"Why do people play points based games?" Topic

I think it very amusing that ALL the games Mike used as examples of "winning" were points based games.

"I think it very amusing that ALL the games Mike used as examples of "winning" were points based games."

I find it equally amusing that the points systems in those games have no bearing on the victory conditions.

I was asked to define "winning". Winning has no mathematical relation to any points system in the games I used as examples.

You also failed to take into account the list of victory criteria that are generic (can be applied to any game) and also do not have anything to do with points – so can be used both for games that have points and those that do not.

"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"."

No, it is not based on the assumption that there is a pre-built library. If you have such a library it is easy to choose a scenario from the library. If you have no library (and why would you not? If you have been playing the game for any length of time you should have a stock of scenarios from previous games – to wit, a library) then it is a simple case of taking the OOBs from a suitable battle in the period, converting it to a wargames force, setting out the terrain according to the map and away you go.

"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?"

That would be great, but all too often publishers publish rules before they have been played sufficiently to generate any number of scenarios. Which is why you usually get few or no scenarios. How many games do you know of where the publisher actively asks players to submit scenarios? I think they are missing a trick, but there you go.

Presupposing that the players are intelligent enough to root out some OOBs for historical battles from which to construct scenarios is not unreasonable, particularly in this daya and age where such information is so much more easily available on-line than when you hae to hunt out obscure texts ina library.

"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."

Why should a quickly constructed scenario be a "stinker"? If you apply a bit of logic to the OOBs you put together then the resulting game is hardly likely to be one where the objectives are not actually achievable. Particularly if you give the players the objective of "do better than your historical counterpart".

"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'm not insisting that it can only be done without points, only that you can achieve the same result without points, so why bother with points (and most points systems are inherently broken) in the first place?

"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?"

As I said above, a points system can allow that. But my posotion is that you can do so without points at all. They are thus irrelevant to the process and in the wrong hands can result in gross distortions.

"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."

I have repeatedly said that it doesn't take that much skill or effort to put together a simple scenario.

"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."

Yes, but how long will it be before someone whinges "hey, the points aren't equal – that's not fair!!"?

Take any game you like that has a points system and work out the points values for the opposing forces in a selected historical battle. They will not be the same … (often not even close).

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] I find it equally amusing that the points systems in those games have no bearing on the victory conditions.

Then why do you bring victory conditions into the discussion?

[…] You also failed to take into account the list of victory criteria that are generic (can be applied to any game) and also do not have anything to do with points – so can be used both for games that have points and those that do not.

Uhm… exactly? These discussions seem to start out with some assumption that points-based games are fundamentally different in some way, when clearly they are not. Whether or not points are used to select forces, or someone draws up a scenario with fixed force compositions only matters at the time of set up. Once the game starts, there is no difference. Even games that assume each side starts with an equal list value aren't confined to line 'em up and shoot games.

If the title of this thread were "Why do people play games with matched forces?" or similar instead of basing the distinction solely on the absence or presence of a points-based mechanism for selecting forces, this discussion would make more sense.

Offhand, I can't think of any set of rules that provides a points-based selection mechanism that can't be used to play fixed scenarios. Nor can I think of one that doesn't provide points values that can't have points added on. Even the much-maligned GW games can be played using some scenarios to add interest.

- Bob

"Then why do you bring victory conditions into the discussion?"

Because the argument that "points systems allow you to set up balanced games" implies that the victory criteria are somehow related to the points, usually along the lines of "when your army is reduced to x percent of the starting points value then you have lost".

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] How many games do you know of where the publisher actively asks players to submit scenarios? I think they are missing a trick, but there you go.

I don't think it's the publishers that provide a points-based mechanism that are lacking in that case.

Presupposing that the players are intelligent enough to root out some OOBs for historical battles from which to construct scenarios is not unreasonable, particularly in this daya and age where such information is so much more easily available on-line than when you hae to hunt out obscure texts ina library.

Well, my first attempts were circa 1980. I finally gave up on trying to find good information on equipment and organization at lower levels. Even today, it's not always possible to find it on all forces at the same level of detail. All of which is moot, of course, because points systems are perfectly suited to selecting from historical OOB.

Why should a quickly constructed scenario be a "stinker"?

They don't have to be. But there are many tales of woe here on TMP of participants in con games that were placed in a no-win situation that was simply not enjoyable to play. I am only pointing out that not everybody is talented at throwing good scenarios together, nor do all players agree on what makes a good scenario. Giving the player some latitude in what to bring offsets this somewhat. A scenario that is unwinnable with one force may be a great challenge with another.

If you apply a bit of logic to the OOBs you put together then the resulting game is hardly likely to be one where the objectives are not actually achievable.

So you are advocating selecting the force based on the scenario? How is this fundamentally any different then?

Particularly if you give the players the objective of "do better than your historical counterpart".

Replicating what they did wouldn't hold a lot of replay value. So surely adjusting, or playing "what if" with the forces present counts? And if I adjust one side (e.g. more reinforcements arrived), surely time didn't stand still for the other side?

I'm not insisting that it can only be done without points, only that you can achieve the same result without points, so why bother with points (and most points systems are inherently broken) in the first place?

If the results of two players using points to draw up pre-game force compositions are the same as using a (hopefully existant) scenario, why not use them? The end result is (hopefully) an enjoyable game either way. The only difference is that to points-based approach lets me arrive prepared for any scenario -- or maybe just a 2nd game -- whereas a scenario introduces another level of planning.

As I said above, a points system can allow that. But my posotion is that you can do so without points at all.

Sure, with advance preparation, and hopefully, with your opponent's acceptance.

They are thus irrelevant to the process and in the wrong hands can result in gross distortions.

This ain't dynamite. :) Lousy scenarios can result in gross distortions as well. If you play against live opponents (do you?), they often like to have some say in the matter.

I have repeatedly said that it doesn't take that much skill or effort to put together a simple scenario.

That hardly makes points irrelevant. And again, points don't preclude scenarios.

Yes, but how long will it be before someone whinges "hey, the points aren't equal – that's not fair!!"?

The same length of time it'll take someone to whinge (or point out) that "your stupid scenario is broken!" Why do you insist on casting players as incapable of understanding history or games simply because of a game mechanic used to select the forces tabled? Do you judge them on the car they arrive in as well?

Take any game you like that has a points system and work out the points values for the opposing forces in a selected historical battle. They will not be the same … (often not even close).

You'll notice that you used the points as that basis for comparison. That is exactly the point (as it were) of points! They're not balanced? Based on what criteria?

- Bob

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] Because the argument that "points systems allow you to set up balanced games" implies that the victory criteria are somehow related to the points, usually along the lines of "when your army is reduced to x percent of the starting points value then you have lost".

If those are the victory conditions, they absolutely are related to the points, no? As you yourself wrote, victory conditions can vary. In practice, I find even those sorts of games add in some variability.

Points do allow players to set up balanced game if that's what is desired, yes. But they're hardly restricted to that sort of play.

- Bob

I do not enjoy points systems at all, but is there any huge difference between saying:

'attacker gets 2000 pts and the defender 700 pts'

and

'attacker has a division and defender has a brigade'?

Sure, the points thing allows players to tinker away with the minutae of their forces, but ultimately is not the end result pretty much the same? Both are attempts to fight what might be construed as a reasonable battle – note I didn't say 'balanced' or 'fair' – which might have occured historically?

Or am I over-simplfying things?

"I don't think it's the publishers that provide a points-based mechanism that are lacking in that case."

So show me a publisher that actively seeks scenarios from players.

"Well, my first attempts were circa 1980. I finally gave up on trying to find good information on equipment and organization at lower levels. Even today, it's not always possible to ind it on all forces at the same level of detail."

I have collected OOBs and built scenarios using them for the Wars of the Roses, ECW, AWI, Napoleonic, ACW and WW2. I think that covers a fair spread of history. It wasn't that difficult, usually just a case of finding a few good books on each period and I have found the Internet to be a great resource for maps.

"But there are many tales of woe here on TMP of participants in con games that were placed in a no-win situation that was simply not enjoyable to play."

Never had that experience at a show.

"I am only pointing out that not everybody is talented at throwing good scenarios together, nor do all players agree on what makes a good scenario. Giving the player some latitude in what to bring offsets this somewhat"

I am only pointing out that it is not difficult to put together a reasonable scenario if you base it on a historical battle.

"So you are advocating selecting the force based on the scenario? How is this fundamentally any different then?"

No, I am advocating that the force size and composition is mandated by the scenario.

"Replicating what they did wouldn't hold a lot of replay value."

Players are not "replcating what they did". (This is the second time I have had to explain this distinction). From the start of the game, players are free to just play the game – they do NOT have to slavishly follow the movements and actions of their historical counterparts. I have played loads of games like this and they have been fascinating, challenging and entertaining.

"So surely adjusting, or playing "what if" with the forces present counts? And if I adjust one side (e.g. more reinforcements arrived), surely time didn't stand still for the other side?"

The "what-if" idea where you adjust the forces away from the historical starting point is not what I have been talking about. If you do that, you get a different scenario, but it becomes a hypothetical situation rather than one based in reality.

"If the results of two players using points to draw up pre-game force compositions are the same as using a (hopefully existant) scenario, why not use them?"

Because (again as I have explained before) if you use points then you will want the opposing forces to be "balanced", i.e. have the same number of points.

Try it with most points systems and you will find that historical battles were not "equal points".

"The only difference is that to points-based approach lets me arrive prepared for any scenario -- or maybe just a 2nd game -- whereas a scenario introduces another level of planning."

I can arrive perepared for any scenario by simply ensuring that my army has available the maximum number of troops of any particular type used in any scenario. For instance, my ECW armies are based on those at Marston Moor. Marston Moor was the biggest battle in the ECW, so if I have enough troops to play that one, I will have enough to play any battle in the ECW.

"This ain't dynamite. :) Lousy scenarios can result in gross distortions as well. If you play against live opponents (do you?), they often like to have some say in the matter."

Yes, I play against live opponents.
No, I have never found that a scenario upsets players enough for them to complain.

"Why do you insist on casting players as incapable of understanding history or games simply because of a game mechanic used to select the forces tabled?"

Because armies generated using points are often not historical. "It must be alright, it's a legal 1000 pt army."
To prevent the wildly inaccurate army generated using points you have to impose minima and maxima for each troop type. And if you're going to do that, you might just as well just quote the possible percentage range for each troop type and dispense with the points entirely (e.g. "an army in this period would typically have 10% – 15% of it's strength as heavy cavalry").

"You'll notice that you used the points as that basis for comparison. That is exactly the point (as it were) of points! They're not balanced? Based on what criteria?"

Based on the criteria that when people use points they EXPECT to have opposing armies with the same points value! The criteria for balance in a points system usually says (for example) that a cavalryman is worth twice the points of an infnatryman. That my be true on a battlefield with wide open spaces. On a battlefield where the majority of the area is woods then the reverse may well be true.

is there any huge difference between saying:

'attacker gets 2000 pts and the defender 700 pts'

and

'attacker has a division and defender has a brigade'?

No, not much difference. But an awful lot of people would say "hey, how can I possibly win if I'm outnumbered 3:1?"

Or am I over-simplfying things?

How on earth are people going to post hate filled vitriol if you come up with such basic common sense?

That said the issue will now become one of is a brigade really worth 0.35 of a Division?

I suspect the heart of the issue with points is that it can lead to a player turning up with 10 Tigers. If that is true then I think there are better ways to deal with that than getting rid of points systems.

A common mis-conception is that points based games are played with equal points. Whilst that may happen it's certainly not the case.

Steve P

Because (again as I have explained before) if you use points then you will want the opposing forces to be "balanced", i.e. have the same number of points.

Says who? Who is this 'you' that you refer too?

How many points-based players have you asked to verify this as true?

I refer to my comment above:

"A common mis-conception is that points based games are played with equal points. Whilst that may happen it's certainly not the case."

I should have said "…not always the case", but the point still stands.

Steve P

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] So show me a publisher that actively seeks scenarios from players.

Battlefront for one has put player-submitted scenarios up, and most of the newer books include those "historical match ups" you've described. GW even put out scenarios. In both cases, they've been well tested.

I have collected OOBs and built scenarios using them for the Wars of the Roses, ECW, AWI, Napoleonic, ACW and WW2. I think that covers a fair spread of history. It wasn't that difficult, usually just a case of finding a few good books on each period and I have found the Internet to be a great resource for maps.

