I don't have a math degree although I do have university level credits in physics, calculus and statistics towards a degree that I never finished. So tell me again how I have no understanding of basic statistical analysis. We're not talking rocket science here.

There's nothing saying that a system needs to be so in depth that nobody without a super computer can understand it. On the contrary it should be simple enough that players can understand it.

As for researching the relatives strengths and weaknesses of various tanks, a game should contain all of the necessary information for people to play. It's a game, not a history assignment. I like reading history and doing research myself but it shouldn't have to be necessary just to play.

Mike, I don't have much time to discuss this in the detail you'd want to argue. I'm not sure it would do much good anyhow. Maybe when things slow down for me we can discuss it in more detail.

"I don't have a math degree although I do have university level credits in physics, calculus and statistics towards a degree that I never finished. So tell me again how I have no understanding of basic statistical analysis. We're not talking rocket science here."

No it's not rocket science to anyone with any level of understanding of statistical analysis. I do not know what level of knowledge a "university level credit" imparts, so I have no idea if you have the required level of knowledge or not. We don't have such things as "university level credits" in UK universities.

"There's nothing saying that a system needs to be so in depth that nobody without a super computer can understand it. On the contrary it should be simple enough that players can understand it."

You miss the point. You don't need a super computer to understand it. You do need one to calculate the probability of winning a wargame. Unless of course the "wargame" consists of merely rolling a handful of dice.

"As for researching the relatives strengths and weaknesses of various tanks, a game should contain all of the necessary information for people to play."

I quite agree. The game design should reflect the relative combat power of the different troop or vehicle types. But (for the sake of an example), how do I quantify the difference in combat effectiveness between an average crew in a Tiger and a veteran crew in a Sherman? Any set of wargame rules is merely an approximation based on the designer's understanding of the period of warfare and his preconceptions and assumptions about how combat effectiveness is measured.

"It's a game, not a history assignment. I like reading history and doing research myself but it shouldn't have to be necessary just to play."

No it's not necessary. The game mechanism itself should soon demonstrate to the players that a Tiger is better than a Sherman (in certain circumstances). You learn by experience and reading up the history. The game should spark an interest in the history. This idea that wargamers need to be spoon-fed is an unfortunate by-product of the "GW hobby" and its influence on mainstream wargaming.

"Mike, I don't have much time to discuss this in the detail you'd want to argue. I'm not sure it would do much good anyhow. Maybe when things slow down for me we can discuss it in more detail."

OK, some other time then.

>Just your opinion.

He has a lot of company.

Ed the Two Hour Wargames Guy wrote:

Trying to find a good reason to include points.

I'd be just as happy with a set of "Interesting scenarios which have repeatedly resulted in quality games for new players". But having neither makes it difficult to introduce new players to the game.

Throwing together "a scenario" is simple enough, but realizing I created a dud due to lack of familiarity with a set of rules is a bummer when game time is limited.

- Bob

"Throwing together "a scenario" is simple enough, but realizing I created a dud due to lack of familiarity with a set of rules is a bummer when game time is limited."

What do you mean by a "dud"? I have never found scenario creation to be a problem. It should not be lack of familiarity with a set of rules that causes any difficulty, more likely a lack of familiarity with military history. Any reasonably good set of rules should be able to handle a scenario based (even very loosely) on a historical battle.

Mike Snorbens wrote:

What do you mean by a "dud"?

One that, due to lack of familiarity with rule mechanics or subtleties, or basic oversight (wups -- didn't expect anyone to do THAT!) simply doesn't work for one side or the other. As a solo player this is less of an issue than with trying to play face-to-face games. As noted in the "worst scenarios" threads, not every scenario, historical or not, is enjoyable to play. This is particularly important for demo games.

I have never found scenario creation to be a problem.

Good for you. Go have a cookie, Mike! Creating a scenario is trivial. Creating a GOOD scenario is work. Not every player looks at things the way I do, so it's not surprising when they try things I haven't thought of.

It should not be lack of familiarity with a set of rules that causes any difficulty, more likely a lack of familiarity with military history.

You mean historical future conflicts or sci fi encounters? Keep in mind that THW rules are skirmish games, so we're not talking about company or higher level TO&E here.

Any reasonably good set of rules should be able to handle a scenario based (even very loosely) on a historical battle.

