"Alternative to points" Topic

Here's an alternative to using points that works really well. Give it a try.

1 – Lay out the terrain.
2 – Decide who will defend and who will attack.
3 – Let the defender choose what will be in his army.
4 – Let the attacker choose what will be in his army.
5 – If the defender feels he can win the game with the forces each side has then start play.
6 – If the defender feels he can't win then the attacker removes figures until the defender thinks he can.
7 -If the attacker feels he can win the game with the new forces then start play.
8 – If the attacker feels he can't win then the defender removes figures until the attacker thinks he can win.
9 – Continue until both sides think they can win with the forces they have.
10 – If you can't work it out then I don't know what to tell you. :)

I called this the Pirates Treasure, and used it on my kids.
Brother One divides the Halloween candy into two piles.
Brother Two chooses which pile he wants.

For slightly more grown up gamers, Player One assembles both forces. Player Two chooses which side he wants to play.

Here's how we do it:

1. Gamemaster sets up terrain.
2. He assigns forces to both sides, and gives each side a description of the general situation, and a mission (or missions) to accomplish.
3. If you think you can't win with the forces you've been assigned, pour yourself another cold IPA or a couple fingers of Connemara, and stop worrying about it. Repeat as necessary.

Regards,

Jeff

If you want fair, play checkers.

Here's an alternative to using points that works really well. Give it a try.

I expect that the people who use points like it just fine that way, and the people who don't use points have no need for the system. Who exactly is it for?
-Kle.

I expect that the people who use points like it just fine that way, and the people who don't use points have no need for the system.

In a rational world, such a statement would setle things and end the discussion. Hhowever, this is TMP, so carry on.

Hhowever, this is TMP, so carry on.

As you wish!

picture

I have used a variation of this in conjunction with a slightly flawed point system.

One side is fixed with all sorts of things that are hard to quantify with points…defensive walls, ambushes, artillery support, etc.

The other side is bid on by both players. Low player builds a force within the bid limitations. Often the bid limitation has things like…"must contain 150 militiamen and 4d6 Thunder-Rhino riders" throwing some chaos into things rather than just letting the player choose 120 Dark Elf destroyers with over-sized swords.

For slightly more grown up gamers, Player One assembles both forces. Player Two chooses which side he wants to play.

Works for me.

Problems do arise when two people each want to bring their own toys and don't like their toys losing a battle or commanded by anyone but their special creator and general.

That's easy enough. Don't play with pricks like that!

Hear, hear.

Last time I showed up to play a game using somebody else's toys, I got stuck with a bunch of 20mm figures in a 15mm game. I felt like an ass, but went along. I just hope nobody took any pictures.

I built up a collection of stuff I enjoy playing, and do like to use it. If wanting to play the stuff that I've spent hundreds of dollars on and a like number of hours painting makes me a prick, so be it. (Hmm. That one doesn't get bleeped?)

The only issue I have with Ed's approach is lack of a 'reward' for winning with less. In a game like that, I'd prefer to see some sort of modifier to scoring and/or winning conditions based on what was fielded. Which brings us back to points in some form or another, I think.

I truly enjoy playing the underdog, but I need to be able to gloat appropriately if I do pull a win out! :)

- Bob

I truly enjoy playing the underdog, but I need to be able to gloat appropriately if I do pull a win out! :)

That's the beauty of playing the weaker side in an unbalanced scenario – no blame if you lose, but all the glory when you win!

Points systems are for people like me who have no concept of "play balance." It helps to even things out lol!

"Points systems are for people like me who have no concept of "play balance." It helps to even things out lol!"

I have no concept of "play balance" either. That is why I no longer use points systems.

Like a moth to a flame…

Luke 18:11

"Like a moth to a flame…"

Are you referring to me? If so, you may be right, as I tend to read and contribute to threads on TMP that interest me. But then doesn't everybody?

Have you anything positive to contribute to this discussion?

"Luke 18:11"

Ah, but unlike the Pharisee, I do not condemn others for not being like me.

I wish more people would go for something like this.
Instead I end up playing against guys that run as many tanks as the points allow and take the minimum required non-tank elements. Than they claim that its a fair game because we had the same points even though I have no anti-tank weapons.
I now play 95% solo (mostly Ed's games) and the other 5% remind me why I play solo so much.

<q<Ah, but unlike the Pharisee, I do not condemn others for not being like me.

The Pharisee does not condemn the publican. He merely thanks God that he is superior to him.

