"Why do people play points based games?" Topic

Tim, wrote…

"What are you comparing with a points system?

Movement ability of very different terrain types? What terrain types?

Anti-armour capability? At what ranges? Short or long? Terrain has a lot to do with things there.

Anti-infantry capability?

Command flexibility?"

I understand your 'folly' comment now….But the true folly is to beleive that this cannot be acheived by using consistancy shift based on the rules.

Terrain for example makes very little difference to points values. It may make a target more difficult to hit but it effects all targets that way consistantly. One side may get the benefit more than another but do you know how much benefit that would equate to unless you can do a consistancy shift?

What would you do if a scenario you were doing had 3 tigers historically, but the german player turned up with 3 stugs and a panzer 3N. Would you know if you should change an m36 on the US side to an M10 or whether you should actually just remove it completely to keep your scenario the same as it was in terms of original balance?

People playing without points cannot have it both ways…..claim that carefully designed scenarios are better than "equal points" games, then amend or form the scenario design ad hoc based on a whim. Plucking scenario balance out of thin air is as lazy as plucking random points values out of the ether.

Either you take some care and consider the points values as a tool ….Or you can constantly fool yourself with the 2 companies attacking 1 company type games in some form of defence is balanced.

Since I started this thread, I had better clarify one thing; I am not criticizing those who like points based games, it's just that I really don't see the fun in it. I also don't see how you can have anything that is called historically accurate when everything is built on a relatively arbitrary point system. I use the term relatively arbitrary since there are too many variables to come up with precise value ratings for every facet of a force so please don't take it as a slight.

Some of the posters have tried to explain their preference for it but I don't think they've captured their feelings clear enough in their post to explain it to this old timer who is getting cobwebs between the ears. (I've been playing so long I remember when WRG and Tractics was the latest thing in wargaming.)

"it's just that I really don't see the fun in it"

I play points based games by times, using rules that I also use to play scenarios, historical re-fights, and campaign battles. Its just another way to sort out a few figures and slap them on the table to you can start having fun.

Back when I played traveler a lot, I was a bit of a gear head and enjoyed optimizing the last Milli-credit out of ship designs. I think some people enjoy optimizing their armies for some points based games in the same way. The fun of the game then becomes finding out how well you did the optimization. Not my thing, but what the heck if they enjoy it.

Mike Snorbins, I do not think you use the word balance to mean exactly the same thing as I do when referring to a game. What exactly do you mean by it?

I like points-based games for some of the reasons already mentioned – it's quick to slap together a force on the night against someone I've not played before and just get on with it.

Another reason is I'm not constrained by actual orders of battle. I'm not interested in refighting Alamein or Kursk – that's been done, and by better generals than me. I want to use the miniatures I like, not the ones the scenario says were there. For instance, the only British tanks I like the look of are the Cruisers and descendants – Comets, Cromwells and the like. If I do a Late-war British army for FoW, there won't be any of those ugly Shermans anywhere near it. Not historically accurate? F**k it, I'll do it anyway. I bought an 8th Army force for mid-war when everyone else got Eastern front Jerries and Russians. If we played strictly scenario-based games, I'd be £200.00 GBP out of pocket. As it is, my Shermans can happily get shot up by grey Panzer 4s and T34s to my heart's content.

1369traveler – OK, maybe I'm the one who can't understand here but points or some other method only determines the beginning parameters of the game. You could very easily find a scenario using points that matches the same historical scenario. So you are saying the one with points would somehow not be fun?

My guess is a good umpire/GM could use either method and you wouldn't know the difference.

No. Never lived in Louisiana.

BLAME

H G Wells

In 1913 He wrote the book called "Little Wars"

The first points system:

Quote: "Each player then selected his force from the available soldiers in this way: He counted infantry as 1 each, calvalry as 1 1/2, and a gun as 10, and taking whatever he liked in whatever positon he liked, he make up a total of 150."

explain it to this old timer who is getting cobwebs between the ears. (I've been playing so long I remember when WRG and Tractics was the latest thing in wargaming.)

Unless you have been playing before 1913, then points systems are not a new thing. :)

………………..Doug

What would you do if a scenario you were doing had 3 tigers historically, but the german player turned up with 3 stugs and a panzer 3N. Would you know if you should change an m36 on the US side to an M10 or whether you should actually just remove it completely to keep your scenario the same as it was in terms of original balance?

That would never happen. The scenario and forces are decided beforehand and are based on what we have. If you're talking about shop playing, I play with my friends – I'd never take my stuff to a shop environment where there may be possibly some twit I don't know who is disrespectful of my or my friends' modeling efforts.

However, if that were to happen, we'd just play with the Stugs and Panzer III. <shrug>

You seem very concerned about game balance. That's the way you play, I guess. "Game balance" has nothing to do with the wargames we play. I design scenarios as a tactical military problem to be tackled by at least two sides. There's never an equal chance of either side winning in terms of seizing territory and/or wiping out the other side. That, in my opinion, no offence to you or anyone else, is just stupidly non-historical. Again, please let me emphasize, that's my opinion and how I look at the way we play.