Two groups meet up, each with a goal. Unless you're familiar with the game mechanics, it's easy to set up objectives that aren't easily achieved for one side or the other. As a real-world example, someone on the THW list recently recounted that they were surprised that a low ranking figure couldn't drive an armored car quickly enough to out run higher ranking figures on foot. The rules "worked" just fine, but had the scenario been based on driving that vehicle, it wouldn't have worked very well. In creating a scenario, knowing more about such possible kinks helps, but that knowledge often requires having tried it a few times. It would be nice to have some scenarios more complex than "two groups meet up and fight" that have good odds of working.

These are all simple things that anybody who's played a game a few times knows. Note that I'm saying working, not "being a balanced game" or anything of the sort. What I'm suggesting is that someone who has played the game a few times collect together a few scenarios that have worked well in the past, particularly at demonstration games, for use by others. In the absence of any other guidelines (e.g. points) for scenarios creation, it's not a lot to ask for.

Just throwing two sides together based on historical encounters or unit organization doesn't always work for the same reasons that a points system doesn't create a 'balanced' game. Creation of a good scenario takes some planning, and ideally, some testing. I don't think one need make a better case than to watch experienced GMs trying out scenarios with local groups before trying them at a large convention game. All I'm suggesting is that a few of those "best of" scenarios get written up to help players have more successful intro games. No rocket science, no complicated math. New players could then at least know that if things are not working, it's THEM doing something wrong and not a reflection on the rules.

Lest anybody think this is a complaint about THW, it's not. Ed & Co. provide some FANTASTIC scenarios for some of their games. I get tickled just reading through the files section, particularly the Dog Soldiers scenario. I'm just suggesting that a few similar, presumably well tested scenarios be provided for every rule set if other guidelines for force creation are not provided. To directly answer Ed's question: I like SOME guidance when starting out, be it playtested scenarios or points systems or something else.

This would be particularly useful for me for rules that allow cooperative play, such as the THW stable. I've read of some great cooperative games for zombie and sci fi games, and would just like to see examples that have worked with a historical rule set. Things like having a realistic goal for each unit (player) in the game. Just "watch that flank" for three hours can get tedious.

I'm sure there are players out there who have run dozens of successful games with varied groups. It would sure help me introduce new players if I could peek at a few of 'em.

- Bob

"As a real-world example, someone on the THW list recently recounted that they were surprised that a low ranking figure couldn't drive an armored car quickly enough to out run higher ranking figures on foot. The rules "worked" just fine,"

I would say that is an example of the rules NOT working just fine. Provided a figure is competent at driving a vehicle he should be able to outrun guys on foot no matter what the relative ranking is. So a failure of the rules to adequately represent real world physics (vehicles move faster than men on foot) rather than any failing with the scenario.

"Just throwing two sides together based on historical encounters or unit organization doesn't always work for the same reasons that a points system doesn't create a 'balanced' game."

Provided the two sides are based on some (quasi) historical reality then "throwing two sides together" SHOULD work. In fact in most real world situations the forces are wildly different in numbers, quality or both – far more than most wargames!

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] I would say that is an example of the rules NOT working just fine. Provided a figure is competent at driving a vehicle he should be able to outrun guys on foot no matter what the relative ranking is. So a failure of the rules to adequately represent real world physics (vehicles move faster than men on foot) rather than any failing with the scenario.

No, the rules work just fine. This was an example of a player with some experience encountering an unexpected situation – a string of bad rolls with a low ranked figure. That game situation itself isn't problematic. We discussed what those failures represented at length, and they make sense. The rules are just fine. (I am impressed at your abilities to make judgment without knowing them though.) This example simply illustrates a prime example of where a scenario designer might overlook something unexpected. Had that AC making it somewhere been essential to the game, it would be a bummer to have the competent driver killed in the first volley, for example. Perhaps a good reason to include a secondary objective in the scenario, eh? Game Over on turn one isn't much fun, particularly if you've traveled and/or paid to play.

Provided the two sides are based on some (quasi) historical reality then "throwing two sides together" SHOULD work. In fact in most real world situations the forces are wildly different in numbers, quality or both – far more than most wargames!

True enough in that the scenario can be played. The question is whether the results are enjoyable. The context of this discussion is "why points", and "reasonably enjoyable games for both sides" is one reason. If two players (not a just a solo player) want to meet up, it's nice to know what to bring. With points, you build your list. With a scenario, you match the forces listed. If disaster unfolds with a point-based game, you blame yourself (and no doubt go tweak your list). If a scenario-based game proves unwinnable for one side (see aforementioned "worst scenarios" threads for examples), you blame the scenario. Thus, I see "good starter scenarios" as a key element of rules that tout "no points".