How much of that did you have on day one? Again, a lot of publishers like to crow about "no points" and "everything you need in one book", yet fail to provide even rudimentary information on OOB. Hardly everything one needs.

Never had that experience at a show.

I've never seen a platypus, but I believe they exist.

I am only pointing out that it is not difficult to put together a reasonable scenario if you base it on a historical battle.

Agreed. You can also do so using points as the basis for allowing some variability, or scaling an otherwise too-massive battle into the time and space available.

No, I am advocating that the force size and composition is mandated by the scenario.

Again, the necessity to draw up a scenario, THEN have players agree to it is a limitation of that approach.

Players are not "replcating what they did". (This is the second time I have had to explain this distinction).

If "dad" is assigning the scenario and force composition, you are replicating what they did up to that point.

I have played loads of games like this and they have been fascinating, challenging and entertaining.

No doubt, but again, so what? How does that fundamentally change the circumstance where a player is preparing to head off to meet an unknown number of opponents with unknown miniature collections for a night of casual gaming?

The scenario you describe (literally) is fine if "dad" is setting up something for the "kids" to play on. If that suits your fancy, go for it. It is, however, constrained by the skills, knowledge and biases of "dad" (or the GM, if you prefer).

The "what-if" idea where you adjust the forces away from the historical starting point is not what I have been talking about. If you do that, you get a different scenario, but it becomes a hypothetical situation rather than one based in reality.

It does sound like you prefer to have a high degree of control over what your players can do though. Definitely not something I'd relish.

Because (again as I have explained before) if you use points then you will want the opposing forces to be "balanced", i.e. have the same number of points.

You are making some broad generalizations there on rather silly criteria. The fact that I elect to choose points as the basis for drawing up my forces does not compel me in any way to want any such thing.

[…] Because armies generated using points are often not historical. "It must be alright, it's a legal 1000 pt army."

Put that same player into your scenario and see how they react. Anybody crying 'unfair' will do so in a scenario as well. You're describing player maturity as if it relates to game mechanics in some way.

To prevent the wildly inaccurate army generated using points you have to impose minima and maxima for each troop type. And if you're going to do that, you might just as well just quote the possible percentage range for each troop type and dispense with the points entirely (e.g. "an army in this period would typically have 10% – 15% of it's strength as heavy cavalry").

And if those percentages are based on points (or how do you measure "strength"?) then what's the difference.

Based on the criteria that when people use points they EXPECT to have opposing armies with the same points value!

Yet another broad generalization, dad.

The criteria for balance in a points system usually says (for example) that a cavalryman is worth twice the points of an infnatryman. That my be true on a battlefield with wide open spaces. On a battlefield where the majority of the area is woods then the reverse may well be true.

All the more reason to play those different types of troops in a variety of settings, and not any one scenario, no?

- Bob

"Battlefront for one has put player-submitted scenarios up, and most of the newer books include those "historical match ups" you've described. GW even put out scenarios. In both cases, they've been well tested."

Yes, but are they actively asking for people to send them scenarios or are they just taking advantage of the fan boys?

"How much of that did you have on day one? Again, a lot of publishers like to crow about "no points" and "everything you need in one book", yet fail to provide even rudimentary information on OOB. Hardly everything one needs."

No, I didn't have it all on "day one" but most wargamers are introduced to the hobby by experienced gamers who should have this stiff at their fingertips. I quite agree about the books that claim to have everything you need and then clearly don't!

"Again, the necessity to draw up a scenario, THEN have players agree to it is a limitation of that approach. "

I do not understand this vehemence against "having to draw up a scenario". We are agreed that for a game to be interesting some form of scenario is required. Whether that scenario is created using points or not is immaterial. I maintain my position that points are unnecessary to the process of scenario creation and in some cases can be detrimental. And if you can't get players to agree to play scenario, I suggest you give up and go down the pub for a few drinks!

"No doubt, but again, so what? How does that fundamentally change the circumstance where a player is preparing to head off to meet an unknown number of opponents with unknown miniature collections for a night of casual gaming?"

What is this "casual gaming" of which you speak? I do not make a habit of playing games with unknown opponents. If I am going to play a game with a few friends, one of those friends will host the game, draw up the scenario and (quite often) provide all the toys. All we do is turn up and play. If someone whinges and refuses to play because he "doesn't like the scenario" he is politely shown the door (although I've nver actually known that happen).

"It does sound like you prefer to have a high degree of control over what your players can do though. Definitely not something I'd relish."

I repeat, it's not a case of control. It's a case of putting the players into a historical situation and then letting things run their course from there.

"The fact that I elect to choose points as the basis for drawing up my forces does not compel me in any way to want any such thing."

True, but there are an awful lot of people who are not as clear sighted as you.

"Put that same player into your scenario and see how they react. Anybody crying 'unfair' will do so in a scenario as well."

I don't see why that should be so. Why should he cry "unfair" when I say "you are General Waller in command of a Parliament army. It is Saturday 29 June 1644. You have caught up with the Royalists under Charles I at a place called Cropredy Bridge. A detachment of Royalist cavalry have just moved to sieze the bridge across the river. You have until sunset to prevent the Royalists crossing the river."

"And if those percentages are based on points (or how do you measure "strength"?) then what's the difference."

Percentages are not based on points. Strength is in terms of headcount. I would have thought that was obvious.

"Yet another broad generalization, dad."

Indeed it is, but it is surprising how many people think it is true.

"All the more reason to play those different types of troops in a variety of settings, and not any one scenario, no?"

Er, yeah, but what who said anything about playing only one scenario?

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] Yes, but are they actively asking for people to send them scenarios or are they just taking advantage of the fan boys?

Ah, the old "fan boys" line, eh? They provide hosting and management of the site, they actively sponsor events in which the scenarios are played. I'd call that support. I don't recall whether either have held a "scenario drive" lately, but community contributed material is certainly the basis for a lot of what goes onto Battlefront's web site.

[…] No, I didn't have it all on "day one" but most wargamers are introduced to the hobby by experienced gamers who should have this stiff at their fingertips.

Ah, the proper pedigree to join the old Country Club, eh?

I quite agree about the books that claim to have everything you need and then clearly don't!

Which brings us full circle, then. "Why do point play points based games?" "Because good scenarios are not always provided" is certainly in the list of answers.

I do not understand this vehemence against "having to draw up a scenario".

It's not vehemence against the scenario, it's making your advocating of a complex (researched) scenario plus OOB that as all that is needed that I am objecting to. Much like the publishers not including everything in one book, you're leaving out circumstances that many of us (those not in your Country Club perhaps) don't find ourselves in.

We are agreed that for a game to be interesting some form of scenario is required. Whether that scenario is created using points or not is immaterial. I maintain my position that points are unnecessary to the process of scenario creation and in some cases can be detrimental.

The question wasn't whether they are essential to scenario creation, rather why and when are they useful.

And if you can't get players to agree to play scenario, I suggest you give up and go down the pub for a few drinks!

If you can't break out of the rigidity of requiring an elaborately prepared scenario before playing a game, perhaps getting out of the house might be a good idea!

What is this "casual gaming" of which you speak? I do not make a habit of playing games with unknown opponents.

I explained it. Some of us enjoy meeting new people.

If I am going to play a game with a few friends, one of those friends will host the game, draw up the scenario and (quite often) provide all the toys. All we do is turn up and play. If someone whinges and refuses to play because he "doesn't like the scenario" he is politely shown the door (although I've nver actually known that happen).

Sounds great for those circumstances. Which changes nothing about all the other circumstances in which points can be useful.

I repeat, it's not a case of control. It's a case of putting the players into a historical situation and then letting things run their course from there.

Well, the requirements thus far are:

1. Must have adequate library of research material.
2. Must be one of a small circle of associates.
3. Must be satisfied with playing game parameters totally controlled by others.

While some of us may meet 1 or 2 of those criteria, not all of us meet all three (nor would want to). That leaves us with situations where using points is useful.

True, but there are an awful lot of people who are not as clear sighted as you.

Then we are truly doomed! :)

Mike, in my experience, most gamers are at least as flexible as I am. Yes, sometimes we just want a quick game, so throwing together two lists in a hurry works. But we've also perfectly capable of understanding the underpinnings of history, even if we don't feel completely constrained by them.

I don't see why that should be so. Why should he cry "unfair" when I say "you are General Waller in command of a Parliament army. It is Saturday 29 June 1644. You have caught up with the Royalists under Charles I at a place called Cropredy Bridge. A detachment of Royalist cavalry have just moved to sieze the bridge across the river. You have until sunset to prevent the Royalists crossing the river."

And you don't find that just a bit controlling?

Percentages are not based on points. Strength is in terms of headcount. I would have thought that was obvious.

What is headcount if not points? What about weaponry and mobility? Armor and range? If you're citing one side or the other as outnumbered or outclassed, you're basing it on something. You may not call it points, but in effect, it's the same thing.

Indeed it is, but it is surprising how many people think it is true.

You certainly seem to!

Er, yeah, but what who said anything about playing only one scenario?

If you're playing purely historical match-ups on purely historical battlefields as you've described, you're limiting the ability to substitute things like infantry for armor, cavalry or other interesting variations on the same basic setup.

- Bob

"What is this "casual gaming" of which you speak? I do not make a habit of playing games with unknown opponents."

Wow… This explains a *lot* of the argument that is going on here, and the reason people see things differently.

* If I undertand correclty, you mostly play within a small tight group of friends that meet regularly. You know each other, the rules and the troop involved well.

* I (and most points-users) play in many different people. The local club, the local stores, with various friends and acquaintances and at tournaments vs total strangers all over the land.

Since we are playing in totaly different circumstances, is is surpricing that we use different tools for our gaming?

I realise that you feel that out way of doing it is somehow "inferior" and that we are limiting the challenges we face. But how are you limiting your self? Always playing vs the same people using each others miniatures. Compare that to visiting a neighbouring town and playing 6 people in a 2 day tournament on new terrain, vs armies you have never encountered before and vs players you have never met before. Talk about challenging your tactical skills!

Also, this is where some of the fun with points systems come in – it is quite fun to spend time before the tournament and try to deign "the perfec list" that can handle all possible missions and opponents. Quite hopeless of course, but good fun!

I start with: What models and figures do I have? (What good is a scenario if you don't have the right stuff?)

Then, what period/front can I use those on?

Then, what would be a reasonably balanced set of opposing forces? (Sure I'd like to use my Pz 38(t)s but not against T34s!)

And/or what kind of devilishly clever scenario can I devise that would even the odds, more or less?

Sometimes it works.

"It's not vehemence against the scenario, it's making your advocating of a complex (researched) scenario plus OOB that as all that is needed that I am objecting to."

I am NOT advocating COMPLEX scenarios!! Far from it. The best scenarios are the simple ones based on a historical conflict.

"The question wasn't whether they are essential to scenario creation, rather why and when are they useful."

Since I have tried to show that points systems are not needed for scenario creation, ergo they are not useful. (QED?)

"I explained it. Some of us enjoy meeting new people."

There are quite often new people I don't know involved in the games I play.

"Which changes nothing about all the other circumstances in which points can be useful."

Such as ?

"1. Must have adequate library of research material."

Well you only need as few good books, not a whole library, but OK.

"2. Must be one of a small circle of associates."

No. See my point about new people above.

"3. Must be satisfied with playing game parameters totally controlled by others."

This week you play my scenario. Next week we'll play yours and then you can have the control you want!!

"Mike, in my experience, most gamers are at least as flexible as I am."

Yes, I would agree most gamers I know are very flexible. They'll play virtually any game in the wargaming spectrum and be happy doing so.

"Yes, sometimes we just want a quick game, so throwing together two lists in a hurry works."

As I have said, it only takes about 10 minutes to put together a scenario for an evening's gaming.

"And you don't find that just a bit controlling?"

No… in what way is it controlling? You are faced with the same situation that Waller faced on 29 June 1644. Now see if you can do better than him. Where's the control?

"What is headcount if not points? "

Umm … headcount would be the same as points if every man was worth the same regardless of weapons, armour, horse etc. etc. Show me a set of rules with a points system like that!

"What about weaponry and mobility? Armor and range? If you're citing one side or the other as outnumbered or outclassed, you're basing it on something. You may not call it points, but in effect, it's the same thing."

You are only allowed a certain percentage of troops with particular weapons and armour so they are taken into account in that way.

