"Do Points Systems Work?" Topic

Reading this item on TMP TMP link and the response to it I was wondering what others thought?

I agree with Rich. They don't really for anything beyond ancient/Medieval.

And with the specialized role of various troops and weapons systems on the 20th/21st century battlefield 'equal points' is an illusion.

But even ancient commanders didnt' get to pick their armies off a menu.

Points systems can work, but rarely work alone.

Yes and games are better with them, because a point system is just an extra tool to help players and scenario designers. They approximate the relative strengths amongst troops/units and they help speed the process of getting a game on.

Really, the thing about games with point systems is this. If you don't like the point system, don't use the point system.

Any game with a point system may be played like a game without one. The reverse is not true.

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the objection(s).

If we're talking about games played informally and purely for leisure, then what difference does it make whether the opponents are "lulled into a false sense of fair play"? It is not a given that the opponents were seeking that experience in the first place. Perhaps they just wanted to a play a fun game.

If we're talking about games that are intended specifically for competitive / tournament play, then obviously the gamers have signed-up for the whole concept at the outset. They chose the points-based systems not necessarily because they were hoping it would produce some particular outcome, but rather because they want to play in that particular environment of the tourney/competition scene, and that environment requires some sort of lingua-franca. (And the simpler the better.)

Furthermore, the article overlooks the fact that for many gamers, army design is a fun sub-hobby within the hobby. (Just as character creation is a fun aspect of role-playing games, and for many people, their favorite part.)

At the end of the day, we're still talking about games for leisure. Whether or not they "work" is determined by the level of enthusiasm and participation of the players. Given the very large followings that many points-based competition-style games have had, it must "work" for a lot of people.

Define "work".

It all depends on what your goal is in designing the game.
If it is to create a RELATIVELY balanced manner in which two opposing forces have a roughly 50:50 chance of winning, then no system really succeeds in that. And, all do.

If it is to manufacture a "historically accurate" force, then no system succeeds. And all do.

The math in building a First Principles points system would be staggeringly complicated, since far too many factors are not easily quantifiable, and easy to manipulate.

How well the points system succeeds depends on what you mean by "success", for one thing.
I tend to use the points system in the games I play to build "historically accurate" "armies". Of course, I alwys try to maximize my bang for my buck, too.
I had intended to build an American company in Flames of War based on the 28th Infantry Division at Clervaux on Dec 16th, 1941.
It seems that I do have access to all the goodies, after all. Why should I complain about that?

The essence of force building in a points system like FoW is that you, a mere company commander, has a fairy godmother in the Division commander.

The ultimate "points system" designed to force equitable results is the National Football League.
All teams have the same restrictions. All use the college draft, choosing in reverse order of their win-loss records, adjusted for playoff success the previous year.
All have the same salary cap restrictions.
Theoretically, the goal is for all teams to finish 8-8 every year.
Yet, the smartest owners and managers manage to be in the hunt almost every year. The same goes for popints based gamiong systems. We can cry out for "scenarios uber alles" all we want, but the result is that the better players will win.

What Thomas said.

And Sam.

And John.

Rick

BTW, everyone's minds are already made up on this, the eternal "scenario vs points" argument.
Nobody's minds will be changed.

So the short answer is that Points systems work on a flat clear battlefield. Once you introduce stuff like terrain and fortifications or special abilities that allow troops better performance in such places, they cease to work.

Of course, they also only work if everything has the right point costs associated with them!

Finally, you can't actually point cost good generalship. You can handicap but that's another story.

Points systems a really good for getting a good baseline to see how close a match is. Then, as Rich said, you pretty much have to do trial and error. He used another term but out of context, it might get me DH'd!

Depends

It all goes to the system and how the "points" were established. Having said that, and having worked with at least a hundred of them in my wargaming live, I gave up on them except in the most rudiementary of occasions. The problem is that gamers will do detailed analysis to get the most game power out of points, which means that they will come up with the most bizarre armies you can imagine.

Please note that what I described above is in fact a subversion of the point system. The idea of the point system is to allocate troops fairly on an equitable basis, that is to allow balanced inequality of forces and make more interesting battles. But the players doing these detailed Analysis actually want to make the system UNFAIR and gain an advantage over their enemies, that is find some loophole in the rules that will allow the accretion of an enormous advantage through the wiles of the point system. So you basically have a system mostly at cross purposes with the intent of the gamers.