In the absence of a points system, it's useful to have some sort of guidance for putting together an enjoyable game. Yes, I realize you enjoy every game regardless of whatever, but a lot of us aren't interested in lectures as to why we "should" be satisfied. A broken game isn't good introduction for new players. I'm sure TMPers can cite a long list of scenarios that looked good on paper, but failed to engage one or more players for various reasons.

I am puzzled as to why you find the idea of a publisher including scenarios that they have run successfully a problem, Mike.

- Bob

"No, the rules work just fine. This was an example of a player with some experience encountering an unexpected situation – a string of bad rolls with a low ranked figure. That game situation itself isn't problematic."

This is a function of the turn sequence activation system, that effectively results in random movement speeds. On the whole not a problem except in the circumstances you describe.

"(I am impressed at your abilities to make judgment without knowing them though.)"

I am familiar with the THW core game system.

"Had that AC making it somewhere been essential to the game, it would be a bummer to have the competent driver killed in the first volley, for example. Game Over on turn one isn't much fun, particularly if you've traveled and/or paid to play."

Due to the random input from rolling dice this sort of thing is possible in any game. Of course if the game was over in turn one then that means there's plenty of time to play it again! Second time around you will get different results (unless the player keeps making the same bad rolls …)

BTW, who pays to play games? I certainly don't.

"Perhaps a good reason to include a secondary objective in the scenario, eh?"

Of course!!

"The context of this discussion is "why points", and "reasonably enjoyable games for both sides" is one reason."

You don't need a points system to create enjoyable games.

"If two players want to meet up, it's nice to know what to bring."

Well, bring your whole army! Or you could agree a scenario beforehand (the internet and email are wonderful for this sort of thing).

"If a scenario-based game proves unwinnable for one side (see aforementioned "worst scenarios" threads for examples), you blame the scenario."

Depends what you mean by "winnable". No, I don't blame the scenario. I see it as an opportunity for a player to see how long they can survive. Some of the best games I have played have involved situations where one side is hopelessly outnumbered and have to extricate their force from the field of battle. Nail biting stuff!

"Thus, I see "good starter scenarios" as a key element of rules that tout "no points"."

Quite agree!

"I am puzzled as to why you find the idea of a publisher including scenarios that they have run successfully a problem, Mike."

I never said that! I think a publisher including scenarios is an excellent idea!

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] I am familiar with the THW core game system.

Then you'll know that they are not 'broken'.

[…] "Perhaps a good reason to include a secondary objective in the scenario, eh?"

Of course!!

Which is my entire point. Knowing that sort of thing requires some experience with the system. In the absence of a point system to guide players new to a system, some "pre tested and approved" scenarios are helpful.

Well, bring your whole army! Or you could agree a scenario beforehand (the internet and email are wonderful for this sort of thing).

Same issue. What to bring (some of us have a lot of stuff) and having done that, some pre-defined known-good scenarios are nice.

Depends what you mean by "winnable". No, I don't blame the scenario.

So you're saying there's not such thing as a broken scenario?

I see it as an opportunity for a player to see how long they can survive.

Effectively being unable to win after turn 1 isn't much fun.

Some of the best games I have played have involved situations where one side is hopelessly outnumbered and have to extricate their force from the field of battle. Nail biting stuff!

Ah, but surely not every game? So why not provide those nail biters up (after some QC and play testing) as examples?

[…] I never said that! I think a publisher including scenarios is an excellent idea!

Sheesh, Mike. :) You just finished implying that anybody with any sense of history should be able to whip up a scenario using historical encounters.

- Bob

"So you're saying there's not such thing as a broken scenario?"

Well, that depends on what you mean by "broken". You appear to imply that a scenario that is "not fun" is "broken". It also depends on what you mean by "winnable" – I presume you are referring to victory conditions?

"Effectively being unable to win after turn 1 isn't much fun."

Again, it depends what you mean by "win".

"!Sheesh, Mike. :) You just finished implying that anybody with any sense of history should be able to whip up a scenario using historical encounters."

Sure, but if "anybody with any sense of history" can do it, one would hope that the game designer falls into that category!