What we do after designing the tactical situation is to come up with a means to measure the performance of outnumbered side. Most usually, we play for a previously specified 2-4 hours and stop playing as soon as the alarm goes off. We then see if the attacker has accomplished his objective in that time. Sometimes, after stopping at the appointed time, we assess things and then agree to play on.

The only thing that drives my scenario design is to make sure the attacker has a 2.5 to 3 to 1 numeric advantage in infantry and the same for guns. When you have roughly equal forces, the attacker is always too cautious as he fears the loss of anything. Which is a stupid situation to be in – anyone performing a planned attack is going to believe they have superiority in numbers, including a proper reserve. Note I said "believes" – sometimes I'm a bastard and the scenario turns out to be completely different from what the players think it will be.

Consider this scenario: link – click on "objectives and forces". There are 4 German tanks versus 10 Soviet tanks/assault guns and, excluding command stands (company and platoon commanders), 8 German squads (an "MG" counts as a squad) versus 26 Soviet squads. The game was designed for the Soviets to roll over the German defenders. In the game that is documented on the site, the Soviets won, as was expected. But the first game (at a small con, BTW), the Soviets were wiped off the face of the planet due to not only the inexperience of the Soviet player (one of my firiends) and incredibly bad Soviet rolling, but also a very clever, unexpected German defence.

You could make a point system to try and do the above, but how does one properly assign points to an SU-76 versus a towed ZIS-3? Same anti-armour performance, but what about how they perform in dense terrain versus open terrain? In the former with loads of infantry, the towed gun can't get away very quickly, whereas in open terrain at longer distances and LOS, the towed gun is not as disadvantaged. Is the Soviet side attacking or defending? If defending, the towed gun, while large, is still easier to hide and conceal than an SU-76.

There's too many variables to come up with a reliable point system to reflect these differences.

What about if you are new to a period or rules? When we are playing a new period, we just come up with scenarios and see how things worked out so that we eventually learn that Confederate cavalry might be really good in early ACW scenarios, or that it's not a good idea for a few frigates to take on a 1st rate or to send a couple of cotton clad paddle wheelers against an ironclad monitor.

The whole education about how things work and learning, for example, how tough Roman maniples versus unformed rabble were comes through playing the games.

You might say "that's fine for playing with your friends, but what about at a con or a shop environment? You need to keep new player's interest and if they are put into a badly designed scenario, that spells disaster for the rules/your reputation/whatever." And I would agree with you that's a good point.

But my response would be that in such environments, you shouldn't be putting on a game without a good understanding of the period and rules you are using. If you are new to a set of rules (or don't understand them) or a period, you're a silly sausage indeed to try and run a game at a con! In a shop environment, just say "this is a new set of rules, let's just play this scenario – it might not be 'fair' but we'll learn about how all this stuff works together".

It really is interesting in an exciting way, with a new period, learning about the relative strengths of different unit types in different situations and terrain.
--
Tim

@Tim/Ditto:

I think you're approaching the point system from the wrong direction, namely expecting too much from a point system. The way a point system is made (or, rather, seems to be made, and how I make them in the various rules I tinker around with) is to have some way of weighing each model, and then use something for a starting point, give it a number, and move up or down from there. You make an excellent point that it is too hard to value all the various variables that would be present in real life, but in the case of most point systems, many of the variables are removed. Just to use Flames of War as an example, the towed ZIS-3 vs. SU-76 problem you presented, they both are the same effectiveness as long range or at short range, and terrain doesn't affect either of them, besides movement, where it hinders the SU-76. The SU-76 is also harder to kill with the lower powered AT weapons, and impossible to kill with small arms. Yes, you give up some realism, but point-system rules aren't as stingy about having a realistic simulation for every situation, at least from my experience. There must be some level of detail given up for the sake of being able to give them a point value. On the other hand, a good point system can actually keep a lot of variables, it just requires significant play testing to determine the relative value within a game of each benefit. If you use two different units in 100 different games, you should be able to tell which one is more effective in general. It's more complicated than that, but between testing and a bit of sacrifice, it can be done.

It really is a shame that some historical accuracy potential is lost, but the logic behind it from my point of view is not so much playability with people you know, but playability with new people. It's about being able to introduce new people to a set of rules, get them started, and not send them away because they get stuck on the losing side of a nigh-impossible scenario 2 or 3 times in a row. At that point, they're liable to give up on the hobby, or head off to "more balanced" grounds of GW's games, which is another real shame.

That was probably more convoluted than I'd have liked, but the point is, the reason people play point systems is to quickly get rolling with a new set of rules with a new person, without the potential for resentment towards the writer of a scenario because of perceived imbalance. You sacrifice some historical accuracy for ease of introduction and ease of play.

I'd be surprised if anyone here would argue that getting more people into historical wargaming is a bad thing, especially if it's over the GW dice-contests. It just depends if you're willing to sacrifice a bit of the historic potential to do so.