As I said I've never seen them work EITHER WAY!

I once had a point system for a modern rules set which one player pored over for months and came up with the idea that a force of 45 light anti-tank guns would have the greatest statistical success rate for the cheapest cost, and he bought a huge number of them, (we had to use blank stands with the military symbol for an anti-tank gun on it, we didn't have enough real models. In the game that ensued, he was crushed by -- a force of cavalry and light tanks. The system obviously failed in both ways- A to provide a system of balanced equality, and to garner the player his overwhelming statistical advantage.

Or did it?

One would have thought that light tanks and cavalry would have been the very target "anti-tank-boy" wanted. Without getting into cavil's if the system was skewed or wrong, the cases of use are so varied that I do not think it can be boiled down to a mathematical system.

But there is another problem, and that is with the basic assumptions.

War is not fair. Nor does it practice "balanced equality". I am not so sure that we should strive to do this in games. I realize this is heresy to the tournament gamer who needs some idea of equivalence for the sake of equity in tournament games, but perhaps that cannot be had. Please don't misunderstand. It would be nice to have such a system that is accurate, but if it cannot be achieved, one wonders if spending the work to attain the unachievable is worthwhile.

One more point.

In the very early days of gaming, back when the Wargamers of the Philadelphia area held a small convention at the Masonic Hall on Womrath St., (attendance of about 100)- all the old names were there etc., Bob Wall a good friend of mine designed a game for use in a tournament. There were NO dice, the mirrors were mirror armies (each side had the same forces) and the terrain on a printed map was identical from map to map but each side started out on their side with a different terrain "vista" in front of them.

The games never fought to a satisfactory ending and became supremely predictable and usually resulted in mutual virtual anhilation. Players pored over these things and developed the best opening moves etc., blah blah blah, and while there was no point system involved it fulfilled the criteria of equity-- but was somewhat excruciating to play.

Do we really WANT equality?

Touching on what OFM said the smart players will win. The smart players find the units that are high performing and undercosted and build armies around these units.

There is a compelling argument that point systems "must fail" in any game system because there is no algorithm with accurately accounts for all of the facets of warfare. Chess is the one exception, but it is limited to the specifics of the actual field. If you change but one thing in chess as it stands now, the game becomes imbalanced. Point systems are not the end-all method of balancing game play, but to state that they completely fail is also short-sighted.

Point systems attempt to balance scenarios and games through factoring many aspects of the capabilities of the armies versus other armies. Points are not perfect, no system will ever be "perfect" in any game system because you cannot factor in all of the variables – let alone the die rolls. Chess has no "chance" element to it. Chess has strict movements imposed on all pieces, no variables, no die rolls, no terrain to speak of, no ranged combat, no morale rules, no variables what-so-ever. In any other game where you include die rolls, terrain, and units of inherent inequality, you have balance issues as discussed. However, point values attempt to balance the games where there is no set scenario or attempt to balance the game through specific forethought and planning prior to the game. Point based games DO work, because in most instances you can set up a game, select a point value, and if both sides take the appropriate points, you can usually balance out the games given the specific objectives under most of the scenarios. I'm sure that some of this rhetoric is aimed at the Flames of War system, which touts their point system as the balancing factor in their games. I've played numerous game systems which use points to balance games, and I've played numerous systems without point systems. Both need to be reviewed with the issue of balance for play purposes in the victory conditions. Point systems have their own methods versus non-point systems, and both can work well, or they can be broken to the point they are not much fun to play. The best games usually come down to who you play with or against rather than the ruleset used. If the participants are in the game to play and have fun and make the game challenging, then both sides have fun regardless of who won the game. The competitive players like point systems because they can work to build very difficult armies to beat and they enjoy that aspect more than the playing of the game or the scenario.

I participated/ran a "scenario game" where the scenario dictated the points per player and gave everyone the parameters of the game, including the victory conditions. In the end the competitive players decided to abandon the victory conditions and to go after one participant's force because it had victory points associated with it. The game was a fiasco because the players did not go for al of the objectives, but only for ONE objective. They were angry that their side lost in the end, but they ruined the day for the opposing player. So balance is what you make it – and points based games can do that just as well as planned out scenarios if both sides look to what they are doing at the outset.