@ Mike
"Fast and fun, possibly. Evenly balanced, not a chance."

I never said Evenly Balanced, as a matter of fact the first half of my post was aimed toward you, but you choose not to comment on it. You choose to comment on the second part of my post titled "why "I" like points systems".

BTW here is a re-cap of the first part of my post in case you skipped it.

Points Systems are Inherently flawed so they are unbalanced.
Unbalanced scenarios are unbalanced.
Throwing figures on the table are unbalanced.
So? What's the difference?

You are always playing unbalanced games so who cares how you do it.

"Who said that a scenario says you can't use the figures you want to use?

Most Historical Seneroios suggest the figures you should use, like the "Prince of Wales" and the "Bismarck".

"Force Creativity is something that every general throughout history would dearly have loved to have. McClellan in the ACW was always asking for more men!"

That's why I like Points systems; you hit the nail on the head. With a points system McClellan could have more men, just of lower quality, or less more experienced men.

"It's called research. How do you think the game designers decided that a Tiger was more powerful than a Sherman? Honestly, wargamers of today want it all served up to them in pre-digested bites …"

Yes I do, when I play Monopoly I don't what to study the American Economic system of the 1930's.

"That proves nothing except that game designers seem to think that points systems are needed. Stargrunt II is popular and doesn't have a points system."

Stargrunt II cannot be put in the same league as Warhammer Warmachine, and Flames of War. They are a very minor league team in the miniature game world.

"Just your opinion. Fun is a subjective thing."

Not if a lot of people play these point system games. I don't think a MAJORITY of miniature wargamers would play a game if it was not fun.

Now that I have responded to you, I have to ask you this question.

Why?

Why, participate in a discussion that was not asking for your opinion?

Why, challenge people to show you a balanced points system when you yourself (as stated in your credentials) would not be able to recognize one?

Why antagonize people who have clearly different tastes then you?

The topic was "why do you like points systems?" NOT "are points systems unbalanced"

When you go on these rants you just look like a "rabble rouser" or a "Troll"

…………………Doug

"Most Historical Scenarios suggest the figures you should use, like the "Prince of Wales" and the "Bismarck"."

They do? I was thinking more along the lines of "x battalions of average infantry" and so on. Heck they don't even have to be the right nationality!

Or to turn back your example, the addition of two extra words deals with it: "Prince of Wales, or similar". Maybe the PoW wasn't available that day but the Hood was …

"That's why I like Points systems; you hit the nail on the head. With a points system McClellan could have more men, just of lower quality, or less more experienced men."

Er … no. The whole point is that McClellan DIDN'T get more men, no matter how much he kept asking for them.

"Yes I do [want it all served up to them in pre-digested bites], when I play Monopoly I don't what to study the American Economic system of the 1930's."

Hmm … if you're that disinterested in history, why do you play historical games at all?

"Stargrunt II cannot be put in the same league as Warhammer Warmachine, and Flames of War. They are a very minor league team in the miniature game world."

Depends which sector of the "miniature game world" you talk to. Certainly every time someone asks for recommendations for a good platoon level SF game here on TMP (members of which are discerning wargamers all), Stargrunt II is right up there with the best of them, often gaining more votes than the rest put together.

"Not if a lot of people play these point system games. I don't think a MAJORITY of miniature wargamers would play a game if it was not fun."

Just because a lot of people play games with points systems doesn't mean there isn't a better way. You imply that games without a points system are not fun. I beg to differ.

"Now that I have responded to you, I have to ask you this question.
Why?
Why, participate in a discussion that was not asking for your opinion?"

I have already answered that question in a previous post but to save you reading back through the thread, I'll say it again:
The OP invited comments on what we see as the attraction of points systems. My answer to his question is "none at all" and have proceeded to explain WHY I think that.

"Why, challenge people to show you a balanced points system when you yourself (as stated in your credentials) would not be able to recognize one?"

Because if someone can show that a points system is "balanced" then my argument that "all points systems are inherently broken" falls to the ground.

"Why antagonize people who have clearly different tastes then you?"

I'm not trying to antagonize anybody, just hold an intelligent discussion on the value of points systems. On the contrary, it almost feels as if everyone is trying to antagonize ME for wanting to "swim against the tide"!

