"Do Points Systems Work?" Topic

I agree with you, and that is the point I was making. We do consider other factors. In your hypothetical German/Russian scenario, we would look at the two forces and offer for one or the other player to make some changes. If they do not wish to, we consider modifying the terrain; add some buildings, some tank traps, etc. If both sides are happy with the terrain, we might well just be deciding that an unfair fight might be the most fun. We are just using points as a starting line. The further modifications help develop an interesting scenario in a way we might not have imagined before.

Edited to fix a minor spelling error.

Toofatlardies –

I'm having trouble following your actual stance on the subject. You say they can't work at all. Then you say they can't work without consider other factors. I think you would find everyone who supports points to agree with your second statement. I don't think you will get any reasonable person to say that points preclude any further analysis but that seems to be what you want to argue the pro-point people think.

But let's get to your real point as you say. The rock, paper, scissors, situation been around a lot longer than the last century (consider artillery, infantry, cav during the horse and musket era). The tank hasn't made that much different. Tanks can be beaten in close terrain and less so in the open. A point system won't solve that problem alone but that doesn't mean a point system can't help provide some guidence when putting together forces. Again, will a company of infantry on each side and a platoon of Tigers for the Germans and a platoon of Shermans for the Americans be a fairly balanced game? If I were just to throw troops on the table, (and didn't know much about the tanks involved), I might think it would be true. A point systems would say to consider the forces again.

Overall, I completely agree that a point system can't work ALONE without considering other factors. But that's not what you've said at the beginning. You said it can't WORK. Period. That's like saying a screwdriver can't work because you need more than that to work on a car.

If you now feel that a point system can work if other factors are taken into consideration, then congratulations on seeing the light.

Cincinnatus

The difference between the old infantry/cavalry/artillery bit is that they are all relatively good against each other in the right circumstance. Once the tank arrives some specialist kit is developed which is really only good against tanks, not against anything else. hence the difference. Take the British 2 pounder AT gun as an example, it fired a solid shot which could take out a tank, but against infantry it was totally useless (unless you're the poor individual that it disembowels). That is the problem with point systems and WWII rules.

Taking your screwdriver example, how many points do you give a screwdriver as opposed to a hammer or a wrench? The problem is that these tools are only useful if you need them for a particular job. Same with AT guns. You can spend 100 points on 2 pounders and if your opponent has no tanks then they are useless and the points system has not reflected that. If anything the points system has created imbalanced rather than balance.

The main factor that you need to take into account is what forces your opponent is fielding, where you get variable values for units depending on what they are going to be up against and what terrain they are in, and I haven't seen a points system that does that. Unsurprisingly, as it would be absurdly complicated.

Hence the point that I made in the first instance, and am still making now: points systems don't work because they do not take into account the multitude of variables which influence the balance of the game.

By all means use them, but don't pretend that the points you are using are anything other than arbitrary values which have little or no meaning as they fail to consider other vital factors.

If you're interested in plausible historical scenarios, no points are needed. History dictates what belongs to the realm of plausibility, and what doesn't. What would be the typical attack strength when attacking a platoon-defended position? Would an infantry platoon typically be supported by tanks or not? Would artillery support come into the picture, or not? Etc. Use that as your baseline, and set up some interesting games from that.

Of course, the drawback is you need to know your history. In my eyes, point systems/army lists originally were attempts to model this historical plausibility. Over they years, they degenerated into something as we know it now: shopping lists used by players to bring to the table the most wacky combination of troops, that only have a superficial resemblance to the real thing.

So if the statement is untrue, then the statement "the truth is that they DO approximate something" must be true. So what do they approximate?

They approximate the effectiveness of unit/model vs. other units/models in the game. Of course they are not perfect. But, in the case of 40k, the effect of the rock/paper/scissors is mitigated by the requirements and limits on certain units – part of the points system. Now where point systems seem the weakest is with taking into consideration the terrain on the table top. For 40k, the sweet spot is around 30% coverage, give or take 10%. It is not a big weakness and can be easily accounted for by experienced players.

points systems don't work

Yes they do. It is demonstrated week in and week out at the local game store with people playing 40k and Flames of War. If they didn't work, people wouldn't play those games.

By all means use them, but don't pretend that the points you are using are anything other than arbitrary values which have little or no meaning as they fail to consider other vital factors.

That is just false.

A point system always comes with the unspoken understanding that it's just a general guideline. To fault it for not considering all possible factors is just silly.