Any fool can design a game where a Tiger II platoon of 5 will wipe out a platoon of 5 Shermans.

Agreed. But can anyone design a game where 5 Tigers take on 25 Shermans with a 50% probability of success?
Or maybe that should be 24 Shermans … or maybe 26???
Who can say how many Shermans equal 5 Tigers?

Points systems are by their very nature arbitrary and broken.

Amen to that.

The response to the question is obviously skewed by the personal feelings of the gamer. My personal believe that while point systems can be used as an arbitrary means to create a friendly game between opponents, they do not create nearly as enjoyable game as an average scenario. Scenarios create, for me, a much better feel to a game and a far greater challenge.

I'll play points based games because that maybe what my opponent wants but give me a scenario based game any day of the week.

The response to the question is obviously skewed by the personal feelings of the gamer. My personal believe that while point systems can be used as an arbitrary means to create a friendly game between opponents, they do not create nearly as enjoyable game as an average scenario. Scenarios create, for me, a much better feel to a game and a far greater challenge.

I'll play points based games because that maybe what my opponent wants but give me a scenario based game any day of the week.

I agree

As for tournament games.
The only way to make tournament games fare/equal is to have all players have the same forces with the same stats played on tables with mirrored terrain.

> Really, the thing about games with point systems is this. If you don't like the point system, don't use the point system.

In reality it does not work out that way. Those games with point systems are invariably played by those who prefer points based battles. Those who don't like points based games ignore such games on principle.

> The only way to make tournament games fare/equal is to have all players have the same forces with the same stats played on tables with mirrored terrain.

ASL has a large tournament element and they use scenarios. If the player base is large enough then scenarios can be made to be balanced. Another way to balance is to have the players bid for sides and then apply the bid to the VP total.

Give me points based games. That way if I want a quick xPts on yPts game I can play it. Or, if I want to play any scenario ever devised, I can play that as well.

I just don't understand why people think points and scenarios are mutually exclusive. I've run a number of games where I set up a scenario in a point based game (WFB, Superfigs, 40k). Using the point systems as a guide, I specified the forces and objectives for the scenario. The players just played. The points for each side were not even, but they were used as a rough guide so everyone had a chance to compete for their objective.

And I don't care what people say, every gamer I've ever played with or run a game for wants to start the game with a decent chance of fulfilling their objective – whatever it is. Most don't want to just wipe the enemy off the board, and most don't mind losing. But most everyone does want have a chance to succeed.

A point system is a tool that helps speed the process of a good scenario design.

> Those who don't like points based games ignore such games on principle.

Not much a principle, and their loss.

The one thing that bothers me about this whole argument is the idea of a balanced game. We would all tend to agree (I think) that the battles in history have never been balanced and sometimes the one side who "on paper" seemed likely to lose did not.
I do not know if points based systems do this or not (I don't use them for my games) but if they could throw in a sense of unbalance based on the type of scenario or some such restriction this could stop or hamper the idea of maxing out the point system.

I'm rather on the fence in this whole argument since I feel both sides of the spectrum achieve the desired purpose of getting a game on the table for a few hours of fun.

Points systems frequently do work – as does being a better player … as do rolling high on the dice and using historical tactics.

Few playing wargamers will have access to enough data to evaluate _how well the points system is working …

Point systems and balance are two separate issues. There is nothing forcing players playing a game with a point system to play a balanced scenario. The point system makes it easier to do so, but it is not required. (I'll freely admit even the best point systems are not perfect but they still make the task of balancing quite a bit easier.)

I guess I just don't understand all the animosity towards everyone having an equal chance of winning. We are playing a game. If this was real life, I would always want an overwhelming advantage over my enemy. But if I'm playing a game; I want my opponent to have fun. It isn't much fun for my opponent if he has either an overwhelming advantage or overwhelming disadvantage in securing objectives.

The one thing that bothers me about this whole argument is the idea of a balanced game. We would all tend to agree (I think) that the battles in history have never been balanced and sometimes the one side who "on paper" seemed likely to lose did not.