I am struggling here. I make simple statements that you seem to fail to understand. Why?

"You certainly seem to!"

Whenever this subject comes up on TMP it is along the lines of "points systems allow me to play a quick pick-up game with any Tom Dick or Harry who turns up" – with equal points.

"f you're playing purely historical match-ups on purely historical battlefields as you've described, you're limiting the ability to substitute things like infantry for armor, cavalry or other interesting variations on the same basic setup."

Sorry, that makes no sense. Why would I want to substitute infantry for armour? That would create a completely different scenario that was not based in reality and therefore totally hypothetical and probably not within the bounds of historical possibility for that army in that period.

"* If I undertand correclty, you mostly play within a small tight group of friends that meet regularly. You know each other, the rules and the troop involved well."

No, I do not mostly play within a small tight group of friends that meet regularly. The group I normally play with has about 100 members and we meet only a few times a year. I certainly don't know everybody and usually the rules are known to only one or two people in a given gaming session.

"I realise that you feel that out way of doing it is somehow "inferior" and that we are limiting the challenges we face."

I have never said it was inferior. I have only said that (IMHO) points are unnecessary. A comment which no one has yet denied.

"But how are you limiting your self? Always playing vs the same people using each others miniatures. Compare that to visiting a neighbouring town and playing 6 people in a 2 day tournament on new terrain, vs armies you have never encountered before and vs players you have never met before. Talk about challenging your tactical skills!"

In a typical wargaming meet with the group of which I am a member, I will play anything up to a dozen games over a weekend with any number of players from the 50 or so people attending the event. Those games will span the whole of history from ancients through to science fiction (and yes, we have even been known to play fantasy!). The games will often be based on historical subjects of which I know virtually nothing, the terrain will be unique to that game and my tactical skills will be well and truly challenged!

"Also, this is where some of the fun with points systems come in – it is quite fun to spend time before the tournament and try to deign "the perfec list" that can handle all possible missions and opponents. Quite hopeless of course, but good fun!"

I agree it is hopeless. There is no such thing as a "perfect list". How then can it possibly be fun?

It all boils down to horses for courses.

I have no use for points as the scenarios I play are all tacticaly complex, using tactically challenging terrain. In MG you need to fight very 3D and mashal your forces in tiame and space. They demand a high level of tactical understanding and are desighned to give both sides a hedache (thisnk "chess match". Points are of no use as you need to buils a force with specific assets artillert engineering etc prior to the game. Deciding a force by points on the nioght takes too long.

However on a plain table with a begginer even a limited points value would allow him to have some flexibility on a first game which of its nature would not invove brain bending tactical solutions. Boring in the extreem but a great way to get them hood on the brain teasers. The mission success parameters may well be in the time domain and not accounted for in physical losses. Infact there may well be an expectation of say high losses to gain in the time domain. Equaly the reverse could be true.

Were there a mythical points sytem that could quickley rate complex terrain and then produce a points sytem based on the terrain I would use it. However I have yet to find one.

Main thing is have fun however you play!

Ther may even be a continental divide. Many UK players play most weeks with folk familiar in detail with the tactical naiceties of the period and a sufficiently familair with the rules that they are only in the background:all the thinking is tactical. It seems from what I see here many US platers only play ocationally, often with strangers . In this case the complexity of the game must be reduced dramaically and so points may well work as you could not afford to have tactically complex terrain with equaly complexe success parameters, far to hard for the begginer.

"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.

It is for me. I happily subscribe to GW's ethos of gaming – an excuse to get some friends together and move our painted toys across the board, making silly noises as we go. .

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

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

If we're playing a scenario for which I don't have the forces, I either need to use proxy models or use someone else's toys, no?

"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!

Not every mini. I hate painting 15mm or smaller infantry.

Besides, why will they be

toy soldiers you don't want

?

I don't want any more 15mm British 8th Army infantry – 60 of the little blighters is plenty for my FoW army. I'd rather paint more tanks, they're easier to do.

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] I am NOT advocating COMPLEX scenarios!! Far from it. The best scenarios are the simple ones based on a historical conflict.

If it's not a simple slap-dash "this feels right based on my years of experience", then either it's been researched (meets your requirement for historical) and tested (yes, you can actually reach that objective on the far side of the table given the time alloted) OR you're tossing something together and hoping it's not a waste of time. That is what you've described, isn't it? This is certainly complexity compared to a generic scenario (Defend the Bridge) which can be played by any variety of forces.

Since I have tried to show that points systems are not needed for scenario creation, ergo they are not useful. (QED?)

The discussion isn't about scenario design. It's about the utility of points systems. A hammer isn't much use for painting, but that doesn't make it useless. It's a tool for a different task.

[…] There are quite often new people I don't know involved in the games I play.

When you wrote "I do not make a habit of playing games with unknown opponents", it certainly didn't come across that way.

Such as ?

(Again) Playing without a pre-defined scenario. Your notebook of scenarios was lost. You want to try a force out under a variety of tactical situations. You don't have enough familiarity with the rules to come up with an enjoyable scenario. Use some imagination.

Well you only need as few good books, not a whole library, but OK.

You also need to determine which books. Not always trivial. Then there are the raging debates over whether those books are even correct.

No. See my point about new people above.

Which one? There are two.

This week you play my scenario. Next week we'll play yours and then you can have the control you want!!

Perfectly fair in terms of handing off control. But again, it sounds a bit confining. What if we wrap up early? Play yours again this week? What if different people are coming each week? I've got nothing against playing other peoples' scenarios, but I like to have flexibility too.

Yes, I would agree most gamers I know are very flexible. They'll play virtually any game in the wargaming spectrum and be happy doing so.

Surely point-based games are simply another portion of that spectrum?

As I have said, it only takes about 10 minutes to put together a scenario for an evening's gaming.

10 minutes for you now, perhaps. Not on day one. It takes about the same amount of time to agree on a points value (impacting game length), draw up their lists and roll for a scenario. You're up and running in the same time, but rather than using fixed OOB and map, it's variable. That is where points are useful. What happens to those lists in-game depends on the scenario you draw.

No… in what way is it controlling? You are faced with the same situation that Waller faced on 29 June 1644. Now see if you can do better than him. Where's the control?

You have placed the players in a situation that you find interesting. If they do too, grand. Of course, Waller didn't know the details of the pending battle beforehand, nor the absolute disposition of his opponent's forces, or the timing of their arrival. I think uncertainty is as much of the game as anything.

Umm … headcount would be the same as points if every man was worth the same regardless of weapons, armour, horse etc. etc. Show me a set of rules with a points system like that!

Most aren't. That's why I was asking about your assertion that "… Percentages are not based on points. Strength is in terms of headcount. I would have thought that was obvious." So now you're saying strength is not based on headcount? What is it based on then? Some calculated value? Some sort of means of quantifying strength? Something almost, but not completely totally unlike points perhaps?

You are only allowed a certain percentage of troops with particular weapons and armour so they are taken into account in that way.

Ah, so it's not "points" but "percentage" of the force then? Presumably you can scale the size of the battle up and down then, adjusting the headcount (or whatever you're calling it now)? How is that fundamentally different than setting a points value?

I am struggling here. I make simple statements that you seem to fail to understand. Why?

Because you're inserting them in context that doesn't make sense. This discussion is about "why points", not "the necessity of employing points in scenario design".

Whenever this subject comes up on TMP it is along the lines of "points systems allow me to play a quick pick-up game with any Tom Dick or Harry who turns up" – with equal points.

They can do that, yes. Or the points values can be used to set the maximum size of each side independently. It's that whole math thing. It can be applied to many different situations.

Sorry, that makes no sense. Why would I want to substitute infantry for armour?

To reflect handling different tactical situations with the tools at hand.

That would create a completely different scenario that was not based in reality and therefore totally hypothetical and probably not within the bounds of historical possibility for that army in that period.

A broad generalization again. But for a few quirks of timing, different forces might well have met than occurred in history. Shifting the lines a few hundred yards might make a considerable difference. Allocating units to the line differently as well. Not everything that is of interest militarily has already happened in history. I personally find the Soviet-US match-up of the cold war interesting. But alas, no actual battles occurred. Are you suggesting it not be played? Weather does (or does not) affect my (air, artillery, movement) differently than happened on a specific date. Don't play that! Didn't happen that way!

Mike, you seem to be jumping around between describing the ability to slap together a scenario in a few minutes, and playing only scenarios based on historical maps, events and OOB. Are those 100 player events you described held using scenarios that are put together after everyone arrives?

- Bob

I've started on the points side, but now I do both. Me and my gaming buddies pick out out list to a certain limit and from that we derive a scenario for objecteves. Ferthermore, in no place does it state that point based games have to be of equal points!

"If we're playing a scenario for which I don't have the forces, I either need to use proxy models or use someone else's toys, no?"

No. The way we do it is that the host supplies all the toys.

"If we're playing a scenario for which I don't have the forces, I either need to use proxy models or use someone else's toys, no?"

No. The way we do it is that the host supplies all the toys."

I have wondered at how some come about what to use in thier games. I myself just don't concentrate on one particular military. Over the years I have bought quite a bit of all parties involved in the war so as to be able to have opponents on both sides if needed. German,Japanese,Soviet,US,UK,Italian,Ect. So for me I can provied both sides to a battle. What do others here do in thier gaming? What do you usually bring? Or do you rely on the person running the game to provide what is needed? Also am I correct that some, who play FOW for example, tend to "Build" their forces concentrating on one particular military force using a point system? Robert

Kaoschallenged wrote:

[…] So for me I can provied both sides to a battle. What do others here do in thier gaming?

It really depends on the game and how many others are playing it. Locally, there's a small group getting into Cold War Commander (CWC). Given the variety of possible forces, we've generally agreed that it would be best if each player bought models for both sides. At 6mm scale, this isn't such a big deal, so I'm hoping (eventually) to have my "Berlin 85" incident Soviet and US forces assembled. A buddy is interested in DBA, so he's put together his preferred fluffy Renaissance opponents, and I've put together a manly Dark Ages pairing.

If there are more players, and particularly, players wanting to represent a variety of nationalities, then we each focus on our own. I've gone heavily into the Soviet stuff for FoW, for example. With a new group starting closer to home, I've built smaller collections of British and German stuff, but nowhere near the same scale.

What do you usually bring?

Everything, though I leave most of it in the car since it takes up a LOT of space. Once we've decided what we're doing, I'll move the appropriate bags in.

Or do you rely on the person running the game to provide what is needed?

Rarely. And with mixed results as of late. I'm not opposed to the idea, but it's definitely not something I'd want to do every game.

Also am I correct that some, who play FOW for example, tend to "Build" their forces concentrating on one particular military force using a point system?

I focus on building the force that I want based on history, but I'll get started by buying miniatures that will let me field a certain size game (point value). So for FoW, while I can field almost every variant of Soviet list at strength, I started assembling my Germans as a StuG Batterie of 1,000 points. The next purchase brought me to 1,500. Now I'm simply expanding my options and buying support to suit my fancy. Of course, throughout, I've used those same miniatures to play a variety of game sizes and scenarios.

Battlefront does sell FoW box sets that equate to a typical game size for several different unit types, so that is a common starting point for a lot of players.

I've seen players do the usual "buy the cool stuff first" approach, but they tend to get out of that pretty quickly after a few games.

Lately, I'm having this inexplicable urge to start collecting every variant of Sherman-based armor forces possible, from Poles to Free French to the usual US, British and Russian suspects. I like the idea of fielding the same equipment with different characteristics.

For any given game, I'll pick what strikes my fancy after we've agreed on the size of game (usually dependent on number of players present). If my friend's young son wants to fight tanks with his Tigers, I'll roll out a T-34 horde. If we've got several players, I may have two lists to let the new guy play. Otherwise, I'll generally stick to my infantry. Even then, I've got a good dozen variants that I can field, depending on my mood.

I prefer the uncertainty of not knowing exactly what I'll be facing or what scenario we'll be playing until just before the game starts. That strikes me as more approximate to the actual experience of a commander rather than reading up the full history of the event in advance.

- Bob

" That is what you've described, isn't it? "

No. (Why are we having so many misunderstandings here?)
What do you need in a scenario?
OOBs for the opposing forces.
A map showing the initial deployment
Objectives for each player.

Given a basic understanding of the relative proportions of the different troop types in a given army, OOBs are easy and points are not required.
A map is easy if the game is based on a historical battle. If it's a fictional scenario then a map is easily generated in a random fashion.
Objectives can be as simple or as complex as you want, from "Defend the bridge" on up.