How about we hold rule sets to the same standard? If it doesn't handle/address all possible situations and factors we put it in the doesn't work category and throw it out as unacceptable?

Thomas

Saying "that is just false" is one thing, can you prove it is false with evidence? Or are you actually simply saying that you are comfortable with the point system you currently use?

Cincinnatus

To NOT consider the weaknesses due to the lack of consideration of absolutely key factors; terrain, defences, enemy order of battle, is actually more silly.

Anyway, what we have established is that some people are wedded to point systems, and some people are not. We are clearly not going to get past this impasse, so I am going to bail out at this point.

Nice to talk to the chaps who got involved.

Saying point system can provide value is not the same as being "Wedded" to them. Again, why does it seem the people against points (PaP) are always wanting to be so absolute?

The single most important aspect of play balance in almost every single system will be player competence. Because no method of game setup really takes this into account without using some common sense, I guess they are all broken, useless, and meaningless.

It's nice to debate a subject in a civil manner but it's better when you can help someone see the light of reason. I guess it can't always end up that way though.

They approximate the effectiveness of unit/model vs. other units/models in the game.

We've already been through this, but I'll reiterate:
The effectiveness of a unit/model vs. other units/models in the game is not a constant. It is in fact a variable. Some units will be very effective against some opposing units but useless against others. Thus your argument falls because a points system only awards a single points value to a unit type. Or at least I have never seen one that takes into account multiple opposing unit types (and I don't see how one could without being inordinately complicated).

Of course they are not perfect.

Agreed. So why do so many people treat them as if they are?

But, in the case of 40k,

The idea of imposing "requirements and limits on certain units" is not part of the points system, it is a restriction on the points system aka an army list.
Not that I've got anything against army lists as such. They are there to prevent people doing silly things such as fielding a French Napoleonic army comprised entirely of Old Guard, but you don't need points to do that.

It is not a big weakness and can be easily accounted for by experienced players.

I thought points were there to help inexperienced players?

Yes they do. It is demonstrated week in and week out at the local game store with people playing 40k and Flames of War. If they didn't work, people wouldn't play those games.

There is of course the possibility that games such as FoW and 40K work in spite of the points system, not because of it.

Player A fields a company of Italian infantry and a company of tanks for a battle in Russia.

Player B fields a company of Guard infantry and a company of T34 tanks.

A point system will tell you that is a poor matchup. A "throw them out there and let's play as they look even" won't.

How hard is it to look at a common set of rules and see that in general the points systems do provide a roughly balanced force on force matchup????

We've said it over and over – we don't feel a point system alone guarantees anything. But in conjunction with other tools such as percentage restrictions or core forces requirements, they work just fine. Only the people who are against points want to measure them as a completely independent tool. The only reason our argument that they are only part of the picture is ignored is because it's too hard to refute.

A "throw them out there and let's play as they look even" won't.

Why not?

in general the points systems do provide a roughly balanced force on force matchup????

And that is EXACTLY why I DON'T want to use points. Throughout this discussion (which has been quite entertaining, thanks all) I have maintained that if you want to use points then go ahead.
However, the thought of a "roughly balanced force on force matchup" is not the sort of game I want to play. Most real battles just weren't like that. The more research I do, the more I discover that in a historical battle one side often had a clear advantage in numbers. Sometimes that was offset by quality, sometimes it wasn't. To me, therein lies the fascination of wargaming. Can this outnumbered (though with some veteran units) hold off the superior enemy long enough? You can't do that with points.

No one says you can't use points to build a scenario like that. Point systems just help quantify the general value of a specific force. Without some tool like that, a player has to do a lot of experimentation to see if a matchup gives them the right feel. With points and common sense the player is far ahead of just throwing toys on the table.

Look at it this way – A point system is basically the equivalent of telling an experienced player what forces you want to field and them telling you how well one would do against the other in a general sense. If you want to game right then, you use those forces, if you are designing a scenario, you try it with those forces and adapt from there.

The absence of a point system means you just have to guess (which is more error prone – see example of Italians versus Russians). If you run that type of game for other people, you'll quickly get the reputation of being a poor GM. Sure, you tell them "all battles aren't fair, look how long the Italians held out before being wiped from the board" but the players fielding the Italians is going to think the game sucked because they got their butts kicked.

The idea of imposing "requirements and limits on certain units" is not part of the points system, it is a restriction on the points system aka an army list.