"The topic was "why do you like points systems?" NOT "are points systems unbalanced""

Yes, indeed the topic is "why do you like points systems?" Surely a valid answer to this question is "Well, I DON'T like points systems because … " Of course if all you want are "yes men" …

>Surely a valid answer to this question is "Well, I DON'T like points systems because … "

Not logically.

A more interesting question is why do you dislike them so intensely that you make Ahab look like Gandhi?

"You imply that games without a points system are not fun. I beg to differ"

I did not imply that I only pointed out that the most popular games have points systems.

I think Stargrunt II is a better game then Warhammer and Flames of War, but being popular on TMP is not the same as being popular in the real world.

"if you're that disinterested in history, why do you play historical games at all?"
Maybe I like the way Tiger Tanks Look :)

Now I will challenge you: (you wanted to be shown a balanced point system)

I think Starmada has the most balanced points system. They're also a lot of math to back this up by the author. Now prove to me that the game point system in Starmada is unbalanced.

"A more interesting question is why do you dislike them so intensely that you make Ahab look like Gandhi?"

If I had expressed my views and no one had challenged me then that would have been the end of it. As it is several people have so strongly disagreed that I have been forced to defend my position.

"I think Stargrunt II is a better game then Warhammer and Flames of War, but being popular on TMP is not the same as being popular in the real world."

So TMP is not the real world, then?

"Now I will challenge you: (you wanted to be shown a balanced point system)
I think Starmada has the most balanced points system. They're also a lot of math to back this up by the author. Now prove to me that the game point system in Starmada is unbalanced."

Unfortunately, I am not familar with Starmada. I have only played Full Thrust for spaceship games. So a few questions if I may:

What is the basic game mechanic for firing?
Are all/some or none of the weapons systems attentuated for range?
Is it used for all weapons systems or is there a different machanic for different weapons systems?
How do hits degrade a target's survivability and it's combat effectiveness?
Are there rules for crew quality? If so how do they affect combat effectiveness?
Are there rules for damage control? If so what is the core mechanic?
How do you determine victory conditions?

What is the basic game mechanic for firing? Rolling D6's to hit, roll D6's for Shield penetration, roll D6's for damage.
Are all/some or none of the weapons systems attenuated for range? all weapons do the same damage or each range band. Depending on your weapon Str. All weapons have the same modifiers for long and short range 1-/+1 to hit.
Is it used for all weapons systems or is there a different mechanic for different weapons systems? Yes all systems use the same modifiers, but they can be modified by different abilities. Each ability costs more or less depending on what you get. You can have different weapons systems with different abilities. For example you can have a weapon do more damage at short range then at long. Or you can have a weapon ignore range modifiers.
How do hits degrade a target's survivability and it's combat effectiveness? Rolling for damage on the hit location chart. Each ship has hull points, and weapon can be destroyed.
Are there rules for crew quality? If so how do they affect combat effectiveness? That's an optional rule I don't use.
Are there rules for damage control? If so what is the core mechanic? Damage control uses D6's to determine if it is successful and what system is affected.
How do you determine victory conditions? Point System.

All game mechanics are backed by math more advanced then mine, when discussed on the MJ12 Forums. I would have to refer you to the MJ12 forums for more a more detailed discussion.

So TMP is not the real world, then?
TMP does not represent what most gamers in the miniature world play.

If so then there would be huge forums for Warhammer, Warmachine and FOW.

TMP represents the tastes of Historical Gamers. People like yourself and I when we don't buy into the Warhammer hobby.

Don't get me wrong I am not a shill for the big companies. I like Stargrunt II, Airwar C21, Battlestations! Battlestaions, Chain Reaction, Crossfire, and many other rule systems, that have no Point Systems.

BUT

I also have a big love for Fantasy and Sci-Fi and most need point systems
Shockforce/Warengine, 5150, Starmada, Silent Death, Song of Blades and Heroes, all have point systems.

I love making my own troops, putting together my own army, buying the figures, painting said figures, and then playing the game that I helped create.

In Starmada you create your own ships from the ground up, designing your own weapon and shield systems and much much more.

This is something that would be very hard to do if you did not have a points system. Are points systems balanced? Probably not,

A points system is a level playing field where all players play with the same rules.

Points Systems can also give player more options then set historical Scenarios.

Sure historical games are fun, but they have a missing element of force creativity, not tactical that is up to the player.

When you play a civil war game you pretty much know what you are up against, if you are playing a historical battle you pretty much know what units will be on the table.