"Playing without a pre-defined scenario. Your notebook of scenarios was lost."

I would not play without a scenario. Indeed I don't think it is possible to play a wargame without a scenario!
Losing the notebook – that would be a bit like losing the rulebook!

"You want to try a force out under a variety of tactical situations."

Don't understand this one. Why would you want to do that? Why not just play a few games with different scenarios?

"You don't have enough familiarity with the rules to come up with an enjoyable scenario."

Creating scenarios should not require familiarity with a set of rules. If the rules don't work with a scenario based on a historical battle from the period then there is something seriously wrong with the rules!

"What if we wrap up early?"

A game that doesn't come to a sensible conclusion within the time available is too complex to be played in that time frame. Next game, allow more time, plan for a double session maybe?

"It takes about the same amount of time to agree on a points value (impacting game length), draw up their lists and roll for a scenario. You're up and running in the same time, but rather than using fixed OOB and map, it's variable. That is where points are useful. "

I would maintain that I (even on day one) could draw up a couple of OOBs faster than you could work out the points. All I need to know is the relative proportions of the different troop types. Sometimes not even that. Take Napoleonics for example. Let's have three infantry divisions and a cavalry division as an attacking force. The defenders will be a couple of infantry divisions with some attached artillery from corps reserve. Simple isn't it? Who needs points? What's that? You haven't found your calculator yet?

"You have placed the players in a situation that you find interesting. If they do too, grand."

??? Don't you think it is an interesting situation?

"I think uncertainty is as much of the game as anything."

Absolutely, but for that you need to have hidden units, blinds or a back-to-back game system. But that's another thread.

"So now you're saying strength is not based on headcount? What is it based on then? Some calculated value? Some sort of means of quantifying strength? Something almost, but not completely totally unlike points perhaps?"

You are getting confused. The strength of a unit is the number of men in it i.e. headcount.

"How is that fundamentally different than setting a points value?"

A points value says that a cavalryman is worth x times the worth of an infantryman. This of course is patently untrue. The proportions by headcount provide the historical percentages for each troop type.

"Because you're inserting them in context that doesn't make sense."

You seemed to get very confused over whether "strength" and headcount" are the same thing…

"This discussion is about "why points", not "the necessity of employing points in scenario design"."

Why points? The answer always seems to be so that you can set up pickup-games quickly. But surely that is no more and no less than scenario design.

"Or the points values can be used to set the maximum size of each side independently. It's that whole math thing. It can be applied to many different situations."

I've never seen points used to just set the MAXIMUM size.

"To reflect handling different tactical situations with the tools at hand."

Sorry, that sentence still makes no sense.

"But for a few quirks of timing, different forces might well have met than occurred in history. Shifting the lines a few hundred yards might make a considerable difference. Allocating units to the line differently as well. "

Yeah, but those would come out in the playing of the game not in the definition of the scenario.

"I personally find the Soviet-US match-up of the cold war interesting. But alas, no actual battles occurred. Are you suggesting it not be played?"

Of course not! But then you will have to find an analogue for your scenario generation system from somewhere. I have played games in the hypothetical Soviet invasion of Germany c1983. I used the forces in "Team Yankee" for that. Produced some great games.

"Are those 100 player events you described held using scenarios that are put together after everyone arrives?"

Not 100 players in the same game! The events usually have about 50 people attending and at any one time there may be half a dozen or more different games under way. Some will have scenarios put together "on the spot", others will have more carefully planned ones. Matters not.

"I prefer the uncertainty of knowing exactly what I'll be facing or what scenario we'll be playing until just before the game starts. That strikes me as more approximate to the actual experience of a commander rather than reading up the full history of the event in advance."

Agreed! Which is why the "host provides all the toys and sets up the scenario" is the simplest approach. Turn up for a game with just your lucky dice and see what happens! Not knowing what you're playing until the game starts is part of the fun!

is there any huge difference between saying:

'attacker gets 2000 pts and the defender 700 pts'

and

'attacker has a division and defender has a brigade'?

No, not much difference. But an awful lot of people would say "hey, how can I possibly win if I'm outnumbered 3:1?"

there used to be (still is I guess) a fabulous set of WW2 rules that prescribed such points margins for attacker defender games & allowed/required certain amounts to be spent on fortifications & other prepared defences, artillery prep's etc………..sadly it was too complicated for the masses.

another reason why ppl like "points" games is that htey can play them with a minimal number of troops/investment – if you have 1000 pts then you can play any game up to 1000 points – if you are selecting forces from a "scenario library" then what happens if the scenario requires troops you don't have in your limited collection?

I guess you keep choosing scenarios untl you have one that fits…now repeat this for both sides……why not jsut play a 1000 point game if you both have 1000 points?

"If we're playing a scenario for which I don't have the forces, I either need to use proxy models or use someone else's toys, no?"

No. The way we do it is that the host supplies all the toys.

Which means, if I'm not the host, I use someone else's toys. QED.

Thanks for your response bobstro. I try to be able to field both sides as much as possible. Since I have converted to 3mm-1/600 from 6mm-1/285-1/300 for all my land, air and naval gaming space will not be a problem LOL. :) Robert

Not knowing what you're playing until the game starts is part of the fun!

not everyone has the same sense of fun – hence, to get back to the original post, why people play different kinds of games.

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] No. (Why are we having so many misunderstandings here?)

Partly because you are inserting scenario design into a discussion of when points are useful.

What do you need in a scenario?
OOBs for the opposing forces.

You need opposing forces, yes. You seem to be insisting that they must be determined ahead of time, or be tied to a specific historical circumstance. I do not agree with that.

A map showing the initial deployment

Or a simple description of the battlefield, unless we're out to provide an inch-by-inch battlefield recreation.

Objectives for each player.

Which can be fixed by scenario, OR be randomly generated. It's the tactical situation that I am interested in, not whether it's in Britain or Kiev.

Given a basic understanding of the relative proportions of the different troop types in a given army, OOBs are easy and points are not required.

No, not required. Useful as a means of scaling a game however.

A map is easy if the game is based on a historical battle. If it's a fictional scenario then a map is easily generated in a random fashion.
Objectives can be as simple or as complex as you want, from "Defend the bridge" on up.

And the forces facing off can be equally as flexible.

I would not play without a scenario. Indeed I don't think it is possible to play a wargame without a scenario!

Of course not. But you've been defining scenario thus far as being a specific combination of map and specific OOBs. Thus my designation of "complex" to describe that sort. The term also includes the more descriptive sort that can be applied to a game of any opposing forces, regardless of OOB.

Losing the notebook – that would be a bit like losing the rulebook!

As I said, complex.

Don't understand this one. Why would you want to do that?

Why would I not want to try it? My elite armored guys failed, maybe regular infantry would have been more suited. That whole "what if" thing. It gets back to your question of what a unit is worth depending on circumstance.

Why not just play a few games with different scenarios?

If you are referring to using different opposing forces on the same map with the same objectives, then we are talking about the same thing.

Creating scenarios should not require familiarity with a set of rules. If the rules don't work with a scenario based on a historical battle from the period then there is something seriously wrong with the rules!

Except in cases of game mechanics such as movement. It does help if objectives can actually be reached. That tends to tie into movement rates and such.

A game that doesn't come to a sensible conclusion within the time available is too complex to be played in that time frame. Next game, allow more time, plan for a double session maybe?

I wrote early. As in: "We unexpectedly have time for a 2nd game."

I would maintain that I (even on day one) could draw up a couple of OOBs faster than you could work out the points.

They are largely the same thing (which is the point of all this), so that is hardly a surprise. Of course, I can use that same OOB for several different scenarios… but you seem to think each requires a specific OOB.

All I need to know is the relative proportions of the different troop types. Sometimes not even that. Take Napoleonics for example. Let's have three infantry divisions and a cavalry division as an attacking force. The defenders will be a couple of infantry divisions with some attached artillery from corps reserve. Simple isn't it?

Of course it's simple. But you used some measure to determine how many divisions to use. Presumably, you know that X divisions on each side can be used for a game of a certain duration. Points do the same. Simple, isn't it?

Who needs points? What's that? You haven't found your calculator yet?

Ah, no sense of superiority there! If you find adding difficult, you can certainly use a calculator. It's no more arcane a skill than the knowledge of Napoleonic military organization that seems to be requisite to draw up your scenarios! I've got several OOB in my head that hit specific point levels, much as you've memorized some for specific sizes of games. There's no difference, really. Which is the entire point.

Don't you think it is an interesting situation?

It being what exactly? I thing some complex scenarios can be, absolutely. But hardly the only interesting situations.

Absolutely, but for that you need to have hidden units, blinds or a back-to-back game system. But that's another thread.

Uncertainty is uncertainty. Those elements add more mid-game, but that only underscores the desirability of having it to start with.

[…] You seemed to get very confused over whether "strength" and headcount" are the same thing…

You did write "Percentages are not based on points. Strength is in terms of headcount. I would have thought that was obvious." as well as "… Umm … headcount would be the same as points if every man was worth the same regardless of weapons, armour, horse etc. etc." So what exactly is this 'worth' if not points? A point system can (obviously) still be used with percentages and constraints on list composition. I see that in even GW games. The points provide, among other things, a means to scale the game.

[…] Why points? The answer always seems to be so that you can set up pickup-games quickly. But surely that is no more and no less than scenario design.

That is one of several answers that have been cited here. And as you just wrote, no more and no less than scenario design. So why your insistence that it's less?

[…] I've never seen points used to just set the MAXIMUM size.

That's normally where I see them applied. Each side builds to a maximum point size, staying within the confines of 'typical' OOB ideally. You could just as easily start with a full paper strength OOB and say that the unit is "20% under strength" if you don't like to use points, but the result is the same. You want the GM to decide what that 20% is, and I prefer to let the player decide.

Sorry, that sentence still makes no sense.

So putting different types of units in the same basic tactical situation makes no sense?

Yeah, but those would come out in the playing of the game not in the definition of the scenario.

Only if the game consists of the entire battle. Not every game represents that scale.

Of course not! But then you will have to find an analogue for your scenario generation system from somewhere. I have played games in the hypothetical Soviet invasion of Germany c1983. I used the forces in "Team Yankee" for that. Produced some great games.

So thus not tied so directly to historical detail as you suggested earlier. What is the net difference if the GM selects the composition of forces or the player, other than where the control lies?

Not 100 players in the same game! The events usually have about 50 people attending and at any one time there may be half a dozen or more different games under way. Some will have scenarios put together "on the spot", others will have more carefully planned ones. Matters not.

Our game nights very between two and eight players typically. There are conventions or formal events where we might have 12-16, and those will break up into one-on-one games (tourneys) or multi-players on each side. Knowing exactly who will show with what collection of miniatures ahead of time is difficult. If attendance is expected to be thin, I'll bring along my other stuff, or be prepared to use someone else's stuff if we're sticking to a historical match-up.

Agreed! Which is why the "host provides all the toys and sets up the scenario" is the simplest approach. Turn up for a game with just your lucky dice and see what happens! Not knowing what you're playing until the game starts is part of the fun!

Not exactly a surprise to the host now, is it? Or is a 3rd party GM requisite for "proper" games? ("Who's our GM? Ah great. Probably Cropredy Bridge again.")

Your approach seems to presuppose an all-knowing GM to shepherd the flock through the game. While there's no reason a GM can't be an inexperienced player, the blind leading the blind doesn't usually result in the best games, IMO. I'd much rather grope about on my own, thank you very much. Some of my best games have resulted from unexpected pairings in unpredictable circumstances. GM-led games can be fun, but they're not the only game in town… literally. Most games I play are with guys who are playing as peers, not two players being led about by someone.

- Bob

Every time I go to the supermarket there is some stupid points system imposed on my food gathering. How come cabbage is fewer points than bratwurst? How did the designers come up with their stupid numbers. Cabbage is far more useful than caviar, and yet it costs less. Obviously no one ever tested this point system. And no one points system can really take into consideration the advantages of items in various situations. Ice cream is totally ineffective in winter, and a must have in summer. But the points system just doesnt take this into account. It would be far better to have someone design a healthy balanced meal -- it really isnt that hard!

And I saw a platypus a few months ago. They are actually rather common.