Be careful not to conflate "balanced game" with "balanced battle". Many of the recent tournament-centric games (and gamers) think they are the same thing, but they are distinct parts of the thought process. Terrain, deployment, and objectives (the elements that make a scenario different from competition play) are consciously recognized as points equivalents by a good scenario designer. The competitive players who recognize these thing consciously are the reason why tournament terrain is typically mirrored or randomly assigned.

Be careful not to conflate "balanced game" with "balanced battle".

There is no such thing as a "balanced game" or a "balanced battle".
Since you cannot measure the probability of winning you cannot balance it.

Why couldn't one use a points system to create a scenario, why are the two mutually exclusive. Of course points systems are not perfect, but they give both players a common point of reference when playing a game. I love playing scendarios but I play with a group of people at a local store that meet up once a week, I don't have the time to create a scenario every week, not to mention that a scenario probably needs a few playtests to get right, and I have to get my opponent to agree to the parameters of the scenario. In this way points systems, even though they are not perfectly balanced, help to create the illusion of balance and allow both players to agree, for example, what the combat value of 5 Shermans is.

If I was playing in my basement and I had my group of one or two buddies over every week then I could easily get around this issue because we would eventually come to a consensus. But I, along with a lot of other people in the hobby, play with a larger social group that includes newcomers all the time and we all need a common framework to agree on in order to be able to simply play a game without putting too much thought and preparation into it.

Ergo points rock!

Why couldn't one use a points system to create a scenario, why are the two mutually exclusive.

You can, but I have to ask, why bother? It is but the work of a few minutes to design a scenario. It goes something like this:

A: "Ok, let's play an attack/defence scenario. Here's the terrain I've laid out before you got here. Do you want to attack or defend?"
B: [thinks] "… um OK, I'll attack."
A: "Fine, so I'm defending. I've got a platoon of infantry and I'm putting them in this prepared defensive position."
B: [thinking, I need 3:1 against a prepared position] "Right. I'll attack with a company supported by a group of heavy weapons."
A: "In that case, I'll add a tank."
B: [thinking, I haven't got anything to counter a tank] "Um .. I'm not sure about the tank."
A: "… right … how about a battery of mortars instead of the tank?"
B: [can't counter mortars either, but if I move fast they won't help him much] "… um , well… OK!"

Done. No need for points.
Incidentally how does a point system take into account terrain advantages?

I'm wondering how many of the "pro points " posters have actually read the article on Too Fat Lardies blog?

Just as a practical matter:

If you create and sell a game that does have a points system, then people who don't like it will just ignore it, and/or create whatever scenarios they like.

But if you create and sell a game without a points system, then be prepared to answer tons of emails demanding a points system, and lots of people volunteering to create one, and all sorts of house rules to add one, etc.

I even created a game with an army-building system that didn't use points (and didn't require any)… and people immediately began to backwards-engineer it to calculate points values for all the units. Even though they didn't need to.

For whatever reason, there is a very strong and large component of the hobby that wants it. So it just makes sense from the perspective of marketing, to offer it.

I remember having great fun with WRG 3rd edition working through the points of my late Achmenid Persian army while my opponent worked up his Roman army, and really enjoying the game that resulted.

Is there something else required of a game system in order to say it worked?

Nothing exists that works for everyone; nothing that works for anyone works equally well in every situation. Such is life.

The rules I play most often these days do not have points systems, but that does not mean I will not play one. Sometimes, building an army by points can be an entertainment of its own.

"But can anyone design a game where 5 Tigers take on 25 Shermans with a 50% probability of success?"

Well, yes, of course.

Sherman has a combat value of 1, Tiger II has a combat value of 5. Total combat value of each side is therefore 25, so in an engagement where neither side has any sort of postural, positional, terrain, weather or support advantage the odds of either side winning are 50:50.

Personally I would prefer to be defending in such a situation and ideally in a prepared or fortified defence too, whch would skew the effective combat values as opposed to the theoretical ones.

This stuff is just variables, relationships between variables and numbers.

Now, if you want to design a shooty shooty type skirmish game where tanks shoot at each other, move around, hide behind things etc AND come up with a points system which guarantees a 50:50 chance for either side….well, good luck with that.

Anyway, points have their place, they are just a way of balancing scenarios. If you design a scenario where you pit three attacking battalions vs one dug in behind wire and minefields you have mentally used points to 'balance' it any. Attacking battalion = 1 point, entenched battalion = 3 points.