And, as one last note, I'd like to add that you don't have to stick with the point systems, even in games that use them. If you like the rule system, but prefer to just do preset scenarios, go for it. That's the sort of thing that is popular with more established gaming groups, where you get a ton of models for the rule set. I've even seen it happen in Flames of War. And if you don't like the rule system anyways, you should move on to something you enjoy.

and terrain doesn't affect either of them, besides movement,

You make some good points, B, but terrain does indeed have an effect on both – I don't know FOW rules at all, but I'm sure in close terrain, it is easier for infantry to get around and out flank a towed gun which cannot be repositioned (other than turned around) to react, while the self-propelled SU-76 simply moves to get out of danger.

It's would be a very big factor in any rule set, I would think.

the reason people play point systems is to quickly get rolling with a new set of rules with a new person

In that case, the educational experience I described is probably a more realistic learning experience as long as the players realize the first few games is not some gorilla chest thumping exercise in other words, they are mature enough to know it's a learning experience.

As for:

I'd be surprised if anyone here would argue that getting more people into historical wargaming is a bad thing, especially if it's over the GW dice-contests

I've introduced four separate sets of GW players since about 1999 to historical wargaming via Crossfire. Two of these occasions occured when I met a person moving here who contacted me via my web site ( link – this was the first fellow's second CF game – and link ), and the other two sets arose as a result of a demo I gace at a local hobby show in 1999 ( link – this attracted other players to later games by word of mouth). All of them loved the experience and either continue to be wargaming friends or have since moved away but enjoyed many games of Crossfire, Piquet, and other games during their stay.

In that case, I was an experienced player introducing new players to a system. No points were used, just my tactical problem approach. In fact, in 1999, I was very new to crossfire myself, so while the rule set was new, the game master was no stranger to WWII.

On the other hand, a good point system can actually keep a lot of variables

Only if it is multi-dimensional, ie, instead of a single rating, there's (for example) an armour rating and an infantry rating for both tank and infantry unit. But that would make buyiing stuff more difficult. But a point system that applies a single rating without regard to terrain consideration, for example, will have a difficult time assigning a point value to a German squad bristling with panzerfausts: deadly in close wooded terrain against armoured opponents, so-so against infantry only, and pathetic in wide open steppes compared to tanks. And that doesn't even take into account the vagaries that will occur when contrasting attack and defence. Ho on earth do you apply a relative point value to such a German squad that takes into account potential enemies?

Sorry guys, but there are lots of us who have never used point systems, and not just old grognards like myself who began wargaming before point systems started appearing in many rule systems. You don't need points – just an understanding of the period and of the rules.

Honestly, there seem to be some here who are trying to make a saving throw to disbelieve that games can be played without point systems! I think if they were to be given a scenario that was derived from a campaign that their heads would explode…
--
Tim

Ditto Bird wrote
"You don't need points – just an understanding of the period and of the rules."

True but many gamers do not want to do that they just want to have a good time with nice looking miniatures. A point system makes that a simple thing to accomplish.

Mike Snorbens wrote
"I have never understood why people play these so called "pick up" games, when with a little thought a more interesting scenario can be put together easily and quickly."

I hate to say this but the large number of very bad scenarios I have been a part of at conventions pretty much proves your statement isn't really true :)

Points seem to me to able to play an opponenet and smash him to bits….

Myself will never again play a points game but use real or as near to real scenarios as i can, I often play totally out numbered but can take a stand that I did my best.

Using points based games for the eras that I play which is seldom WW2, is a way to keep a player from fielding only the most elite elements of his allowable forces every game.

Ditto Bird wrote:

[…] Sorry guys, but there are lots of us who have never used point systems, and not just old grognards like myself who began wargaming before point systems started appearing in many rule systems. You don't need points – just an understanding of the period and of the rules.

Of course you don't need a points system, any more than you need a well tested scenario. The original question was why points, and that's been answered. I don't think anybody here fails to realize that you can set up a game any number of ways.

Honestly, there seem to be some here who are trying to make a saving throw to disbelieve that games can be played without point systems!

There are some who seem to think that they've discovered some mysterious truth and are ignoring the fact that their stunning revelation does nothing to diminish the reasons oft-stated in this thread already as to why and when points can make sense.

I think if they were to be given a scenario that was derived from a campaign that their heads would explode…

And let me guess: You're the smart guy who figured out that there are scenarios? Give me a break. The question was why points, and there are good reasons. That doesn't equate to saying points are the only means to create a game. There are some interesting variations that combine both points and variable scenarios that make for very interesting situations. The fact that you don't (or haven't) tried them doesn't make them less useful. "Not having points" by itself is hardly a feature unless some good scenarios are to be had.

- Bob

Not historically accurate? F**k it, I'll do it anyway.

right on. it is just for fun.

Nice one Angelbarracks

I dont understand all this hostility. I have played both kinds of games. Both are fun in their own way, but very different experiences.

I think it is partly about different playing styles/traditions. Playing a scenario (often with a referee and some hidden elements) is more in the role-playing or reenactment tradition, while points based games are more in the competetive/tournament tradition.

The advantages of point based games many.
* It makes pick-up games with strangers very easy. This is good, because it is fun to play vs different people and armies, variation is fun. And you get to know a lot of new people that way.
* It makes tournaments possible, and tournaments can be great fun. At least in FoW they are, where people generaly are good sports. :-)
Tournaments are not only fun, but they improve your gaming/tactical skills a lot. They force you to think hard, and to handle all kinds of situations.