That's a well-stocked supermarket! So how much was the platypus? :)

- Bob

Bob,
You really might as well stop. You are dealing with an guy who is so biased towards his own way of gaming that he simply can not acknowledge that someone else can do something differently ….. but you did have a lot of good points.

Brett

so if someone doesn't agree with opint he is an ?

I tend to side with Mike over Bob, but I do not call Bob an . I think he has some wrong ideas about scenario design, but I can see from where they come.

I still strongly dispute that points are necessary. They are a tool, often broken, but a tool. But in the end even with points you play a fixed scenario; and again I can create a small decent scenario in 10 minutes while I have to spend much more time in crafting a single point list.

Also I think the majority of point systems are so broken because they are overambitious that they produce stale and non-fun scenarios. What I strongly challenge Is the idea that point by themselves are "necessary" to produce a satisfying gaming experience. They are not in my view and also are not part of a philosophy of play (maybe of a philosophy of sales…).

Points are just a way to set up a programmed scenario, but not something different in themselves so I do not understand why they are necessary (useful maybe, necessary no way).

Now a question… why a point based game is inherently more balanced than a scenario in the view of point supporter?

@Arrigo

No it has nothing to do with disagreeing with someone. Please reread the entire thread. No one is saying that points are necessary. People are answering the original question as to why people care about points.

Many reasons have been given for this. It isn't a question of necessary or better just one of preference and understanding. Mike Snorbens is (in my opinion) purposefully obfuscating the issue.

"You need opposing forces, yes. You seem to be insisting that they must be determined ahead of time, or be tied to a specific historical circumstance. I do not agree with that."

But isn't that what you do witrh points – plan your 1000pt army ahead of time?

"Or a simple description of the battlefield, unless we're out to provide an inch-by-inch battlefield recreation."

Yep, simple description, fine. Perhaps I shoudl have said "sketch map"?

"No, [points] not required. Useful as a means of scaling a game however."

Hah! You admit it, sir! Don't know what you mean by "scaling" though.

"But you've been defining scenario thus far as being a specific combination of map and specific OOBs. Thus my designation of "complex" to describe that sort."

But that is what a scenario consists of, doesn't it?

"The term also includes the more descriptive sort that can be applied to a game of any opposing forces, regardless of OOB."

Any opposing forces? So you have a (sketch map) and (possibly) some objectives and an undefined pair of opposing forces? How odd. How do I know what troops to bring? I know, you're going to say, "1000pts worth". Tada! That's why you need points! Er … no you don't. Just set maximum numbers for each troop type and it comes to the same thing. Without points.

You seem to feel there is this basic need for a wargamer to have FLEXIBILITY in his force selection. Why? Very few (if any) generals had that kind of flexibility so why should we?

Creating scenarios should not require familiarity with a set of rules. If the rules don't work with a scenario based on a historical battle from the period then there is something seriously wrong with the rules!

"Except in cases of game mechanics such as movement. It does help if objectives can actually be reached. That tends to tie into movement rates and such."

If a given scenario doesn't allow objectives to be reached in the time available, then the scenario os broken, whether you used points to set up the forces or not. Your point is thus irrelevant.

"I wrote early. As in: "We unexpectedly have time for a 2nd game.""

Sorry, my mistake. But that's even better – if that happens then you can easily play a scenario both ways!!

"I can use that same OOB for several different scenarios… but you seem to think each requires a specific OOB."

Not quite. A scenario based on a specfic historical battle will have ONE set of OOBs. Of course, you could use the same OOBs on a different map, but then it would be a hypothetical scenario.

You are confusing the method I use to create scenarios (from a historical battle) with a sort of "mix & match" idea. Nothing wrong with that, but not what I was talking about.

"Of course it's simple. But you used some measure to determine how many divisions to use. Presumably, you know that X divisions on each side can be used for a game of a certain duration."

No, I just wanted a game where each player was commanding a corps (or thereabouts). Nothing to do with duration at all.

"Points do the same. Simple, isn't it?"

Actually, no, points do NOT do the same. My starting point is "I want the player to command a corps". Your starting point is "I want the player to have an army of 1000pts".

Unless you know that 1000pts gives you a corps, then they are different. Actually, 1000pts will probably give you a bit more or a bit less than a corps, so you end up having to fiddle around with the points to get the total as close to 1000 as you can. Frankly, why bother?

"If you find adding difficult, you can certainly use a calculator. It's no more arcane a skill than the knowledge of Napoleonic military organization that seems to be requisite to draw up your scenarios!"

You mean you don't have that knowledge of Napoleonic military organization? Why are you playing Napoleonic wargames then?

"You did write "Percentages are not based on points. Strength is in terms of headcount. I would have thought that was obvious." as well as "… Umm … headcount would be the same as points if every man was worth the same regardless of weapons, armour, horse etc. etc." So what exactly is this 'worth' if not points?"

My, you ARE confused. I'll try and spell it out for you. Lets keep it nice and simple. I have a SYW army consisting of 10,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry. 1 figure is 100 men, so the army consists of 100 infantry figures and 30 cavalry figures. Now let's have a simple points system where an infantry figuue is worth 1pt and a cavalry figure is worth 2pts. Total points would be 100+60=160. OK so far?

Now I would say "Percentages are not based on points. Strength is in terms of headcount." OK, the headcount is 10,000 infantry and 30,000 cavalry. So the cavalry are ~23% of the force. Again for the sake of argument let's say that the percentage of cavalry can be in the range 20-25%. Still with me?

Now, I also said "headcount would be the same as points if every man was worth the same regardless of weapons, armour, horse etc. etc.". Let's look at it that way. Now both infantry and cavalry are worth 1pt. So the total points value is 130. The percentage (in points) of cavalry is STILL ~23%

See? My two statements mean the same thing.

"The points provide, among other things, a means to scale the game."

Scaling again. Not sure what you mean by it.

"That is one of several answers that have been cited here. And as you just wrote, no more and no less than scenario design. So why your insistence that it's less?"

Still confused aren't you? If I said "no more and no less", why do you think I am insisting on less?

"You could just as easily start with a full paper strength OOB and say that the unit is "20% under strength" if you don't like to use points, but the result is the same. You want the GM to decide what that 20% is, and I prefer to let the player decide."

I think this is where we diverge. I can see no reason why the player should decide which troops to leave at home today. I have seen some games where you roll dice for each unit to see if they turn up or are under strength, but that is not the player deciding.

I don't think it right that the player shoudl decide on the make up of his force because a real commander could not do so. You seem to disagree. I don't know why.

"So putting different types of units in the same basic tactical situation makes no sense?"

Historical armies didn't actually vary as much in their composition as much as you imply by that comment.

You said: "But for a few quirks of timing, different forces might well have met than occurred in history. Shifting the lines a few hundred yards might make a considerable difference. Allocating units to the line differently as well."

I replied: Yeah, but those would come out in the playing of the game not in the definition of the scenario.

"Only if the game consists of the entire battle. Not every game represents that scale."

So if I only have one wing of the battle, I can't deploy differently?

"Knowing exactly who will show with what collection of miniatures ahead of time is difficult."

Agreed! Which is why the "host provides all the toys and sets up the scenario" is the simplest approach.

"Not exactly a surprise to the host now, is it? Or is a 3rd party GM requisite for "proper" games?"

A different person hosts the game each time. No, a 3rd party GM is not a requisite.

"Your approach seems to presuppose an all-knowing GM to shepherd the flock through the game."

No. An all-knowing GM is not needed. Just someone who provides all the gubbins we need to play the game.

"the blind leading the blind doesn't usually result in the best games, IMO."

Agreed! Which is why the host is usually someone who has researched the period.

"Most games I play are with guys who are playing as peers, not two players being led about by someone."

Same here, although in my case it's usually more than two players.

Arrigo wrote:

so if someone doesn't agree with opint he is an ?

No, I do not think so!

I tend to side with Mike over Bob, but I do not call Bob an . I think he has some wrong ideas about scenario design, but I can see from where they come.

Fair enough. It's a two way dialog, not a lecture!

I still strongly dispute that points are necessary.

And with this, I agree! But they have their use, so thus my answers to the question in the original post.

They are a tool, often broken, but a tool.

Hey, the paintbrush can't make you a master! :) More importantly, I think, is that they are one of many tools we use. Not every situation calls for the same tools. Some of us simply use some tools more than others. That was the spirit that I took the original question in.

But in the end even with points you play a fixed scenario; and again I can create a small decent scenario in 10 minutes while I have to spend much more time in crafting a single point list.

I'm sure that varies by the rules and complexity of the OOBs created. Again, I don't dispute that someone familiar with the rules can create a decent scenario quickly. My objections to Mike's points have more to do with tying the OOB to the scenario closely at the GM's direction.

Also I think the majority of point systems are so broken because they are overambitious that they produce stale and non-fun scenarios.

I have played un-fun games using scenarios created by either means, definitely! The difference, I think, is that allowing me (the player) some leeway in generating my OOB lets me approach it differently next time. If the fixed OOB approach has me running infantry that can't possibly make it across the board to the objective by the requisite turn, then perhaps I'll try it with cavalry or armor next time.

What I strongly challenge Is the idea that point by themselves are "necessary" to produce a satisfying gaming experience.

I agree 100%. Even Battlefront make a point of saying that points are but one of three options that can be used to put together a game. What I strongly challenge is that points are not useful!

They are not in my view and also are not part of a philosophy of play (maybe of a philosophy of sales…).

I don't see points as any different than setting an upper limit to the game size by any other means. The players ultimately choose how big of a game to play. Personally, I like a 3-4 hour game, so we scale the units played accordingly, and points provide us a (not the only) means of doing so.

Points are just a way to set up a programmed scenario, but not something different in themselves so I do not understand why they are necessary (useful maybe, necessary no way).

I agree 100%! Neither points-based OOB creation, nor fixed OOB tied to scenario are necessary. If not tools, they are certainly ingredients. The food analogy is probably a good one in this regard.

Now a question… why a point based game is inherently more balanced than a scenario in the view of point supporter?

I personally think the 'balance' point is a red herring if taken as 'fair' (as in where everybody gets a chance to win). What points do is allow a maximum size to be set for a game (a consideration for game length), and providing players of building a list (OOB) that will fit within that size (game length). On paper, the results may be 'equivalent' to some degree, but I have not seen a rules creator describing the points system as providing a 'fair' game. Most games, in fact, then proceed to take these equivalent forces and do things to them to make them un-equivalent through requirements to hold units off-table, as reinforcements or through the use of disadvantageous terrain or conditions.

I have also not seen points systems described by the authors as level across all field conditions. They provide a 'paper potential' indication, but no guarantees.

We also need to be clear by exactly what we mean by 'scenario'. I most commonly play 'generic' scenarios where a tactical situation is described, the table laid out accordingly. Each player brings a force to the table based on the parameters agreed to previously ("Let's play 1,500 points late war Eastern Front"). While the resulting game may not represent a specific historical event, it certainly represents tactical situations that were encountered during the conflict we're playing. If I'm understanding him correctly, Mike is insisting that OOBs and scenarios should be closely tied. I certainly think they can be, but I do not agree that they must be.

- Bob

"We also need to be clear by exactly what we mean by 'scenario'. I most commonly play 'generic' scenarios where a tactical situation is described, the table laid out accordingly. Each player brings a force to the table based on the parameters agreed to previously ("Let's play 1,500 points late war Eastern Front")."

Ah, I (finally) see the difficulty… To me, that is not a scenario.

A dictionary definition of "scenario" is:
an outline of the plot of a dramatic work, giving particulars as to the scenes, characters, situations, etc.

Now in my view, that would mean a cast of characters, a list of scenes with descriptions of each and a description of the situation.

Your idea of a scenario sounds rather like turning up with a pool of characters, not all of whom will be used, with no list of scenes or description of the situation (objectives) except in the vaguest terms ("late war", "Eastern Front").

So, to me, "1,500 points late war Eastern Front" is only half a scenario (and a poor half at that).

"While the resulting game may not represent a specific historical event, it certainly represents tactical situations that were encountered during the conflict we're playing."

That will be true if (and only if) the forces used are typical of that specific period and the terrain is typical of that period. Your "scenario" does not specify the terrain so an inexperienced player might set up a table that would be totally innappropriate for the Eastern Front.

"If I'm understanding him correctly, Mike is insisting that OOBs and scenarios should be closely tied. I certainly think they can be, but I do not agree that they must be."

The close association comes from the fact that the OOBs, terrain and objectives are derived from a (single) historical action.