HyperBunny wrote:

[…] Instead I end up playing against guys that run as many tanks as the points allow and take the minimum required non-tank elements. Than they claim that its a fair game because we had the same points even though I have no anti-tank weapons.

I always take infantry against those guys. Actually, I take infantry pretty much all the time. It's a nice change from rumbling tanks around. (Though I do that too, from time to time.)

I now play 95% solo (mostly Ed's games) and the other 5% remind me why I play solo so much.

I love his stuff too. I don't think Ed meant to step into the "points" minefield. His approach is usually a refreshing alternative to any traditional style of game.

Ya know Ed, with a bit of thought, you could probably turn that into a pretty nifty "bidding" system. That would encourage players to work with less rather than more, changing the mindset to trying to retain the most effective, yet least threatening units.

The only shortcoming I see is that you almost need to start with points so you can determine just how much less you're making do with. Probably a good idea to limit just how much stuff can be taken at the start to keep the bidding process quick.

Great stuff for a campaign too!

- Bob

I expect that the people who use points like it just fine that way, and the people who don't use points have no need for the system. Who exactly is it for?
-Kle.

For folks that want to play a fun game and don;t have time to make up a scenario.

The only issue I have with Ed's approach is lack of a 'reward' for winning with less. In a game like that, I'd prefer to see some sort of modifier to scoring and/or winning conditions based on what was fielded. Which brings us back to points in some form or another, I think.

It's a win or lose system. It's a way to challenge yourself when you play. I played lots of WRG Ancients 2nd Edition onwards and even back then points didn't guarantee a fair or balanced game.
But it really doesn't matter if you play points or not, just play and have fun.

While it works for what it does, it fails to cover the situation where part of the scenario of the game is that there are hidden obstacles, troops or other surprises.

It's pretty hard to ambush someone if they know exactly what is in your army at the start.

I much prefer games where I am unsure of my opponent's army until well into the game. I would have thought most 2HW users were similar.

It depends on what you've got to play with, and what you're in the mood for. For a couple of gangs facing off, it seems appropriately macho.

- Bob

Have you anything positive to contribute to this discussion?

Nope. But like you, I … "tend to read and contribute to threads on TMP that interest me. But then doesn't everybody?"

I just think your dislike of points is kind of bizarre and passionate. I found out long ago on a similar thread about this that there isn't much to "discuss" with you on this. Well, as much discussion as one can have with a brick wall. It's why I have stayed clear of this topic since then.

My own view of points (not that you care)

1: They are a tool that can be utilized in the closed mathematical systems that are all wargames. But they have their limitations…pretty much once you get to the table. That's where good scenario design comes in.

2: No one plays on a higher plane of wargaming because they dislike or refuse to use points.

My head is spinning…

Surely the best alternative to points would be to get Mike to design EVERYONE's scenarios….then the world would be a perfect place.

"Surely the best alternative to points would be to get Mike to design EVERYONE's scenarios….then the world would be a perfect place."

Actually, I think Ed's suggested procedure oulined in his OP is a great idea!

I play points and scenarios. Sometimes I go wild and have a scenario with points. Despite all this I sleep well enough at night.

Steve P

You realize you might end up with a game involving an empty force vs. an empty force using this approach? :-)

When we play, the person responsible for a game that night just plops a scenario on the table. Then all players just select a side, or roll a dice. Never had any problems with it. Most of us are already past the stage in which they want to play only with their toys and nothing else.

For folks that want to play a fun game and don;t have time to make up a scenario.

Does this ever happen in miniatures wargaming? I'm pretty sure I've never played a "spur of the moment" game, usually you have to arrange to get together, you have to have all the stuff… tends to take some time.

Maybe at a Con, I guess.
-Kle.

For folks that want to play a fun game and don;t have time to make up a scenario.

Does this ever happen in miniatures wargaming?

All the time.

Klebert L Hall wrote:

[…] Does this ever happen in miniatures wargaming? I'm pretty sure I've never played a "spur of the moment" game, usually you have to arrange to get together, you have to have all the stuff… tends to take some time.

Happens here all the time. I've rarely shown up for a game and known exactly ahead of time who would be coming. I can't even say for sure if either of my two sons will accompany me more than a day or two out.

Note that this doesn't stop me from playing in a fixed scenario. But having options is always a good idea.

- Bob

stenicplus wrote:

I play points and scenarios. Sometimes I go wild and have a scenario with points. Despite all this I sleep well enough at night.

No more fence sitting, buster! You're going to have to pick sides in this fight!

Then we have to decide on points and a scenario.