I'd say points, lists, restrictions are all part of the point system. There is no reason heuristic based rules can't be applied in a points system.

Agreed. So why do so many people treat them as if they are?

I can't say.

I thought points were there to help inexperienced players?

I feel they do. And they seem optimized towards the most common amount of terrain people, including beginners, use. Often times, there is also a blurb in the rules indicating an ideal amount of terrain for the game.

There is of course the possibility that games such as FoW and 40K work in spite of the points system, not because of it.

There is that. I just find it highly unlikely.

"I've always thought that if you are going to use points systems at all then they should be based on the financial cost of fielding a unit rather than some poorly conceived rating as to "effectiveness"."

Which was the approach used in 'Seastrike', it worked rather well.

"The absence of a point system means you just have to guess"

Probably why I prefer historical battles, no decison making required as the terrain, OBs and historical aims and outcomes are known to a greater or lesser degree. The only hard bit is comng up with objectives for each side which are more intersting and attainable than 'do better than historically'. Even that can be hard, as can the required research so I do occasionally yearn for army lists, terrain generators etc

No argument there Martin. I am not saying one way is better than another. What I contend is that point systems are very workable and useful tools.

If someone chooses to craft a scenario or game that works some other way, then good for them. In general, the more work someone puts into something the better the results.

Points just give some people a jump start on a balanced game when putting together a scenario or even provides the ones who just want to game quickly, a reasonable chance at something fun to play.

My only argument is with the people who say point systems don't work or aren't useful. The many systems that have them and the literally thousands of people a week who use them in their game setup would say otherwise. Unless of course ALL of those people are fools and just don't realize how "un-fun" and unbalanced those games are.

Points systems are like democracy: they're both terrible, messy systems but the best options until someone comes up with better solutions.

:-D

Look at it this way – A point system is basically the equivalent of telling an experienced player what forces you want to field and them telling you how well one would do against the other in a general sense.

An army list could do that just as well, perhaps better.
DBA is a good example.

If you run that type of game for other people, you'll quickly get the reputation of being a poor GM.

It's all a case of how you manage their expectations.

Sure, you tell them "all battles aren't fair, look how long the Italians held out before being wiped from the board" but the players fielding the Italians is going to think the game sucked because they got their butts kicked.

There is winning and winning. If you explain that for the Italians, they will win if they hold out for x moves. Asymmetric victory conditions are what it's all about. It can even sometimes mean that both sides win – and then EVERYBODY goes away happy!

Margard – DBA is a very closed/limited system when it comes to building an army. It is not a system that would work for most rule sets. Most "army list" systems use a combination of required core troops, limitations, and points. (you just can't get away from them)

You are fooling yourself if you think many people would feel happy after getting their butts kicked in that game even if they "win" by surviving longer than expected. I think you will find that most players will enjoy a game they dominate and lose than one where they are dominated and win.

But back to the main point, how do you know the Italians need "help" with the victory conditions? Shouldn't that be an even matchup? A point system would help tell you it isn't and that's all we are trying to say.

DBA is a very closed/limited system when it comes to building an army. It is not a system that would work for most rule sets.

Didn't say it would. I was just citing it as an example of a game system that uses army lists without points – and is very successful at it by all accounts.

Most "army list" systems use a combination of required core troops, limitations, and points. (you just can't get away from them)

Two very popular games that use army lists without points (although they both offer OPTIONAL points systems): Black Powder and Hail Caesar.

You are fooling yourself if you think many people would feel happy after getting their butts kicked in that game even if they "win" by surviving longer than expected.

Not at all. I know loads of gamers who actively prefer that sort of game!

But back to the main point, how do you know the Italians need "help" with the victory conditions? Shouldn't that be an even matchup? A point system would help tell you it isn't and that's all we are trying to say.

Italians versus Russian Guard Infantry? That's kind of a no-brainer isn't it? They'll need at least 2:1, probably more.

How do I know that without a points system? By reading the history books!

Wait a minute. How can you make such a statement about the 2:1 matchup without knowing more about the situation? Are you just going on gut feel based on your perceived "general" fighting ability of each group?

All a point system is is a codified form of that gut feel.

As for whether players like to get their butts kicked in a game – well, you only think you know "loads" of gamers who prefer that. What they say when they get away from the table might surprise you.

Wait a minute. How can you make such a statement about the 2:1 matchup without knowing more about the situation? Are you just going on gut feel based on your perceived "general" fighting ability of each group?