Bob,

while I can disagree with you the initial comment was directed to someone other who evidently has missed the point of the discussion.

My idea is that in the end both you and mike have more base "points" in common that you think :)

but both of you tend to miss some parts of the problem. Points often are viewed as a quick tool to create a scenario (A scenario is a game situation so, if we are playing we all play a scenario). FOW system with different tactical situations and point size is in fact a sort of random scenairo generator. What I say is that is no absolutely necessary and ore often than not points are miselading. Tim cleraly pointed out that points ar enot balanced or absolute. My problem with FoW lists is that they are absurd and that often are counterintuitive (same thing for other games).
Using points you agree that balancing factors of a game have been decided by someone else and not you. Creating a scenario in your gaming group at least you agree to appoint a known person to decree what is balanced or not.
DBM points were crazy IMHO because they pretended to rate everything on the same scale. How you can define a French Knight and a Roman Legionary effectiveness in respect of each other if they have never fought on the same battlefield?

FoW and several point system in use today represent more an hybrid creation between old point based stuff (DBx) and scenario based games. Less widespread the game is more a point system can produce fun results (if it has been created with some intelligence in it).

Still, some products (FOW again :P), push forward the points too much with the introduction of heroes and other funny thing. Also I think that using the same point systems for covering everything from an Ft-17 to an M26 Pershing or a JS is stretching too much. Points for me are more useful for limiting size of stuff placed on the table (to avoid I came to a game with 200 tanks and my opponent with 20…) than to create some form of balance or scaling. Also I do not think you can use as a way to port a scenario to another era\theater beacuse there are too many variables involved.

What I hate, opposed to dislike, is that for someone points become and end in itself. And more than often I have seen points used this way.

About scenarios, a good scenario creator try to have a fun scenario for everyone, but there are people that use scenario designs to pave the way for table victory (their own) but again it is the same for points (and Phil Barker has been often accused to revise the point system to suit his game needs after defeats…)

One last note (very evil)

"Let's play 1,500 points late war Eastern Front"

you realize than then changing the deployment and the available forces as per rules you will end played a "designed" scenario in which the point have only shaped your initial collection (in such case troops brought to the game) instead of shaping the game? (and probably this is one of the reason FoW is more popualr than other plain point systems). muahahahahah

Mike Snorbens wrote:

"You need opposing forces, yes. You seem to be insisting that they must be determined ahead of time, or be tied to a specific historical circumstance. I do not agree with that."

But isn't that what you do witrh points – plan your 1000pt army ahead of time?

With the flexibility of being able to make adjustments based on opponent availability, yes. But that leaves us with your apparent insistence that a GM should draw up the OOB and historical situation… which really doesn't tie into points, making me wonder why you keep bringing it up.

Yep, simple description, fine. Perhaps I shoudl have said "sketch map"?

You said considerably more in your example, but a sketch map is fine. I prefer a description of a tactical situation, but a picture can certainly represent one variation of such. But you also insert fixed OOB into what you are describing as a 'scenario'.

"No, [points] not required. Useful as a means of scaling a game however."

Hah! You admit it, sir! Don't know what you mean by "scaling" though.

Have you missed the repeated points about the topic being "why points" and not the "necessity of using points"? You seem to be arguing that points are not useful, while repeatedly conceding that they are.

But that is what a scenario consists of, doesn't it?

If you mean a fixed OOB for each side in a tactical situation predetermined by a GM, no. A scenario as I'm using it just describes the general challenge (Force A attacking B over open ground) and not the specifics of those forces.

Any opposing forces? So you have a (sketch map) and (possibly) some objectives and an undefined pair of opposing forces? How odd.

Most of the time, we have a set of opposing forces not pre-determined by a GM. The players agree upon what the game parameters are, not some 3rd party unless we're playing that sort of game. Those parameters can include points limits. You have someone else tell you what and how to play exclusively?

How do I know what troops to bring? I know, you're going to say, "1000pts worth". Tada! That's why you need points! Er … no you don't. Just set maximum numbers for each troop type and it comes to the same thing. Without points.

So once again, Mike, you've managed to state that both provide the same end result, while not acknowledging that points do, indeed, have their use! To use your very words: "it comes to the SAME thing." And there you have the answer to the original poster's question.

You seem to feel there is this basic need for a wargamer to have FLEXIBILITY in his force selection. Why? Very few (if any) generals had that kind of flexibility so why should we?

For one thing, if I am playing a unit that saw fluctuations in their (historical) fielded OOB, why not allow the player to adjust accordingly? Unit strength and composition varied from day to day. Why must we limit players only to one specific day to "do it right"? I am not talking about changes once the game has begun, but rather the variations that historical forces saw over the course of the battle or war we are representing. Once the game begins, it is, as you describe, the situation the general found himself in.

If a given scenario doesn't allow objectives to be reached in the time available, then the scenario os broken, whether you used points to set up the forces or not. Your point is thus irrelevant.

You previously suggested that you hadn't seen a broken scenario. Now you agree that they can be broken. Can we then agree that avoiding such mistakes requires some skill on the part of the designer? A simpler, tested scenario that gives the players latitude in the details allows them to play multiple games free from the worries about a broken scenario. If everything is fixed to the scenario, as you've described, and a hastily prepared scenario results in a nonsensical game, your approach requires regeneration of the scenario, including OOB and objectives, does it not? Again, though, you are inserting all of these points about GM, fixed OOB and the like into a discussion of the utility of points, which is irrelevant, agreed. You've already conceded that points have some utility and can often produce the same results.

Sorry, my mistake. But that's even better – if that happens then you can easily play a scenario both ways!!

You can do that regardless of how you arrived at the table. Once again, both approaches are viable. But allowing the player flexibility does not require playing the same scenario. It's one more option.

Not quite. A scenario based on a specfic historical battle will have ONE set of OOBs. Of course, you could use the same OOBs on a different map, but then it would be a hypothetical scenario.

And a scenario -- one representing the tactical situation perhaps -- nonetheless. Yes, exactly. Thus my point that they need not be fixed.

You are confusing the method I use to create scenarios (from a historical battle) with a sort of "mix & match" idea. Nothing wrong with that, but not what I was talking about.

Yes, but that is not what this thread is (was) about. The question was whether or not points have utility. You've now conceded that they have some. Are we in agreement then?

No, I just wanted a game where each player was commanding a corps (or thereabouts). Nothing to do with duration at all.

Do you play games over multiple days then? Surely you scale (you figure it out) the amount of figures fielded to fit the time alloted for the game, don't you?

Actually, no, points do NOT do the same. My starting point is "I want the player to command a corps". Your starting point is "I want the player to have an army of 1000pts".

Actually, working with most points system that I have, the player (not the GM) would elect to play a corps, then choose which options to drop from the paper-strength composition of that corps down to some level representative of the corps on the field. While it's usually looked at as simply adding items, there are typically some core requirements (must include 2 or more…) and limits (may include 1 or 2…) that are followed. One can just as easily look at is as an exercise in subtracting the cost of individual elements from the total points available for a paper-strength unit. So at full-strength, my corps is worth X points, but we're playing at 20% under-strength. The historically-minded players will stick to the realm of reality in determining what to field (or rather, what not to drop). The details will vary by the game, of course.

Unless you know that 1000pts gives you a corps, then they are different.

Which is saying that if you know what the points value of a corps is, they are the same, no?

Actually, 1000pts will probably give you a bit more or a bit less than a corps, so you end up having to fiddle around with the points to get the total as close to 1000 as you can.

The details vary by rules. But yes, you'd stay within those hypothetical 1,000 points and have to make some decisions based on whatever information you have at hand. If you prefer to keep the general's perspective, you can look at it as deciding what of your limited pool of assets to allocate to a specific task. Deciding on "1,000 points" is no more arbitrary than deciding on "a corps".

Frankly, why bother?

Why not bother? The specifics of every unit I am aware of varied over time. Why not be able to represent that unit on any number of engagement dates rather than one arbitrarily selected by a GM?

You mean you don't have that knowledge of Napoleonic military organization? Why are you playing Napoleonic wargames then?

Because we're on a WW2 board, didn't you notice?

My, you ARE confused. I'll try and spell it out for you. Lets keep it nice and simple.

Yes, it would help immeasurably if you would apply some consistency. Thanks.

[…] Now, I also said "headcount would be the same as points if every man was worth the same regardless of weapons, armour, horse etc. etc.".

Which they aren't in any system I am familiar with. I use "strength" in the context of a discussion on points as a measure of potential, quantified as "points". Given that, the rest is just semantics, which I have no interest in dissecting.

Scaling again. Not sure what you mean by it.

Can't help you there.

[…] If I said "no more and no less", why do you think I am insisting on less?

Because you keep saying they have no value.

I think this is where we diverge. I can see no reason why the player should decide which troops to leave at home today.

Sounds like a personal choice then. Points remain useful for those that think differently.

I have seen some games where you roll dice for each unit to see if they turn up or are under strength, but that is not the player deciding.

No, but it has the same net result.

I don't think it right that the player shoudl decide on the make up of his force because a real commander could not do so. You seem to disagree. I don't know why.

Some imagination might help. There is no "right" in wargaming. No one true path of enlightenment.

Historical armies didn't actually vary as much in their composition as much as you imply by that comment.

With the casualty rates cited for many battles, I suspect they varied considerably in many cases. Units were disbanded, amalgamated or otherwise modified from the original OOB under field conditions. Indeed, the very same ground might be fought over by the same units over subsequent days, with the forces meeting barely resembling their original composition. Stalingrad. Kursk. Berlin. There are no shortage of examples during WW2. Units at paper strength were likely the exception.

[…] I replied: Yeah, but those would come out in the playing of the game not in the definition of the scenario.

Which implies that some larger scale game must first be played to determine each scenario, does it not?

So if I only have one wing of the battle, I can't deploy differently?

Of course you can. Which is the same end result as letting the player choose which elements to include in the force they bring to the table. Think of it as deploying the remaining units elsewhere if you prefer. And again, a points system provides some structure for doing so. Knowledge of specific historical events does so as well. These can be combined or used in exclusion of each other. And thus, the utility of points is (once again) explained.

Agreed! Which is why the "host provides all the toys and sets up the scenario" is the simplest approach.

In the same sense that eating TV dinners every night is the simplest approach to meal planning, I suppose. But the point under discussion isn't 'simplest'.

A different person hosts the game each time. No, a 3rd party GM is not a requisite.

Then how is it a surprise to both players?

No. An all-knowing GM is not needed. Just someone who provides all the gubbins we need to play the game.

Which has no relation to points.

Agreed! Which is why the host is usually someone who has researched the period.

Which brings us full circle to the utility of points providing some structure to bulding OOB when both players are not so fully familiar with a period or unit being played.

[…] Same here, although in my case it's usually more than two players.

Although not required to be more than two, correct?

- Bob

"With the flexibility of being able to make adjustments based on opponent availability, yes. But that leaves us with your apparent insistence that a GM should draw up the OOB and historical situation… which really doesn't tie into points, making me wonder why you keep bringing it up."

I don't know why you keep harping on about a GM. I never said you needed one. I have referred to a "host" but he is a player just like everyone else.

"You said considerably more in your example, but a sketch map is fine."

I did?

"But you also insert fixed OOB into what you are describing as a 'scenario'."

Yeah, because without OOBs a scenario is incomplete.

"Have you missed the repeated points about the topic being "why points" and not the "necessity of using points"? You seem to be arguing that points are not useful, while repeatedly conceding that they are."

Points may be considered useful by some. I have never conceded that they are useful, since I have repeatedly demonstrated how you can achieve the same end without points. I think they are a waste of time and effort (and usually broken anyway).

"[what a scenario consists of]
If you mean a fixed OOB for each side in a tactical situation predetermined by a GM, no."

Then we must agree to disagree.

"A scenario as I'm using it just describes the general challenge (Force A attacking B over open ground) and not the specifics of those forces."

That is not a complete scenario. It doesn't provide enough information for two players to be able to set up the game and play without further work.

"Most of the time, we have a set of opposing forces not pre-determined by a GM."

So do I.

"The players agree upon what the game parameters are, not some 3rd party unless we're playing that sort of game. Those parameters can include points limits."

Well, there's no 3rd party and no points, but otherwise, so do I.

"You have someone else tell you what and how to play exclusively?"

No!!

"So once again, Mike, you've managed to state that both provide the same end result, while not acknowledging that points do, indeed, have their use! To use your very words: "it comes to the SAME thing." And there you have the answer to the original poster's question."