- Bob

phildutre wrote:

[…] You realize you might end up with a game involving an empty force vs. an empty force using this approach? :-)

Hey, if you can win without fighting, go for it!

Hmm… Maybe each side just fields their respective politicians?

- Bob

How many points for Obama with a baseball?

Surprisingly there is a very high point cost for the Obama with Baseball Option. The initial attack is not very impressive, but the reinforcements are very respectable. 5500 points of air strikes and Secret Service commando suicide fighters.

One of the best things for me about TMP are threads within threads within threads.

[…] Does this ever happen in miniatures wargaming? I'm pretty sure I've never played a "spur of the moment" game, usually you have to arrange to get together, you have to have all the stuff… tends to take some time.

Wish I was that organized. My group is more like…
"Hey, want to play Saturday?"
"Sure. What time?"
"Noon. Zombies okay? Maybe Seven Years War?"
"Sure. See you then."

My gaming tends to be the same, but adding:

"Oh, my son can't make it."
"Damn, forgot my box of troops."
"Sorry for the late call, I'm half an hour behind schedule."
"We've got a Yugi-Oh event running, you'll have to play on the half-sized table in the back."

Which, by the way, Ed, is why I carry some THW stuff around in my box of other game stuff. :)

- Bob

Wish I was that organized.

Sounds about right. We agree on the general period and show up with our stuff then throw it on the table and see what happens. Sometimes one of us has a clever little scenario in our minds (but never on paper or properly tested or vetted)…and we…

throw stuff on the table and see what happens.

I don't think any of us has ever thought we were "recreating history". Solving the occasional tactical problem in the given time period maybe. Using our painted minis for a friendly social game with fun banter definitely.

But that's just how our club rolls…

In our WW2 scenario generation system we had die rolls determine force ratio, force size, missions and objectives. It was very successful and we later adopted a similar generation system for our Colonial skirmish rules.

Ed your system is good for friendly games and should work for several eras and tactical levels. I would encourage gamers to make force determination sizes in secret. i would also limit them on the number of castings available.

For example in a Colonial skirmish game, i would have a fluid objective victory levels based on the size of the force select. If a small force secures 'x' number of objectives (Obj A), then he acheives a tactical victory but if that same size force he secures both Obj A and B then a marginal vixotry is won. However is a larger force is used then he would have to secure OBj A and B to have a tactical victory. Securing only Obj A would be only a Stalemate.

For a WWI game, I hadn't thought about using points but maybe I will. In honor of Iron Ivan Keith I may put on a "Price of Glory" game at Fall-In!.

Points will be set but the scenario will be randomly selected by a dice roll.

Look for it in the PEL for Fall-In! 2009.

Sir William wrote:

[…] Points will be set but the scenario will be randomly selected by a dice roll.

That's pretty standard! The sneaky guys will have several lists prepared, then draw one AFTER the scenario has been determined or after they've seen what their opponent brings.

- Bob

bobstro,

I suspect you're making the assumption of believing I've never done this before. I've got that problem covered. Thanks for pointing it out though.

I've found hosting "pickup" games at conventions bring out the better type of gamer. Most of the other games are GM'd and everything is provided or the games are tournaments. In my experience pickup games or campaign games are usually much more laid back. Note that "points" are not required either, I've played in a very fun campaign where we all brought troops as directed by the GM ahead of time. Great games all around one way or the other. Just play and have fun. When I'm GMing, be a git and "I" get to have fun!

I suspected as much, Sir William. :) Just noting that I've seen some guys who try to have that situation covered as well.

I personally, prefer randomly selecting a scenario after determining what I'll be playing with, regardless of how my roster gets built. It gets amusing when someone picks up a different set of stuff after they've seen what I've got.

Ed's approach would add a different spin to that situation. My opponent can pick out their list tuned for what they've seen I have, but then we do the bidding thing to see how much of it they're prepared to do without. I think it just needs some incentive to incent them to do so (and me as well, of course).

- Bob

We play a lot with the "here's your army because that's what we have painted" system.

It works very well.

Wish I was that organized. My group is more like…

No, you probably don't. If I get in a half dozen game a year, I'm doing great.

We play a lot with the "here's your army because that's what we have painted" system.

That's my general experience, too.
-Kle.

Simplicity made complex. Why not just use To'Es. Battalion verse Battalion, Division verse division?

Perhaps because they don't exist for every type of game played?

"Perhaps because they don't exist for every type of game played?"

And what type of game DON'T they exist for?

Old west. Fantasy. Pirates. Future urban gangs.

Of course, these may only be war themed games.

- Bob