The min max thing of a 'proper' points system can be quite a fun mini game in itself (hence my AK47 mortar battalion) but experienced wargamers can easily manipulate them and any semblance of history can rapidly go out of the window. As anyone who bought a fleet of 6pdr armed Crusaders in WRG 1925-50 to tackle Tigers and Panthers can testify, ahem.

Probably because my background is in RPGs I prefer scenario-based games that tell a bit of a story… vs. straight up slugfests without much of any context.
Still, I think having points is a helpful ingredient in cooking up such story games.
In the end it's much more about who I'm playing the game with.
The guy who wants to yammer on about his 'build' or 'character optimization' probably doesn't give a hoot about story or creating a flavorful/characterful army that seems plausible in the setting. He just wants to win.
I don't want to play with that guy.
But I can take the same game, points and all, and (hopefully) find an opponent who wants to field an army that isn't solely focused on min-maxed calculations… but instead is playing a character in a tale of battle.
That's the guy I want to play with.

Anyway, I liked the TFL article. It speaks to my sentiments about what I want out of a game.

> Not much a principle, and their loss.

No worse then the points players who WILL NOT play a game unless it has points, which is their loss too.

"But can anyone design a game where 5 Tigers take on 25 Shermans with a 50% probability of success?"

Well, yes, of course. [snip]

Now, if you want to design a shooty shooty type skirmish game where tanks shoot at each other, move around, hide behind things etc AND come up with a points system which guarantees a 50:50 chance for either side….well, good luck with that.

Actually that was the sort of thing I had in mind.

You can, but I have to ask, why bother? It is but the work of a few minutes to design a scenario. It goes something like this:

A: "Ok, let's play an attack/defence scenario. Here's the terrain I've laid out before you got here. Do you want to attack or defend?"
B: [thinks] "… um OK, I'll attack."
A: "Fine, so I'm defending. I've got a platoon of infantry and I'm putting them in this prepared defensive position."
B: [thinking, I need 3:1 against a prepared position] "Right. I'll attack with a company supported by a group of heavy weapons."
A: "In that case, I'll add a tank."
B: [thinking, I haven't got anything to counter a tank] "Um .. I'm not sure about the tank."
A: "… right … how about a battery of mortars instead of the tank?"
B: [can't counter mortars either, but if I move fast they won't help him much] "… um , well… OK!"

Done. No need for points.
Incidentally how does a point system take into account terrain advantages?

I'm wondering how many of the "pro points " posters have actually read the article on Too Fat Lardies blog?

You're little 'example' totally assumes that both sides naturally just agree, and doesn't really make sense in the context of what I was saying.

I still stick to my premise that points system provide a reference point for players to generate forces that are mutually agreed upon.

No one wants a perfectly balanced game, that's not the goal, I don't know why it keeps coming up.

The goal is a game where both players agree on the forces involved and feel like they have a reasonable chance at winning.

I read the entire TFL blog, and I own IABSM V3 as well.

For an evening club game/ competition points are good, for a historical scenario no point nor for a historical campaign based on historical orbats.

Tally Ho!

Gentlemen, I should point out that this whole debate came about as a result of a piece which I originally posted on Lard Island, it was not intended to be an inflamatory article, nor was it aimed at any rule set in particular, but merely that the concept of a points system in a set of rules for 20thC warfare.

As a second point, I should possibly distill my argument further, as a lot of people seem to think I am saying "I hate points"; I am not.

What I am saying is this. Points systems from 1916 onwards do not work due to the nature of weapon development leading to what is essentially a "top trump" approach to warfare. Certain weapons are designed to be used against certain units. They work very well against their intended target, such as AT guns v tanks, but less well against other targets, such as AT guns against infantry (you'd be better off with an MG platoon).

So, in a nutshell, my argument is this. How can you allocated a numerical points value to rock, paper or scissors. Rock versus Scissors is worth a decent number of points, but against paper it is worth nothing. So, do you just take an average and say that all are worth 100 points each? In which case is you field 15 pairs of scissors and your opponent fields 15 rocks you are in big trouble, whereas if he fields 15 papers you win big time.