The fact that I can arrive at the same end result without using points shows that points are not useful.

"For one thing, if I am playing a unit that saw fluctuations in their (historical) fielded OOB, why not allow the player to adjust accordingly? Unit strength and composition varied from day to day."

Yes, but unless you are playing a multi day game that is irrelevant. What I am interested in is what troops each commander had available on each day, and that is fixed. In my Gettysburg scenario, spanning three days, the opposing forces have the troops they had on Day 1, and then there is a timetable of additional troops arriving overnight on each of two successive nights. There's your "fluctuation from day to day", with fixed OOBs – because that is what the generals had to play with. They couldn't pick and choose the way you do.

"You previously suggested that you hadn't seen a broken scenario. Now you agree that they can be broken."

I did not say that they do not exist, but that I have never seen one.

"Can we then agree that avoiding such mistakes requires some skill on the part of the designer?"

Yes, a pretty basic skill, but OK.

"A simpler, tested scenario that gives the players latitude in the details allows them to play multiple games free from the worries about a broken scenario."

How can it be tested if the players have so much leeway that two successive games using the same (by your definition) "scenario" will be completely different? Do you expect the designer to test the scenario for all possible combinations of 1000 pt armies?

"a hastily prepared scenario results in a nonsensical game,"

A hastily prepared scenario will not result in a nonsensical game if it is based on a historical battle. Your approach can far more easily generate nonsensical situations.

"Yes, but that is not what this thread is (was) about. The question was whether or not points have utility. You've now conceded that they have some. Are we in agreement then?"

No. See my comments above.

"Actually, working with most points system that I have, the player (not the GM) would elect to play a corps, then choose which options to drop from the paper-strength composition of that corps down to some level representative of the corps on the field."

That is not the way you described it: "1500pts, late war, Eastern Europe". Your starting with a number of points, not a military formation.

"Which is saying that if you know what the points value of a corps is, they are the same, no?"

So (to stick to the WW2 genre) you have poinst all worked out for all the possible WW2 formations?

"The details vary by rules. But yes, you'd stay within those hypothetical 1,000 points and have to make some decisions based on whatever information you have at hand."

What information?

"Deciding on "1,000 points" is no more arbitrary than deciding on "a corps"."

No. A corps is not arbitrary because I am playing a corps level game. 1000pts could be anything from a company to a whole army depending on the rules. A corps is a corps regardless of the rules system.

"You mean you don't have that knowledge of Napoleonic military organization? Why are you playing Napoleonic wargames then?
Because we're on a WW2 board, didn't you notice?"

Delete "Napoleonic", insert "WW2". makes no difference.

[headcount the same as points if every man was worth the same regardless of weapons, armour, horse etc. etc.]
Which they aren't in any system I am familiar with.

No of course not, you missed the point I was making.

"I use "strength" in the context of a discussion on points as a measure of potential, quantified as "points"."

That's the wierdest definition of strength I have ever heard of.

I don't think it right that the player shoudl decide on the make up of his force because a real commander could not do so. You seem to disagree. I don't know why.

"Some imagination might help. There is no "right" in wargaming. No one true path of enlightenment."

It's got nothing to do with imagination. Giving a commander the degree of flexibility imparted by a points system from which he can pick and choose his army is as silly as giving AK47s to the Confederates.

"With the casualty rates cited for many battles, I suspect they varied considerably in many cases. Units were disbanded, amalgamated or otherwise modified from the original OOB under field conditions."

Yet again you miss the point. Look at the OOBs from any historical campaign and you will find a surprisingly consistent structure and composition.

"Which implies that some larger scale game must first be played to determine each scenario, does it not?"

Er … no??? (Where's that idea come from?)

"These can be combined or used in exclusion of each other. And thus, the utility of points is (once again) explained."

You continue to go on and on about how points can be used in certain wargaming situations. The OP asked "why points"? All you can do is say "hey, you can use points here". I am trying to explain that wherever you use points, there are other ways of achieving the same end without points. So if you can do it without points, why do you need them?

"[No, a 3rd party GM is not a requisite. ]
Then how is it a surprise to both players?"

I never said it was.

"Which brings us full circle to the utility of points providing some structure to bulding OOB when both players are not so fully familiar with a period or unit being played."

So your argument in favour of points simply boils down to "it helps the newbies". When I was a newbie, we didn't have points – certainly not in the detailed form you appear to espouse. As I recall, the first points system I ever saw in a set of wargame rules was: "Infantry 1pt, Cavalry 2pts, artillery 10 pts". Not much help to a newbie is it?

No, in those days, we had to research the period, by reading books in order to learn how armies are put together.

Arrigo wrote:

[…] My idea is that in the end both you and mike have more base "points" in common that you think :)

That is exactly my … point as well. (sorry) There are numerous approaches to putting together a game, one of which involves using points to let players adjust their starting OOB.

[…] FOW system with different tactical situations and point size is in fact a sort of random scenairo generator.

Yes, exactly! There's a level of uncertainty for both players.

What I say is that is no absolutely necessary and ore often than not points are miselading. Tim cleraly pointed out that points ar enot balanced or absolute.

They can certainly be misused, agreed. Any time a discussion on points includes the word "fair", I know that things have come off the tracks. But ignorance on the part of players hardly means that the entire is concept is useless. I look at points as a middle ground between "use only historical OOB" (which can mean anything) and "use whatever you want".

My problem with FoW lists is that they are absurd and that often are counterintuitive (same thing for other games).

A powergamer is going to simply pick a date and time where his 'historical' unit was at maximum strength and call that "historical" (which, arguably, it is). A player interested in playing something representative of historical will do so no matter what method is used to draw up his OOB. These are player characteristics, and rules attempting to limit players to "proper" composition seem to get gamed as much as those which are more relaxed. Writing rules for good player behavior is tough!

Using points you agree that balancing factors of a game have been decided by someone else and not you. Creating a scenario in your gaming group at least you agree to appoint a known person to decree what is balanced or not.

Yes. Points are useful in letting the players adjust what is fielded to represent something like that unit in a particular engagement just as historical knowledge lets an experienced GM draw up an OOB.

DBM points were crazy IMHO because they pretended to rate everything on the same scale. How you can define a French Knight and a Roman Legionary effectiveness in respect of each other if they have never fought on the same battlefield?

The term "historical" is open to interpretation. :)

FoW and several point system in use today represent more an hybrid creation between old point based stuff (DBx) and scenario based games. Less widespread the game is more a point system can produce fun results (if it has been created with some intelligence in it).

They have put a tighter fence around it (differentiation between periods, broken into early, mid and late war). Perhaps arbitrary in its own right, but a choice that avoided some of the more inane match-ups.

Still, some products (FOW again :P), push forward the points too much with the introduction of heroes and other funny thing.

They are independent things however. I am no fan of heroes in those games, and I have only played a few games in which they even showed up. They are a bit of fluff for someone who wants that, but certainly not a core game element. I particularly deplore the "ward save" hero characteristics.

Also I think that using the same point systems for covering everything from an Ft-17 to an M26 Pershing or a JS is stretching too much.

There is one gent on the Battlefront forums who has insisted for years that a unified point system can, in fact, be used for the entire span of WW2. Again, a line was drawn. Certainly my T-70s are a lot cheaper than an IS-2. But I've never seen anybody suggest that the same points worth of the light tanks will likely defeat the heavy tank. (They might however have equal if not better odds of meeting the scenario objectives.)

Points for me are more useful for limiting size of stuff placed on the table (to avoid I came to a game with 200 tanks and my opponent with 20…) than to create some form of balance or scaling.

I see scaling and limiting size as the same thing. My Tankovy battalion at full strength is X points, but playing a game with that many points on the table for each size would take more time than we have. Let's cut that by 50% to fit the time we have, or scale back to a points value that will let us finish a quicker game. Divide X by 2. If it helps, run a narrative in my mind that says that as Battalion commander, I must allocate half my strength elsewhere in support of some other action.

Also I do not think you can use as a way to port a scenario to another era\theater beacuse there are too many variables involved.

You can however put forces from different theaters or areas into the same basic tactical situation. Or even different unit types from the same "army" (e.g. infantry instead of armor).

What I hate, opposed to dislike, is that for someone points become and end in itself. And more than often I have seen points used this way.

I see that happen with a lot of new players, or the simple powergamers, yes. But as in history, players quickly learn that focus on one aspect of battle can lead to disaster. Unsupported tanks, regardless of how big, don't tend to last long in close terrain. Again, I think you're describing player behavior here.

About scenarios, a good scenario creator try to have a fun scenario for everyone, but there are people that use scenario designs to pave the way for table victory (their own) but again it is the same for points (and Phil Barker has been often accused to revise the point system to suit his game needs after defeats…)

Ah, well that's a better example of a broken scenario produced by the grand-daddy of GMs then I knew of! That's a good argument for letting the players have some influence over the scenario, or at least the forces they show up with.

One last note (very evil)

"Let's play 1,500 points late war Eastern Front"

you realize than then changing the deployment and the available forces as per rules you will end played a "designed" scenario in which the point have only shaped your initial collection (in such case troops brought to the game) instead of shaping the game? (and probably this is one of the reason FoW is more popualr than other plain point systems). muahahahahah

Yes, that is exactly my point! We end up with the same result (playing a game with an OOB that we use throughout the engagement) but without being at the mercy, biases or favor of a 3rd party.

Other than attributing player shenanigans to the rules, I don't think I disagree with you!

- Bob

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] Ah, I (finally) see the difficulty… To me, that is not a scenario.

A dictionary definition of "scenario" is:
an outline of the plot of a dramatic work, giving particulars as to the scenes, characters, situations, etc.

I define it per the 3rd definition on that same web page:

an imagined or projected sequence of events, esp. any of several detailed plans or possibilities: One scenario calls for doubling profits by increasing our advertising, the other by reducing costs.

You'll notice there is no detail of who specified in either scenario.

Now in my view, that would mean a cast of characters, a list of scenes with descriptions of each and a description of the situation.

That sounds like a scripted movie. Definitely "on rails" in terms of player options.

Your idea of a scenario sounds rather like turning up with a pool of characters, not all of whom will be used, with no list of scenes or description of the situation (objectives) except in the vaguest terms ("late war", "Eastern Front").

Except for the part that you're ignoring wherein I wrote in the same paragraph: "… scenarios where a tactical situation is described, the table laid out accordingly. "

So, to me, "1,500 points late war Eastern Front" is only half a scenario (and a poor half at that).

Well yes, you ignored half of the description.

That will be true if (and only if) the forces used are typical of that specific period and the terrain is typical of that period. Your "scenario" does not specify the terrain so an inexperienced player might set up a table that would be totally innappropriate for the Eastern Front.

If you include the first half, it covers the table. Note that "typical of the period" is not the same as "fixed according to the OOB in a specific historical encounter."

The close association comes from the fact that the OOBs, terrain and objectives are derived from a (single) historical action.

I am using the term scenario as used by Peter Jones in Blitzkrieg Commander, Arty Conliffe in Crossfire and CS Grant in "Scenarios for Wargames". (For anybody actually interested, the illustrious Mr. Grant provides suggestions for adapting his scenarios across periods.)

Perhaps it's just me, but I do not think that historical battles are studied in the off chance that a modern military will find themselves on some ancient battleground equipped only with spears and shields facing an opposition including elephants and archers. I suspect that the general tactical situation is what is of interest, and studies are done to determine how best to adapt to those situations given the assets available at any given time. To me, this implies a willingness to adjust the details of the OOB accordingly.

[…] I don't know why you keep harping on about a GM. I never said you needed one. I have referred to a "host" but he is a player just like everyone else.

A player that has determined the ground and disposition of both sides, correct? Not exactly "just like everyone else" then?

"But you also insert fixed OOB into what you are describing as a 'scenario'."

Yeah, because without OOBs a scenario is incomplete.

Perhaps, according to your definition. But a scenario nonetheless.

Points may be considered useful by some. I have never conceded that they are useful, since I have repeatedly demonstrated how you can achieve the same end without points.

Under the circumstances you describe, yes, you can do the same thing. Not everybody games in those same circumstances.

I think they are a waste of time and effort (and usually broken anyway).

Everybody's got an opinion. Which doesn't change the fact that points are indeed useful to many of us.

Then we must agree to disagree.