Of course there are advantages to scenario games to. And the difference might not be as big as you assume,
- in a scenario the referee tries to make it "balanced" in some way, right?
- in points based games like FoW there are different scenarions or missions with different victory conditions and other special rules.

ITS SIMPLE

Because you can walk into any game shop, say I have GameXYZ, any players here today. Get a yes, then agree to play X amount of points and get an instant game. Fun and easy.

Cheers 2nd BB

"That would never happen. The scenario and forces are decided beforehand and are based on what we have."

Thats too limiting for us in terms of recreating historical tactical situations nor do I wnat to use proxies. I dont want to have to use French to represent a 1940 tactical situation if I can replace them with a British unit of equivalent military power.

"If you're talking about shop playing, I play with my friends – I'd never take my stuff to a shop environment where there may be possibly some twit I don't know who is disrespectful of my or my friends' modeling efforts."

nope, All Club play….Never played in a shop, again, too limiting in time, space and experience of opponents.

"I think if they were to be given a scenario that was derived from a campaign that their heads would explode…"

Most of the campaigns I play in have to have an 'auto pilot' result generation system for a huge volume of games.

It's because for a lot of the battles, they are just not worth the game play to generate when 5 companies face 1 beat up one.

Would you really want to play a game where 12 me109's take on a lone walrus sea plane or play a game with six hurricanes attacking 9 ju88's with a staffel of 109's flying escort?

Now I dont need points to play either , but with points , I can replace the hurricanes with spit V's and the 109's with folgores and the JU88's with SM79's and then use the results for my BoB campaign, but I got a different game out of it and didn't change the balance.

And let me guess: You're the smart guy who figured out that there are scenarios? Give me a break.

I'm sorry if you think I've insulted you. You sound furious with me. I'll leave the discussion so that I don't end up behaving like an too.
--
Tim

"Now I dont need points to play either , but with points , I can replace the hurricanes with spit V's and the 109's with folgores and the JU88's with SM79's and then use the results for my BoB campaign, but I got a different game out of it and didn't change the balance."

Are you sure?

I do not play with points because I have sadly discovered that they produce stupid match-ups that too often are not only ahistorical, but even unbalanced and in a serious way, much more than a unbalanced scenarios.

There is an undelining current that seems to equate points to balance. Sadly it doesn't go that way.

First almost all point systems tend to be more or less broken…

Second by definition a point system is exploited by the player to create an unbalanced list to give them advantages (real or presumed)…

Third more often than not point system create "uber-weaposn" beacuse their effects and cost give you a winning combination even if they were rare, crap or non-influential in history.

I realize that point systems can be helpful for competitions, but I do not see their need for pick up games. You can simply say "I am here to play game XYZ, I have a Grautsark reinforced infantry company anyone want to plahy a game?" and the end results, considering certain propensity to play the list more than playing the game exhibited by some players I had met would be the same.

Tim is trying to explain that point system are not that god-sent bonanza allowing for some miracolous game style. but a lot of people think that without point systems certain activities in our hobby will not be doable.

IMHO is not the case. also I think that you can't use points to readily transpose scenarios from one theater to another for the reason Tim as ably explained and another one, a point system has never been tested to its extreme, so even respected ones like the DBX series or FOW are inerently an unknown factor. You assume the point value will equate ot fighting value, but again this can be done without points as a reasonable guess. The difference is that a poin system is someone else guess, a guess is, your own guess…

Also I avoid point system scenario for conventions, those are the quickest way to fall in a disaster. Convention scenarios need a lot of special considerations that are outside the the realm of point systems. and also the target is not to win, but to show a game and a situation. If you create convention games to have winner or lose you break the convention spirit that is having fun and discover games not winning\losing (if you win it is even better, but some defeats have been memorable).

Also you have to know the rules 8otherwise the game is called rules reading, not wargaming) and substituting knowledge of the period with knowledge of the point mechanics and the way to create the uber-list is not so fun…

Arrigo

"I do not play with points because I have sadly discovered that they produce stupid match-ups that too often are not only ahistorical, but even unbalanced and in a serious way, much more than a unbalanced scenarios."

Erm, POINTS do not in any way produce the bad match-ups and ahistorical crap, PLAYERS do. I would bet that those who play that way would write unbalanced, ridiculous scenarios and you'd end up with the same bad games.

"Tim is trying to explain that point system are not that god-sent bonanza allowing for some miracolous game style. but a lot of people think that without point systems certain activities in our hobby will not be doable."

And he's doing a solid, reasonable job of it, too. But I have yet to read one post here that even IMPLIES that points are the best or ONLY way to play. Another helping of hyperbole, Arrigo? 8)=

Greetings

I mainly use scenarios but have been known to use points as an aid in developing a scenario, particularly if it is a set of rules I don't know too well.

As an example I set up a game using Blitzkrieg Commander with a WW2 Eastern Front scenario set in August 1943. This was based on an account in one of David Glantz's books. I had the Soviet force pretty well mapped out but the German counter-attack force was uncertain. I developed some of it based on available data but then used the BKC point system to set the size. This was because I hoped we would have an afternoon's game rather than a walk over (in the real action the counter attack succeeded but took time). The resulting game went well and stretched both players.