That's it. So when Thomas says "They approximate the relative strengths amongst troops/units and they help speed the process of getting a game on." the truth is that they DO NOT approximate anything at all unless we know who they are up against, and again we could add to the mix what terrain they are operating in, and 100 other factors, both quantifiable and unquantifiable. At which point a system which I feel that I have already proved does not work anyway, becomes too complicated to even pretend to use it.

I really don't care which set of rules we are talking about, it is the basic unworkability of any points system in this era that I have yet to see anyone effectively challenge.

Special Loathing for Cherubs. Actually we've been publishing IABSM in one form or another for ten years and in that time the number of emails we have received asking for a points system is less than half a dozen. I DID actually create one many years ago, but added a very clear caveat that, like all other points systems, it simply didn't work. In the latest version of the rules there is a scenario generator which allows you to spend a few minutes dicing up a scenario and chosing your force. That works better than any point system for the reasons detailed above.

Nice to see some debate. I did have to laugh at John the OFM when he said "BTW, everyone's minds are already made up on this, the eternal "scenario vs points" argument.
Nobody's minds will be changed." You should get a job as Speaker in Washington or Westminster John, all the politicos could just go to the pub for the day rather than waste time debating!

Cheers all

Rich

BTW, everyone's minds are already made up on this, the eternal "scenario vs points" argument.
Nobody's minds will be changed.

Maybe. Maybe not. I do like both systems. Sometimes I like to throw together a couple of armies, without regard to something more historical than the army list provided by the rules developer. In other ocasions, I fancy a scenario, with no balance -points or otherwise- at all… just the thrilling of doing my best, and odds be dammed!

This is my hobby. I refuse to be dissuaded to enjoy a ruleset or game for something as trifle and banal as it is points or scenario driven! Today I wanted to play FoW. Tomorrow, I will fancy a game of Force on Force, and the day after tomorrow probably will feel a surge of joy launching my Austrians in a desperate attack against the blue Prussian lines at the shout of "En Avant! Marie Therese Vivat!" hoping that Fortuna, the old lady, will smile at me with sympathy!

There is no such thing as a "balanced game" or a "balanced battle".
Since you cannot measure the probability of winning you cannot balance it.

How disappointing for all those people with degrees in Game Theory.

If the scenario (a composite of forces, terrain, deployment, and objectives) can reasonably be won by either side without obvious statistical anomalies or only one tactical genius taking part, then the game being played can be said to be balanced. Point values can be a tool or a hindrance to reaching this ideal.

Where the rules that depend on points generally fall down is that they often assume (or promote the assumption by players) that only the "value" of the troops contributes to a balanced game. Tournaments promote this assumption either by accident or for marketing purposes, but it is heavily promoted, and is one of the root causes behind the disdain the old guard have for the newer points/marketing driven games.

Of course, point values themselves come under fire in just about all cases because the assumptions that went into the point assignments are often different than what is seen in play by the adoring public. The phrase "a better use of the points" is used in feedback found in public fora for just about every points system out there.

I can't see how a points system insures a good game. Good being one that gives both sides a fair chance to win and plays well.

No one wants a perfectly balanced game, that's not the goal, I don't know why it keeps coming up.

Because that's what points are supposed to give you. Or so I'm told.

There is no such thing as a "balanced game" or a "balanced battle". Since you cannot measure the probability of winning you cannot balance it.

How disappointing for all those people with degrees in Game Theory.

Which is why game theorists usually do not make good wargamers!

I never realized my comment earlier was so inflammatory. My Stifle count just jumped up.

Interesting debate.

It is possible to calculate points quite accurately to compare any two units or weapons. It is not possible to calculate a points value for 100 different units against each other.

However, if you take the WWII situation then you have a limited range of basic units, something like:

Infantry team
MG team
Mortar team
AT gun
Artillery gun
Armoured car
Tank
Plane

You can probably come up with a rough way to value these troops relative to all the others.

From that starting point you can then calculate relative points for different types of each unit although while a Tiger might be 5 times as good as a Sherman in a tank vs tank situation it is perhaps only 50% better than a Sherman when it comes to dealing with infantry.

In the end any points system will have flaws but for those players who like to be able to arrange a game with a quick e-mail or just turn up at the club with their normal toys and get a reasonably balanced game at the drop of a hat points are really important.