Seems so. :)

[…] The fact that I can arrive at the same end result without using points shows that points are not useful.

I can add two numbers and arrive at the same result as if I'd used multiplication. Is one method wrong?

[…] Yes, but unless you are playing a multi day game that is irrelevant. What I am interested in is what troops each commander had available on each day, and that is fixed.

That is perhaps what you are interested in. Which may nor may not be the same as what other players are interested in. I much prefer understanding the impact of minor variations on the same tactical situation.

[…] There's your "fluctuation from day to day", with fixed OOBs – because that is what the generals had to play with. They couldn't pick and choose the way you do.

And who determined which assets those generals had to work with? I find that level of command as interesting as the lower levels. I certainly don't feel constrained to playing only the company commander!

"Can we then agree that avoiding such mistakes requires some skill on the part of the designer?"

Yes, a pretty basic skill, but OK.

One much like basic math, yes. :)

How can it be tested if the players have so much leeway that two successive games using the same (by your definition) "scenario" will be completely different? Do you expect the designer to test the scenario for all possible combinations of 1000 pt armies?

If not all possible combinations, at least a few basic ones, yes! That is the beauty of the 'generic' scenarios -- they work! Objectives can be met, and you don't realize mid-game that a river can't be crossed because the designer mis-judged the movement rates of different units. Otherwise, I'm expecting the designer to let us know that he's working the bugs out of a new scenario, and to be open to input.

A hastily prepared scenario will not result in a nonsensical game if it is based on a historical battle.

I am referring to unachievable objectives and the like. Issues related to game mechanics, and those "wups" moments that are described in the "worst convention experience" threads here on TMP.

Your approach can far more easily generate nonsensical situations.

I do not agree. "My" approach (and that of others far more esteemed than myself) provides a basic situation that both players encounter. It is not subject to a fundamental misunderstanding by the designer. If one player screws up, well they goofed. A poor scenario impacts both players. That is not to say that the absence or presence of points has any relation to this issue at all.

No. See my comments above.

Expected as much. :)

[…] That is not the way you described it: "1500pts, late war, Eastern Europe". Your starting with a number of points, not a military formation.

Again, you left out the first part of that paragraph. The scenario sets the table and basic conditions. The theater let both players determine what sort of unit to build (Soviet infantry or armored perhaps). The points limit my selection of assets.

"Which is saying that if you know what the points value of a corps is, they are the same, no?"

I know that the points are adjusted according to the strength of the unit (corps, in this example), if that's what you mean. The points used in-game are not based on the paper strength of the unit, but rather the unit as fielded.

So (to stick to the WW2 genre) you have poinst all worked out for all the possible WW2 formations?

No need to if using this approach. Unlike your approach it seems.

"The details vary by rules. But yes, you'd stay within those hypothetical 1,000 points and have to make some decisions based on whatever information you have at hand."

What information?

Whatever you have at hand. If you've agreed you're playing Eastern front, then presumably you'd not use 8th Army Desert Rats. If you're playing an infantry company, you'd use an appropriate (paper) OOB as a starting point.

No. A corps is not arbitrary because I am playing a corps level game. 1000pts could be anything from a company to a whole army depending on the rules. A corps is a corps regardless of the rules system.

Of corps. :) But if we are playing a points-based game, that game defines what level(s) of game we're playing.

Delete "Napoleonic", insert "WW2". makes no difference.

True. In order to draw up a 'complex' scenario, compete as you describe with OOBs, map and objectives, you need to know that period rather well, regardless of period.

[…] That's the wierdest definition of strength I have ever heard of.

It matches every usage of points I've encountered. They typically aren't just picked from the air.

I don't think it right that the player shoudl decide on the make up of his force because a real commander could not do so. You seem to disagree. I don't know why.

Some commander somewhere is making those decisions. Why should we be confined to role playing a specific level of commander?

It's got nothing to do with imagination. Giving a commander the degree of flexibility imparted by a points system from which he can pick and choose his army is as silly as giving AK47s to the Confederates.

If a player deigns to provide his confederates AK47s and the game includes those weapons, I'd have to assume the game is some alternative history scifi variant. There are certainly popular books that are based on exactly those sorts of settings, but they are of no interest to me. Presumably, anybody playing a historical game is interested in sticking to some representation of history. Players that run wild as you describe tend not to get many games in. A points system does not compel me to tweak every advantage out of the system. That is a flaw in the player's character.

[…] Yet again you miss the point. Look at the OOBs from any historical campaign and you will find a surprisingly consistent structure and composition.

When I read Glantz's book on Kursk, he describes the dramatic reduction in unit effectiveness over the course of a single encounter. While the paper OOB may have shown a battalion, the actual units in the field were at far lower levels. And those are the units represented on my table, not flags on a map.

You continue to go on and on about how points can be used in certain wargaming situations. The OP asked "why points"? All you can do is say "hey, you can use points here". I am trying to explain that wherever you use points, there are other ways of achieving the same end without points. So if you can do it without points, why do you need them?

Because 2 + 2 IS equal to 2 * 2. You don't "need" either approach, but each works.

"[No, a 3rd party GM is not a requisite. ]
Then how is it a surprise to both players?"

I never said it was.

That contradicts your earlier statement about neither side having additional insight before the game then, doesn't it?

[…] So your argument in favour of points simply boils down to "it helps the newbies".

That is one answer to the original question, yes. I've explained the rest in previous posts.

When I was a newbie, we didn't have points – certainly not in the detailed form you appear to espouse. As I recall, the first points system I ever saw in a set of wargame rules was: "Infantry 1pt, Cavalry 2pts, artillery 10 pts". Not much help to a newbie is it?

If your experience mirrored that of every other gamer, that might be significant. Other than bearing an amusing similarity to lines in a Monty Python sketch, it certainly doesn't relate to my gaming experience. I find points useful. You don't. That doesn't impact my use of them. Original question answered.

No, in those days, we had to research the period, by reading books in order to learn how armies are put together.

Luxury! Was this done in a cardboard box, by any chance?

- Bob

Why don't you people go and paint some figures, have a game, with, or without points, and shut up, nobody cares.
Honestly 3 pages!?! really?

I have a recurring nightmare; I'm in a lift, one of you feckers gets in, I say 'which floor, mate'…….
3 hours later, I am shouting, 'LOOK, WHICH ING FLOOR!' and your saying, 'I did not say you slept with my mother, or that the lift was the wrong scale, go back and listen, I said that the question of whether or not this is a question of lifts, or of lend-lease elevators, is the real question'
I have never said this before, but, for the love of beer, get a life!

John

By John 54 wrote:

Why don't you people go and paint some figures, have a game, with, or without points, and shut up, nobody cares.

Honestly? It's because I'm suffering from writer's block doing my real work, and this gets the juices flowing. Now you know. :)

I promise: I'll only ever do that if you refuse to let me push the button myself!

If only I could go play a game or do something else… Sitting at this keyboard sucks when it's this nice out.

And now, Kyoteblue will take us to the 4th page with…

Bob,

I have discovered that players who perform certain sheningans are lined to certain rules… I would say that there is some linking ;)

Your last post was well done, still one thing you seems to not weight too much is trhat even with points you are simply at the mercy of an additional individual, in this case the author of the system.

One thing I fully agree with mike is that point are non-necessary (necessary intended as needed to reach determinate outcome) fo create game situations. He further states that being non-necessary they are also non useful beacuse you can reach thge same end with other means and he pointed out that the result achievable with those means are much better.

Yet some people FEEL more confortable with points, so they yse them. My experience has been that points led you to powergameers, Bob experience with scenario designers seems to have burned him.

As I have said I strongly agree with Mike, but we have to face the fact that people feel often different about gaming due to their experiences.

What I don't understand is hostilitiy against fixed scenarios and the idea you are playing a situation crafted by someone other with forces you are saddled with…

this is often the most interesting part of the hobby. The "ltes try if I can do something useful with this rabble" is often one of the key argument that made me playing a given scenario. I am used to play a lot of tactical map wargames (I call them usually wargames opposed to miniature wargames) and I have no qualm to try other people situations as I have no qualms in designing them (I am one of the World At War scenario designers for Lock n'Load Games). Designing a good scenario is game in tiself and much more satisfying than crafting a list, beacuse you are not doing it for "winnning" but to make a fun evening\afternoon.

When I design scenarios for convention or home play I plan to have them fun for both sides and, as host and organizer, I always take my side last, so I am never assured of whom I will play… (useful method to prevent victory assured scenarios, even if in a couple of occasion I have crafted a scenarios to put a certain disavantage in my opponent knowing he would have taken the Germans and charged straight in my dug in 3" guns… but the scenario was designed to show how proper combined arms was working in BF WW2 and mhy opponent loved the scenario, he got all his favored stuff and the situation was tense. When we started to play regularly at the shop then supporting BF WW2 each week one of us was crafting the scenario (we were knowing what everyone had, especially beacuse I was the offical painter ;) and no one had problem playing. and people were getting in and wondering how we were having fun without points…

Arrigo wrote:

I have discovered that players who perform certain sheningans are lined to certain rules… I would say that there is some linking ;)

Well, put that as "some personalities are drawn to certain rules…" and I'll agree wholeheartedly. But I've seen a variety of those personalities, with or without points. I am as irked by a powergamer as by a "dad" figure who insists on telling me how to play my troops (usually in the form of "run your infantry into those machine guns.")

Your last post was well done, still one thing you seems to not weight too much is trhat even with points you are simply at the mercy of an additional individual, in this case the author of the system.

Not to mention one's opponent. But I can quickly figure out who's the powergamer. And as far as the rules author, I'm not likely to play a 2nd game if things are that far off.

One thing I fully agree with mike is that point are non-necessary (necessary intended as needed to reach determinate outcome) fo create game situations. He further states that being non-necessary they are also non useful beacuse you can reach thge same end with other means and he pointed out that the result achievable with those means are much better.

Again, add or multiply. I see the same result: A game. As to 'much better', I can see a well thought out scenario that has been shaken out (tested) as being superior, sure. But that's a far cry from the contention that you can just slap one together and have a good result every time. In my own experience with points, the results have been consistently good. My (admittedly limited) experience with scenarios has been less enjoyable.

Yet some people FEEL more confortable with points, so they yse them. My experience has been that points led you to powergameers, Bob experience with scenario designers seems to have burned him.

That is correct. If I'd paid to play in some of those, I would have walked out and demanded a refund. Being a nice guy, I stuck around and smiled. Most had a strong "dad" personality in charge, which really soured the whole experience. But I do realize that's not the norm, so I don't argue that it's a lesser approach. Just a different one.

As I have said I strongly agree with Mike, but we have to face the fact that people feel often different about gaming due to their experiences.

Exactly. I feel strongly (as you may have noticed) that there are specific circumstances where a points system is useful. With unfamiliar opponents (primarily) and when learning new rules (less so), they let "us" play a game without any concerns about bias.

What I don't understand is hostilitiy against fixed scenarios and the idea you are playing a situation crafted by someone other with forces you are saddled with…

Well, the indelible impression left by being forced to play with 20mm Russians in a 15mm game when I have a trunk of nicely done up 15mm Russian stuff was part of it. :) I wouldn't say hostility, so much as wariness. I am not against fixed scenarios, but I do not want to play them exclusively.

this is often the most interesting part of the hobby. The "ltes try if I can do something useful with this rabble" is often one of the key argument that made me playing a given scenario.

Hey, I'll usually build myself that list of rabble given a choice. I prefer being a bit of the underdog.

I am used to play a lot of tactical map wargames (I call them usually wargames opposed to miniature wargames) and I have no qualm to try other people situations as I have no qualms in designing them (I am one of the World At War scenario designers for Lock n'Load Games).

Ah, I think I'm on your All Things Zombie pre-order list. The THW games are examples of games I have no qualms about playing under a GM's direction.

Designing a good scenario is game in tiself and much more satisfying than crafting a list, beacuse you are not doing it for "winnning" but to make a fun evening\afternoon.

I can see the joy of craftsmanship being a big part of that. But I also realize some of the guys I play with aren't master craftsmen! :)

When I design scenarios for convention or home play I plan to have them fun for both sides and, as host and organizer, I always take my side last, so I am never assured of whom I will play…

Have you seen Ed (of THW's) separate post on an alternative to points here on TMP? He's got an interesting idea, though it might not work for all tastes.

Again, I have no issue with fixed scenarios, but they are not all I want to play!

Your approach sounds great.

- Bob