Yeah, it's a gut feel, based on reading history. However, it will be modified depending on the actual situation, terrain, fortifications etc. None of which a oints system usually take into account.

All a point system is is a codified form of that gut feel.

Yeah you could say that. However, why take the rules author's word for it? Read the history books and make up your own mind.

As for whether players like to get their butts kicked in a game – well, you only think you know "loads" of gamers who prefer that. What they say when they get away from the table might surprise you.

No, I really do know they prefer that sort of game. It's the sort of game we play when we get together for a weekend of gaming every summer.

I think I've been pretty clear on what a point system tries to do and since you fail to comprehend what I am saying, it's a lost cause to continue on any further with this.

As for what game you and your friends prefer, I think it's great that you guys can have fun with it. Just don't expect to get the same type of reception from strangers at a convention or a store.

what a point system tries to do

I think we're agreed on what a points system tries to do. I think the difference of opinion lies in how successful you and I think it is at doing that

and since you fail to comprehend what I am saying,

I fully understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with you. Each to his own, eh?

Just don't expect to get the same type of reception from strangers at a convention or a store.

We don't play games in stores in the UK. Games (participation games, that is) at shows in the UK are also not the sort of games we would play the rest of the time. Show games need to be short and sweet and sometimes "engineered" so that the player "wins" and gets a (paper) medal (excellent feel good factor!). Points don't help with that kind of game either.

"Probably why I prefer historical battles, no decison making required as the terrain"

I've found very few war gamers whose terrain pieces and collections are sufficient for many historical scenarios. Money and space usually mean that you don't have that long, curved ridge line for the Battle of X, or the deep ravines at the Battle of Y, or the famous and oddly-shaped cluster of towns at the Battle of Z, so you make do with bits and pieces and say "Close Enough."

To a lesser degree, the same is true with OBs. Many players have to make do with improvisations in the OBs, to meet the requirements of their collections and budgets. Take a brigade or two off each side because we don't have enough Militia… or proxy these Mark IVs because we don't have enough StuGs, or whatever.

I've been gaming for 30+ years and I can't remember the last time that I played a historical scenario strictly by the book as it was written.

Let's face it: most gamers ad-lib and improvise. Point systems just provide a framework and common vocabulary for that improvisation.

I've found very few war gamers whose terrain pieces and collections are sufficient for many historical scenarios.

How odd.

To a lesser degree, the same is true with OBs.

Again, I find that rather odd. In my wargaming projects I try and build armies big enough to cater for all the scenarios I want to play. Not quite sure what all this has to do with points, but fair enough.

It means not everyone is like you. A great deal of wargamers don't have the time, money, or drive to collect massive armies and rooms full of terrain. If they want to get into a new game or period, they may only have a few units, not every possibility out there. For those people, it is much easier to play a game that uses those models they own and have painted, the models they like. Here points come in handy. Not everyone has the means or desire to collect a few of everything.

But I'm sure you know that.

A great deal of wargamers don't have the time, money, or drive to collect massive armies and rooms full of terrain.

Yeah, know exactly what you mean! Even if I did have the time, money or drive to collect massive armies I'd have no room to store them. Hence I work within the restrictions I have.

they may only have a few units, not every possibility out there. For those people, it is much easier to play a game that uses those models they own and have painted, the models they like.

Exactly what I do, too. Generic units are the simple solution to this. For example, my ECW armies are:
10 Royalist foot units (each foot unit represents about 1200 men)
12 Royalist horse units (each horse unit represents about 600 men)
10 Parliament foot units
10 Parliament horse unit
plus artillery, commanded shot and dragoons units.

This is enough (more than enough) to field all the troops that fought at Marston Moor, the largest engagement of the ECW. I therefore have enough troops to fight any historical battle from the period.

That's fine for historicals, and a wonderful aspect of the genre, but doesn't quite work for a game like 40k or Warmachine where there are more than 4 types of units and they cost 50 bucks a piece. :D

I think it is time we put this thread out of its misery. The poor horse can't take any more flogging.

That's fine for historicals, and a wonderful aspect of the genre, but doesn't quite work for a game like 40k or Warmachine where there are more than 4 types of units and they cost 50 bucks a piece. :D

Yes, I agree that is a problem with games like those. One of the (many) reasons that I don't play them.

Thanks again for the interesting discussion.
Consider this horse humanely put down!