When you play Starmada, or FOW, You may not know what you will be fighting or what you are up against. There are SO many options.

Just .02 more cents

I asked if Mike Snorbens had played Seastrike, and he replied:

Know of it, never played it. What was so wonderful about it that its points system did not suffer from the inherent flaws of every other point system?

Obviously that's not a question I can be sure of answering satisfactority without knowing what the "inherent flaws" you have in mind are. Still, the great thing about Seastrike was the system of objective cards. A set of, ooh, 18 (I think it was) cards were included inplain brown envelopes, which would be shuffled and an objective chosen at random for each player. The card specified the conditions the player would have to fulfil in order to win. It also specified a budget, in millions of pounds, with which the player had to buy his force from the selection of pieces provided. Some of the choices were pretty obvious -- if you got the "Sink any enemy ship larger than a patrol boat", you bought all the FPBs in sight and hoped that the other guy didn't pick too much in the way of helos, strike aircraft and anti-missile systems.

So, first, the budgeting system was an integral part of the game.

Second, there were no obvious cheats possible. There were certainly some dominating choices; FPBs and strike aircraft were good buys, but the big ships, destroyers and cruisers, were more money than they were worth. But there was at least one scenario (with a suitably huge budget) for which the cruiser was mandatory.

Third, and best of all for the bored schoolboy doodling in his maths rough-book, there was a "design-your-own" system that specified the restrictions on designing your own classes of ship. Given the need to balance air defence, surface warfare and underwater warfare, this was a source of endless fascination (even if not utterly representative of naval architecture, in that propulsion systems and the limitation of centreline length were not reflected).

Oh, and there would have been little point expecting people to play "historical scenarios", given that at the time the game came out that meant the Yom Kippur war, the 1971 India-Pakistan war and the sinking of the Eilat in 1967.

All the best,

John.

>If I had expressed my views and no one had challenged me then that would have been the end of it.

And if you'd bothered to read the original question perhaps we wouldn't have had this self-indulgent series of posts.

"All game mechanics are backed by math more advanced then mine, when discussed on the MJ12 Forums. I would have to refer you to the MJ12 forums for more a more detailed discussion."

Thank you for the replies to my questions. Sadly, as I expected, you have not provided nearly enough information to even begin conducting a detailed statistical analysis of the game system with the unltimate aim of quantifying the "probability of winning". Suffice to say that the game appears complex enough to warrant that exercise would require significant effort and computing power.

So that means that I cannot prove that the points system is broken. Equally you cannot prove that it is not. We will have to agree to differing opinions in the absence of quantifiable evidence either way.

"TMP does not represent what most gamers in the miniature world play."

So now you are accusing TMP of being elitist?

"If so then there would be huge forums for Warhammer, Warmachine and FOW."

I think that the claimed numbers for players of these games are vastly inflated. In my own experience, I know of guys who enthused about them for a few years and then quietly dropped them. One reason why you see so much GW stuff for sale second hand.

"Oh, and there would have been little point expecting people to play "historical scenarios", given that at the time the game came out that meant the Yom Kippur war, the 1971 India-Pakistan war and the sinking of the Eilat in 1967."

Seastrike, IIRC was a modern naval game, but it still included battleships, cruisers, destroyers and aircraft (and I presume aircraft carriers?). Therefore any WW2 naval scenario, either based on history or from another game would work.

"And if you'd bothered to read the original question "

But I DID read the orginal question, as I have already said at least twice before. Or don't you bother to read all the posts in a thread?

"perhaps we wouldn't have had this self-indulgent series of posts."

Self indulgent? Hardly!! I stated an opinion as solicited by the orginal question. Since then I have been bombarded by people trying to prove me wrong. What do you expect me to do, say sorry and walk away? At no time have I said that you are not entitled to your own opinions about points systems.

Like I said, if all you want are "yes men" then I'll leave you to pat each other on the back and tell each other how wonderful points systems are and how much fun you can have trying to juggle a war winning army out of 1000pts. Just like in real life …

>I stated an opinion as solicited by the orginal question.

That is so obviously not the case that it makes one wonder…

As was observed:

"The question said IF you like point systems.

I wanted to hear from those folks that like points and why they do.
This wasn't a thread asking for a debate."

