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

To'Es are rreadily availble. This is classic exmaple of where making things "easier" has just compliocated the matter. I recall the first points system were a alterntive to reading To"Es they were hard to come by and there was some complaint about sticking to history. Now these dabates rage and tons of time is spent trying to get the right points system. The easiest thing is to go back to Toe's. Non historical? Okay? non historical scenarios cant just use a Basic To'E why not? Games with points I think of cost more money as well. Some are game of pocket books. Lie A&A miniatures. Points system and the cracker jack marketing system. If I have the money I can buy a panzer Group of 100 points. But those pieces cost much more then a Infantry group. So IF my opponent wants to spend a bundle buy 20 dollar heavy German Panzers and I don't want to spend big bucks on the game. I am at a extreme disadvantage. I don't mind a unbalanced history but that kind of pay to play set piece is really no fun. From what I have seen from GW type games similar things apply.

I play mostly World War Two and most of the points systems I have seen are primarily about weeding out Tigers and Panthers. Easier would be to make sure the Germans are properly outnumbered. And the Allies have plenty of off board Artillery and some Air support. A good set of historically minded rules will show that kind of scenario is balanced. Also in Historical scenarios especially late war in the West you wont see a Tiger down every road anyway.

Thing is Because of the Fire brigades most historical scenarios of large significance will involve German Panzers. Why go through all of this? With relatively simple ToE's you can avoid the debate and just get on with the game.

I always found these a great selling point for Campaign gaming with campaign games all this also falls into place rather neatly. If you were to play say, The Americans drive from the Beach to St Lo the Germans would have Tanks but you'd have some idea when and where and as the German player would be limited he'd commit them only where absolutely needed similar to reality. This way you have "balance" and historical realism instead of either or.

Supergrover6868 wrote:

To'Es are rreadily availble.

They are? Excellent. If you can kindly oblige me with the war establishments covering WW2 for a Bulgarian infantry battalion, a KAR battalion, a Siamese battalion, and a Malgache battalion, I'll stop looking. More detail on the Chinese would be welcome, too.

This way you have "balance" and historical realism instead of either or.

Different people suspecd their diselief for different reasons, but I confess myself baffled at the idea that most historical encounters were in some way "balanced". The whole essence of successful strategy, operations and tactics is not to get into a fair fight, but to stack the odds as heavily as possible in your favour.

This suggests to me one sensible use of points systems -- although I don't often see them used this way -- is to give a guide as to how victory points should be allocated to furnish a handicapping system for manifestly "unfair" encounters. Let's face it, the Kwantung army are *not* going to beat the Soviets attacking them; but you could try to devise some scheme to reward the Japanese player for how stylishly he does his duty as a speed bump.

All the best,

John.

Recognize that there are at least two distinct types of players that do not see eye-to-eye on the goals and even nature of the game of miniature gaming.

Type A sees the game starting once he sits down at the table. The problem is one assigned to him by the terrain and forces and opponent. He finds his fun in solving that problem. For this type of player, the rules are a tool to deal with the puzzles.

Type B sees the challenge (and fun) in the preparation for the game. He starts trying to win when he builds his army but more, the puzzle for him is not only how to defeat his opponent but how to best take advantage of the rules (small 'e' exploit). He is playing against the rules designers as much as he is playing against his opponents. The rules are not a tool. They are part of the puzzle.

All points systems are inherently broken.

but then so are the alternatives.

for FAD, we stuck in both a random system (two in fact), a points system, and people can write a TO&E for whatever setting they play in.

No need for people to be forced to only do it a certain way

"All points systems are inherently broken."

Really easy thing to say, a bit harder to prove.
In the end it's irrelevant, the vagaries in a reasonably well thought out points system are nothing in comparison with the variables of the abilities and preferences of the two players picking the points….
So, its a bit of a pointless, comment (every pun intended)