I prefer scenario games but will happily play a points based game – I don't ask that the points be perfect (as if that could be the case). In the more extreme cases points can stop a game being hopelessly one sided and – often – not fun. This usually happens where the scenario designer fails to realise the strengths and weaknesses of the forces involved and the result is a foregone and short conclusion. Working around disadvantages or trying to better a historical result are praiseworthy but if the game lasts an hour and all your troops are dead and routed without any signfiicant error on your part it (usually) isn't much of a game.

Regards

Edward

Doesn't a portion of this debate depend on the rule systems and how good the point assignments are? And on how they are being used?

Not everyone knows tanks and equipment very well and it's hard for inexperienced people to know that 10 T34-76's aren't going to be doing so well against the 10 panthers.

So to me the value of the of assigning points is to be able to understand which tanks are equipment is better than others. It's a guide for scenario building.

"And YOU'RE the one who generally keeps it going! Almost by yourself sometimes… 8)="

I've been off-line for a day or two, but it seems you've all been getting along just fine without me!!

"Mike Snorbins, I do not think you use the word balance to mean exactly the same thing as I do when referring to a game. What exactly do you mean by it?"

Please, the on-line name is SnorbEns.

I think several others have explained this here, but to put it simply, I am referring to the (IMHO) mistaken belief that somehow because two opposing armies have the same points then they have a roughly equal chance of beating the other.

"I hate to say this but the large number of very bad scenarios I have been a part of at conventions pretty much proves your statement isn't really true :)"

I was not referring to scenarios used at conventions. Sine I have never been to a convention I have no idea what the scenarios used at them are like. I have been to many UK wargaming shows. The scenarios used for games at such shows
are usually based on historical battles so would presumably not be considered "bad" scenarios.

I think the main reason why I no longer use points systems (yes, I certainly used to!) is that (again IMHO) they produce artificial situations. How many historical battles can you think of where the opposing forces were nearly equal?

Also, someone said you need points to prevent people arriving with an army of all super-troops. In my experience points systems usually have the opposite effect, allowing players to waste endless hours searching for the elusive all-powerful army. As many others have said, terrain can have a significant effect on the effectiveness of a given force. A far better method, I think, is to set minimum and maximum percentages for each troops type.

Someone also said that it takes lots of experience to design a scenario. Again, I disagree. Yes, you need some understanding of how armies of a particular period fought, but that can be found by reading a good primer on the period. The same book will probably provide ample information for the construction of scenarios.

Mike SnorbEns wrote:

[…] I am referring to the (IMHO) mistaken belief that somehow because two opposing armies have the same points then they have a roughly equal chance of beating the other.

I have seen many players who seem to have that impression, but most of what I've read from designers of points-based systems describe them (paraphrasing) as providing a reasonable odds of winning against the full spectrum of opponents they might face, not a 50:50 chance against any specific opponent. The points provide a rough measure of "potential", all other things being equal. Then you throw in things like scenario and restrictions to make them unequal. Points games aren't limited to meeting engagements over open ground.

[…] The scenarios used for games at such shows
are usually based on historical battles so would presumably not be considered "bad" scenarios.

Can we assume that most scenarios are chosen because they are meant to represent extraordinary events? Something outside the norm for the conflict chosen? If so, can we then claim that it's historical if what we're representing was not the norm?

[…] How many historical battles can you think of where the opposing forces were nearly equal?

Ah, but points games, even those where both players use an identical points value, aren't restricted to being 'equal' on the table. The scenario, starting on-table restrictions, weather or other variable parameters can (and usually do) provide an unbalanced starting situation. The points just set a boundary on the size and length of the game, and give the player some flexibility in what is fielded.

[…] Also, someone said you need points to prevent people arriving with an army of all super-troops. In my experience points systems usually have the opposite effect, allowing players to waste endless hours searching for the elusive all-powerful army.

And not using points lets players spend those same hours searching for the elusive good scenario instead. :) A broken points-based list is not worse than a broken scenario in my book. I find that setting a maximum points value can be a good teaching tool for new or inexperienced players. Yes, they'll usually jam all the 'big stuff' they can in, but they soon learn that a balanced force capable of reacting to a variety of situations and opponents is needed to win. Meanwhile, if the scenario includes that 'big stuff' that I have to face with a list I had no choice in, I'm probably going to be annoyed.

This discussion is highlighting the biggest issue, I think: Points allow BOTH players control. Historically-minded players can build a force based on points within historical parameters, so 'history' isn't really much of a differentiator between points and non-points systems in my mind.

- Bob

Ditto Bird wrote:

[…] I'm sorry if you think I've insulted you. You sound furious with me. I'll leave the discussion so that I don't end up behaving like an Bleeped text too.

Not insulted, just biting back. :) My mind is hardly blown by the concept of not using points. I think that you're simply choosing to ignore some perfectly reasons to use them is all.

- Bob

Where is Supergrover when we need him???