Scenario games are great BUT they take work on the part of someone before the event. There are systems about for generating a semi random but historical force which could in effect create you a scenario on the fly but to use these you need a lot of toys that may well not end up being used and you will also almost certainly end up with an unbalanced game.

That then leads to the question of how important is balance in a game? That rather depends on the players. It is possible to run tournaments with unbalanced forces and scenarios rather than points so in a lot of ways balance does not matter that much.

Sorry for rambling on, I probably should just have posted a simple "It is impossible to write a perfect points system" which is the truth.

I'm in the points are a tool camp. Players who don't want to use them are free not to. My observation is if they have them they usually use them, but that doesn't mean they were forced to.

I wrote below and then snipped a lot of examples of the flexibility points give the players. I'm sure somebody else already posted something similar.

"It is impossible to write a perfect points system"

If that's the basic reason why points systems are bad, then that sort of begs the question: What part of a wargame IS it possible to get "perfect" ? Is there really such a thing as a perfect scenario?

I doubt that very many people are expecting perfection. What they're expecting is a good game. Whatever mechanisms that can accomplish that, will be successful and therefore will "Work."

No one wants a perfectly balanced game, that's not the goal, I don't know why it keeps coming up.

Because that's what points are supposed to give you. Or so I'm told.

Looking at "a game" from the point of view of the designer instead of one of the players gives you the reason for wanting scenarios to be balanced.

A player wants the game to tip in his direction; he *doesn't* want balance. A designer wants everyone at the table to have fun, so the scenario must engage all players for as long as possible; the designer *does* want balance. A deeply unbalanced scenario may as well be written up for solo play. "How I Slaughtered the Martian Legions and Suffered Only A Bruised Thumb."

Perfect balance is not required. You just need to get the bubble in the viewfinder, not center it.

To return to an earlier point, a Balanced Game is one in which the whole table has the chance to meet their victory conditions and "win" whether that means tabling their opponent, holding a spot for some period of time, or getting the Princess off the board. It isn't necessary that this be the mythical Balanced Battle of tournament fame. As noted, very few historical battles ever approached that kind of parity, no matter how common it is in the hobby.

Balanced Battles are in a chicken-and-egg relationship with point systems. Seek one at the other will arise.

Balanced Games don't need a point system, but you might use one anyway.

I believe both scenario-based games and point-based games "work". However not all rule sets can do both. There are rules without a point system that don't seem to work when a point system is introduced. This is probably because the people designing them don't spend enough time working through the values. And there are rules with point systems that won't work if you break the point mould.

The problem I have with point-based rules has nothing to do with how the mechanics of the game but with how the players play. There is always someone who pours through the army lists and finds the "killer" army. If that killer army is too out of balance then there is the inevitably version 2.0 army list which comes out to weaken that army. Thereby leading that same someone to pour through the new lists again to find the army with the best advantage.

The problem I have with scenario-based rules is that it takes more effort to put on a game. Unless you have a large collection of figures, how many times do you have all the forces required by a published scenario? Then if you don't, you have to determine how to either make what you have fit the scenario or design your own.

Having said all this, I prefer scenario-based games where I spend the time researching a battle and preparing the game.

I also like what I've seen recently in a number of rule sets where you choose your core force and then can add optional or reserve forces from a select list.

The bottom line is if YOU like the game. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
If YOU like the games, then the points system "works".

Opinions are like s. Everybody has one.

My thoughts – Points systems generally work for games which are designed for them. Do I play them? – Yes, and enjoy many of those I have played. I have also hated some games that were designed with points in mind.

I have also played and enjoyed games which were not designed for use with points – and by the same token, totally failed to enjoy others.

And imposing points onto a game that was manifestly never designed for them – urgh! Years ago, I played with a group that insisted on adding a points system to Empire III. It was horrible.

Have I played FoW? – Yes. Did I enjoy the game? Yes.

Have I played IABSM? No, not as yet – but hope to get it & play later in the year – I have too many projects lined up at the moment to be more precise in my timeline. Some of those projects are Lard in origin, others not.

I found Rich's comments on the Lardie Blog interesting, and I am hoping to look further into some of the comments posted both here and on Lard Island. John OFM above has a point there as do many others.

I've just got in from a hairy day – nay, week! – at work. I'm ramblling, so I'll sign off

X