Yes and I replied:
"The question:
"If you like point systems in your rules, what's the attraction?"
- sounds to me like you are questioning the validity of points systems in the first place.
However, apologies for misunderstanding your drift …"

To which Ed then replied:
"No apologies needed Mike. Just wanted to get the thread back on track. Thanks as always,
Ed"

- and Ed has made no further comments about it since.
So why are you so bothered?

And like I said, do you actually read what others have posted?

>Just wanted to get the thread back on track.

That said enough for someone who is concerned with courtesy.

I also notice that apart from your first post, all you have done on this thread is to snipe at me.
Haven't you got anything constructive to say?

If you like points systems so much, then why don't you answer Ed's original question and say why?

"That said enough for someone who is concerned with courtesy."

Meaning what, exactly?

>Meaning what, exactly?

A would be inclined to ignore such a statement…

For me, I like both pointed and point-free games. The pointy games I play are HOTT and WAB. I don't use the points in 5150, though I have adjusted the random force squad sizes to make the points per squad closer.

The reasons I like points:

* Though they are rarely (if ever) perfect, they do "get you in the ballpark" of an even match-up.

* It makes throw-down games MUCH easier to plan – "bring 1000 points of X".

* It gives me the ability to plan a TOE and miniatures shopping list, especially in WAB. I can work towards a 1200pt force, or whatever my club generally throws down.

* It gives me some idea what the game author though the relative worth of each atomic element is. For example, I wouldn't expect a 7pt Spearman to have much luck against a 14pt Spearman without a 2:1 advantage or some support from another unit. Granted, there are other ways to quantify this, but "points" is a nice, succinct number.

* In a similar vein, I like how points limit the availability of "uber" units in a scenario. I (generally) don't want to play a game where my company of green recruits has to assault a position held by a company of elite veterans. That's not going to be a fun game.

Having said that, I like points mostly for "army" games, and not for skirmishes. For skirmishes, I like a random approach.

I wrote:

Oh, and there would have been little point expecting people to play "historical scenarios", given that at the time the game came out that meant the Yom Kippur war, the 1971 India-Pakistan war and the sinking of the Eilat in 1967.

and Mike Snorbens replied:

Seastrike, IIRC was a modern naval game, but it still included battleships, cruisers, destroyers and aircraft (and I presume aircraft carriers?). Therefore any WW2 naval scenario, either based on history or from another game would work.

No, you do not remember correctly. There were no battleships and no aircraft carriers in either edition of Seastrike. Some optional rules for the "build-your-own" system allowed for the selection of obsolete ship types -- submarines, corvettes, gun-only destroyers and big-gun cruisers -- but these were avowedly late WW2 types that had been "updated as far as reasonably economical" for post-war service. Given the key importance of the SSM and area-defence SAM in Seastrike, it is tolerably clear that no WW2 scenario would have worked at all well, and indeed I've never heard of anyone even attempting it.

The system of objective cards and budgets, however, worked brilliantly well.

All the best,

John.

@Mexican Jack Squint

> Did you really mean to sound quite so arrogant and entitled? Really? Because I
> don't actually need, or really want, your approval. You aren't who I design
> games for.

I had no intent to offend or belittle game designers. I expressed an opinion, a clear opinion, regarding my preference. I inferred from the question that Ed wished to solicit opinions, perhaps to enlarge his tent to appeal to more gamers. I applaud his efforts.

> I've written a lot of rules over the past twenty five years. Published rules.
> Well received rules….[My new project attempts to avoid] points systems that cater to the least creative, most anal retentive among
> our brethren. I just don't want those people to play my games!
> Writing rules is fun, but it's also hard work to do well. The idea that I should
> somehow pay for my fun by putting in a points system, necessary or not, to
> somehow show that I respect some notional player, or that I am not some lazy bum
> tapping on a keyboard seems ludicrous. Risible. Idiotic.
> Games are, indeed, everywhere. But so are gamers, and I'm not looking to impress
> people who take pride in how hard they are to impress.

Our hobby is being eclipsed by other forms of entertainment. I find myself not buying rules because they are not very good, not very complete. I take no pride in the fact that many games do not appeal to me. I desire better games.

If I can help the hobby by educating game designers who publish games to include elements that will encourage buyers such as myself, it is a small thing that should be done. Games written with the customer's wishes in mind can improve the hobby. Disregard for the customer's interests will drive gamers away from the hobby.

If a pedantic idiot is ten points, how many points for a ordinary pedant, and how many for a non-pedant?

For me? None.

Gracias,

Glenn