"I have seen many players who seem to have that impression, but most of what I've read from designers of points-based systems describe them (paraphrasing) as providing a reasonable odds of winning against the full spectrum of opponents they might face, not a 50:50 chance against any specific opponent."

That is probably true, but how many players actually take note of this? My understanding of how "pick up" games work is that people use points to minimax their armies in the (IMHO) mistaken belief that this will give them a battle winning advantage over all comers.

"The points provide a rough measure of "potential", all other things being equal. Then you throw in things like scenario and restrictions to make them unequal."

Except that, compared to historical engagements, the "nearly equal" armies produced by points systems just did not happen.

"Points games aren't limited to meeting engagements over open ground."

Many people seem to think they are (as you stated in your first sentence above)!!

"Can we assume that most scenarios are chosen because they are meant to represent extraordinary events? Something outside the norm for the conflict chosen? If so, can we then claim that it's historical if what we're representing was not the norm?"

I can see no reason at all to assume that most scenarios are chosen because they are meant to represent extraordinary events. Indeed, in relation to some wargaming periods I would say that most of the historical battles did not conform to any concept of "the norm".

"Ah, but points games, even those where both players use an identical points value, aren't restricted to being 'equal' on the table. The scenario, starting on-table restrictions, weather or other variable parameters can (and usually do) provide an unbalanced starting situation."

Agreed. So why do those who like points make such claims about points based games being balanced?

"The points just set a boundary on the size and length of the game, and give the player some flexibility in what is fielded."

You don't need points to do that, just some common sense.

"And not using points lets players spend those same hours searching for the elusive good scenario instead. :)"

As I have said before, I do not think it either necessary or desirable to spend a long time designing a scenario.

"A broken points-based list is not worse than a broken scenario in my book."

Depends what you mean by a broken scenario.

"I find that setting a maximum points value can be a good teaching tool for new or inexperienced players. Yes, they'll usually jam all the 'big stuff' they can in, but they soon learn that a balanced force capable of reacting to a variety of situations and opponents is needed to win."

Depends what you mean by a "balanced force". How come historical military commanders could win when the force at their disposal was clearly NOT a "balanced force"?

"Meanwhile, if the scenario includes that 'big stuff' that I have to face with a list I had no choice in, I'm probably going to be annoyed."

Why be annoyed? A historical military commander usually had no choice so why should we wargamers (who seek to "walk in their shoes") be any different?

"This discussion is highlighting the biggest issue, I think: Points allow BOTH players control."

Precisely. Points allow BOTH players TOO MUCH control.

What a pointless discussion…
The difference between any 2 armies constructed with a points system is negligble compared to the abilities and tactics of the players themselves, whether they are playing a points game, or a scenario based game.
It doesn't matter if the points system is flawed or not, given the APPROXIMATE balance it will give.
9 times out of 10, player A using army x will beat player B using army Y, swap the armies around and the same players will still tend to win.
This will be the case in a points game or a non-points game.

"Where is Supergrover when we need him???"

LOL Is he really gone ;)?

And then this thread spawns more!!!

"Alternative to points"
TMP link

LOL. Robert

"It doesn't matter if the points system is flawed or not, given the APPROXIMATE balance it will give.
9 times out of 10, player A using army x will beat player B using army Y, swap the armies around and the same players will still tend to win.
This will be the case in a points game or a non-points game."

Surely that very much depends on the rules in use?

If the rules are rubbish, then the rules are rubbish, if they are THAT bad then God help the players whether there is a point system or not.
Anyway, both players are (I hope) playing with the same rules…good players beat poor players..poor players might sometimes choose to blame it on the points system, VERY occasionally they might have a case, (about the same amount of times they win games).
In the end its the player which wins a game, scenario or points..end of story.

'Points allow BOTH players TOO MUCH control.'

I guess you prefer when the players have absolutely no control of what happens? So who should have the control? A GM? I'd rather use points systems than having to deal with a scenario designed by a GM with God complex.

"In the end its the player which wins a game, scenario or points..end of story."

Depends how you define "winning".

"I guess you prefer when the players have absolutely no control of what happens? So who should have the control? A GM? I'd rather use points systems than having to deal with a scenario designed by a GM with God complex."

No, I would not prefer the players to have absolutely no control over what happens. If that were the case there would be no point playing the game, just roll dice to decide who wins.

However, I WOULD prefer the players to have no control over the size, structure or morale state of their army. A general in real life has little or no control over those things at the point when the battle begins.

"However, I WOULD prefer the players to have no control over the size, structure or morale state of their army. A general in real life has little or no control over those things at the point when the battle begins."

Why shouldn't they have this controll? I get to choose location or period, don't I, so why not the forces involved? What real panzer commander could say "I want to fight in the desert, not on the east front", yet I can do this in gaming. Why is it bad-wrong-fun for a player to be allowed some controll over his hobby and his games?

I presume that when you say that 'players' should have little or no controll over the scenario being played, you are assuming that there is some kind of referee or GM who handles scenario, terrain, rules etc? And that this person has a lot of choice and control? So guy A gets to decide what guy B and C should play?

Long ago, I read an article that included that observation that anytime you hear a company described as "one big happy family", the person saying it is inevitably "dad". I have the same general impression of those who insist their scenarios are all any player needs. They think they're great, and guess who gets to be the kids?

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] That is probably true, but how many players actually take note of this?

What does it matter?

My understanding of how "pick up" games work is that people use points to minimax their armies in the (IMHO) mistaken belief that this will give them a battle winning advantage over all comers.

That's a pretty narrow understanding. Sure, there are powergamers. But merely playing a points-based game doesn't transform otherwise-gentlemanly players into powergamers.

[…] Except that, compared to historical engagements, the "nearly equal" armies produced by points systems just did not happen.

Which is why I wrote those other bits about the scenario, reserves and so forth that you seem to be ignoring. Again, the points are just a starting point. A lot of variability can (and in my experience, is) then added through the use of scenario-based parameters, reserves and so forth.

[…] Depends what you mean by a broken scenario.

Ones that suck. Aren't enjoyable. Couldn't be completed within the constraints of the actual game. Surely you've seen some?

[…] Depends what you mean by a "balanced force". How come historical military commanders could win when the force at their disposal was clearly NOT a "balanced force"?

Oddly enough, many military organizations are built around providing tactical flexibility. It's the powergamers that ignore that who tend to get into trouble by assuming the biggest toys are best.

[…] Why be annoyed? A historical military commander usually had no choice so why should we wargamers (who seek to "walk in their shoes") be any different?

Because we're playing "what if", not trying to participate in an inch-by-inch recreation of a battle as envisioned by a GM. We're not actors in your screenplay. If I want an exact museum-quality recreation, I'll look somewhere else besides the gaming table.

In any historical engagement, there tends to be a variance between paper strength, and that which appears on the field. Most point systems I've seen let you vary what's fielded within those confines. Those same games can be played with scenarios or simply with "bring whatever you have".

[…] Depends how you define "winning".

Depends how you define "enjoyable".

- Bob

"I understand points systems for games like Full Thrust or WH40K"

then all you need to do is extend that same understanding to "historicals" – ther is nothing intrinsically different about them in this respect.

I have played a vast number of "points" games where I have played someoen I don't know very well (and plenty I do) and have had a great "balanced" game, and also large numbers of scenarios & "refights" that were not so "balanced" – I see no reason why I can't enjoy both for what they are or why you would want to limit yourself to one or other.

"[…] Depends how you define "winning"."

What's your definition Mike? I'm fascinated

"I presume that when you say that 'players' should have little or no control over the scenario being played, you are assuming that there is some kind of referee or GM who handles scenario, terrain, rules etc? And that this person has a lot of choice and control? So guy A gets to decide what guy B and C should play?"

No, that would be silly!!

Please read what I wrote:
I did NOT say that players should have little or no control over the scenario being played.

I DID say that players should have no control over the size, structure or morale state of their army.

In other words, the players decide to play a game. One of them selects a scenario from the scenario library and the other player agrees to play it. The scenario dictates the terrain, the size, structure and morale state of each army and the victory criteria. Players chose sides, set up the table and start playing. Easy!!

In some games, the size and structure of each force can be determined randomly.

"That's a pretty narrow understanding. Sure, there are powergamers. But merely playing a points-based game doesn't transform otherwise-gentlemanly players into powergamers."

No, points systems don't turn everyone into powergamers, but I have met an awful lot of people who have just this narrow minded approach to a points based game. Your suggestions for varying it based on terrain etc. are eminently sensible. I just wish more wargamers had your enlightened view!

Personally, I prefer not to use points at all, but for for those who insist on doing so your suggestions are good. Best of luck, though, on getting people to actually do so.

"Because we're playing "what if", not trying to participate in an inch-by-inch recreation of a battle as envisioned by a GM. We're not actors in your screenplay. If I want an exact museum-quality recreation, I'll look somewhere else besides the gaming table."

I am NOT advocating an inch-by-inch recreation of a battle as envisioned by a GM. I don't know where you get the idea that I am! My "what-if" starts at a certain point in time, where you, the player, are faced with the same (or as near a wargaming approximation as we can get) situation as a historical general faced.

From that point, the game starts. All bets are off and the players strive to achieve the victory conditions as laid down in the scenario. They do not have to slavishly follow the mistakes of the historical forebears. That would be just a recreation, not a refight.

"What's your definition Mike? I'm fascinated"

The definition of winning of course depends on the game being played and the rules in use.

For example, in some of Peter Pig's rules. The end of the game is determined randomly by rolling a die each turn and the game ends when you reach a set total. Victory points are then allocated according to what happened in the game and the winner is the player with the most victory points.

Other games work differently.

In DBA, the loser (it is often easier to define the conditions for losing than for winning) is when a player has lost 4 elements or his general.

In Dirtside II, the players place a number of "objective markers" on the table (usually on tactically important points, such as a crossroads, or a hill). The objective markers have different values, but they are placed face down so that the players do not know the value of each marker. A player "captures" an objective marker when an element of his force comes into contact with it. When all the objective markers have been captured, players total up the value and the player with the highest value wins.

Some games allow you to define victory criteria in all sorts of ways e.g.:

"Hold the hill for X turns"
"Move x number of your units off the table across your opponent's baseline"
"Find the rebel leader and capture him"
"Avoid being forced to retreat off the table for x turns"
…
A good one for a refight of a historical scenario is:
"Do better than the historical person you represent in the game"

In multiple player games, players can have mutually conflicting victory criteria.

I could go on (almost ad infinitum) but you get the picture.

Mike defining "balance": "I am referring to the (IMHO) mistaken belief.. "

Is there any wargame context in which you would consider "balance" to be a valid concept?

"Is there any wargame context in which you would consider "balance" to be a valid concept?"

Hmm … interesting question.

Since the whole point of any military campaign is to arrive at the point of decision on the battlefield with a significant advantage over the enemy, then I fail to see why wargamers persist in their pursuit of "balance".

Some would say that playing the underdog in an unbalanced game is "not fun". However, I have already shown how by the appropriate choice of victory conditions it is possible to create an enjoyable wargaming experience out of a militarily difficult or even impossible position.

It is therefore not so much whether I can think of a wargame context where "balance" might be a valid concept, but rather that I would question the need for "balance" at all.

Even given the most "unbalanced" game, it is interesting to play it and then swap sides and play it again. This would provide some measure of "balance" in that each player has faced the same situation. By comparing how well/badly each player did in the same situation you could derive some measure of who is the better general.

Please read what I wrote:
I did NOT say that players should have little or no control over the scenario being played.

I DID say that players should have no control over the size, structure or morale state of their army.

Says who? I think the players should have the opportunity to take precicely what toy soldiers they want, because it's a game – I play games for fun. Having to use someone else's toy soldiers , or having to paint up toy soldiers I don't want to because the scenario says so, aren't fun to me (or for that matter, anyone else I know). Hence, points systems.

This is a bit of a broad brush, but is it possible that predominantly solo players eschew points based games where as groups of players might do scenarios and points?

For us it depends upon the rules and who's organised what. Our 19th century colonial games are all scenario based using BFE – which has no points system anyway. WW2 games are scenario based. Ancients and Medieval are poitns based …

Which leads to another obvious conclusion, points are used so that you can play ahistorical match-ups.

Scenarios also often work better with an umpire.

Steve P

"Says who? I think the players should have the opportunity to take precicely what toy soldiers they want, because it's a game – I play games for fun."

I play games for fun too. But allowing me or my opponenet to use any toys they like is (to me) NOT fun.

"Having to use someone else's toy soldiers ,"

Who said anything about using someone else's toy soldiers?

"or having to paint up toy soldiers I don't want to because the scenario says so, aren't fun to me"

Oh come now, I thought all wargamers liked painting minis!

Besides, why will they be "toy soldiers you don't want"?

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] In other words, the players decide to play a game. One of them selects a scenario from the scenario library and the other player agrees to play it.

Ah… so this is all based on the assumption that there's a pre-built library? THAT hits exactly the point I've been getting at! For most games, there is not a sizable library of "known good" scenarios. This includes the games that crow on about "no points". Heck, even FoW includes more than a half dozen scenarios that provide a decent game, while some of the "no points" games provide nothing. Several don't even bother with providing historical OOB or unit organizations, referring the player elsewhere for that information. Hardly a good introduction, yet they go on in their intros about "no points". Of all the hundreds of games played using these rules, surely the publishers could collect the best of and make them available?

[…] Even given the most "unbalanced" game, it is interesting to play it and then swap sides and play it again. This would provide some measure of "balance" in that each player has faced the same situation.

Assuming you're picking from this mythical library of good scenarios, yes. But the slap-dash scenarios that you originally described have a pretty good chance of being stinkers (e.g. objectives not actually achievable), and hardly worth a replay. For anybody who only gets out a couple of nights to play per month, that's a real waste.

[…] No, points systems don't turn everyone into powergamers, but I have met an awful lot of people who have just this narrow minded approach to a points based game. Your suggestions for varying it based on terrain etc. are eminently sensible. I just wish more wargamers had your enlightened view!

Those are hardly my ideas. They're standard stuff for most points-based games I've encountered! I've played very few of the "pick your favorite toys, then line them up across the table" games. Using a points value as the starting point does nothing to reduce the ability to use any number of other options. I am puzzled (well, amused) by your insistence that such things can only be done without points.

[…] I am NOT advocating an inch-by-inch recreation of a battle as envisioned by a GM. I don't know where you get the idea that I am! My "what-if" starts at a certain point in time, where you, the player, are faced with the same (or as near a wargaming approximation as we can get) situation as a historical general faced.

So surely you can see that a points-based system still allows that, while adding a bit of extra what-iffing of whether different units were available, or allocated differently? The only thing you're describing that's any different is the assumption that either the players are adept at creating scenarios on the fly, or that a pre-built library of good scenarios exists. Other than that, there is no magic to the absence of having not used a points system to constrain the selection of forces. I can take your exact same scenario, play it, and then trade out a unit or two while preserving more-or-less the same "scale" of the engagement. Or, as mentioned above, substitute a different force altogether -- say roughly the same value of infantry instead of armor -- in the same tactical situation.

- Bob