adventuretime | 02 Aug 2013 1:02 p.m. PST |
How do people who design miniature games determine a figures worth in points. What factors does one take into consideration when creating the point system part of there game. Do you just go by stats, skills or a combination of the two. |
MajorB | 02 Aug 2013 1:14 p.m. PST |
From what I understand, most points systems are arbitrary assignments of values to particular troop types so that "better" troops are "more expensive". Which kind of flies in the face of the fact that historical availability of particular troop types depended on a variety of factors none of which were their relative effectiveness compared to others. |
OSchmidt | 02 Aug 2013 1:18 p.m. PST |
Dear Adventuretime Depends on the game. In most of my game I use what I call "straight stats." For example in my "The Shattered Century" Game, about pre-war and early WWII each unit hsa a move, fire against unarmored, fire against armored, etc. When a stat is 0 I don't count it. I use a formula of V1*v2*v3*v4
.VN*.X where X is a decimal to bring the factor down to a range from 1 to 100, ony for ease of computation. It's rather crude but it works. However I don't use any modifiers in the game nor any moderating factors which makes it cleaner. These point values are also modified by a FORCE POOL. A player depending on army can only have so many of this tank or that weapon. It works pretty good. I don't use the points for my 18th century game. I use a completely different concept of "Strategic Units." value put in as a constant to bring the values |
doc mcb | 02 Aug 2013 1:24 p.m. PST |
With difficulty, and subject to revision. I gave the rationale for my system in the rules (PRIDE OF LIONS), and there was an extensive reworking in 2nd edition based on further playing experience. One thing (among others) I struggled with was how to cost a special weapon or ability that only applied once or twice a game. Another problem was costing something that has a SMALL probability of having a very LARGE effect -- like lightening striking you! Points systems are always a series of compromises. |
The Monstrous Jake | 02 Aug 2013 1:27 p.m. PST |
I'm not a big fan of point systems, but a lot of people do like them. I provide point systems in several of my game designs, but I also tell people that it doesn't (and can't) take into account things like player skill, scenario conditions, and suchlike. I start with a mathematical formula based on stats, then adjust the formula based on playtesting and feedback. I concentrate on how much damage the unit can do to an enemy, and how much protection the unit has. Movement rates don't seem to have much impact on points, at least in my experience. |
John the OFM | 02 Aug 2013 2:18 p.m. PST |
I prefer the WRG points system, where you construct the points yourself from a table. Let's say you have a noble cataphract with a bow. Start with 8 points for an "extra heavy cavalry" figure, add a point for being B class and another for having a bow. It may not account for everything, but I prefer it to the Warhammer or Flames of War system where the company does it all behind closed doors and then tells you how much they cost. GW or BF can just call a "Never mind!" and change them at will. |
Sergeant Crunch | 02 Aug 2013 2:26 p.m. PST |
I haven't tried it out yet, but I've been working on a system for my modified version of FUBUAR that uses a system based on the Fibonacci Sequence for the basic stats. I have yet to figure out how I'm going to address abilities with regard to how much they're worth though. |
religon | 03 Aug 2013 11:26 a.m. PST |
I have done everything from guesstimate to sophisticated database formulas including logarithmic functions. No strategy was more accurate than the others. It just takes time and effort to refine any points system. |
John the OFM | 03 Aug 2013 11:47 a.m. PST |
Make it as simple as possible (WRG) and live with the failures. The purpose is to arrange a mythical "fair fight". You will always come up with scenarios where one side or the other will not have a chance. What can 1500 points of Skythians do versus 1500 points of Swiss? Nothing really, and vice versa. The Skythian player should be too smart to actually fight, and the Swiss could never catch the Skythian. The outcome would be the same with 1000 points vs 4000 points. And how would a logarithmic database handle that situation? BTW, to make it more contemporary and within the raalm of possibility, substitute Mongols. A Mongol invasion of Basel would not be resolved in the field of battle anyway, unless something dumb happened. |
(Phil Dutre) | 04 Aug 2013 12:46 p.m. PST |
Points are overrated and purely a commercial tool. I see aboslutely no reason why you would like to define point systems for your houserules. But if you really, really, must, run a simulation program that puts 100 troopers or whatever against x of whatever, then keep varying x, untill there is a 50% chance either side wins. Then x troops of the 2nd sort are worth 100 points. Then add some random bonuses for movement and special ablities. |
Lion in the Stars | 04 Aug 2013 1:11 p.m. PST |
The points system for Ambush Alley is based on the soldier's quality die. Since you need to roll a 4+ to succeed in AA, a d6 trooper is worth 3 points base and a d8 trooper is worth 5. Then you add items like a SAW or a grenade launcher, which is worth an extra die. Add armor, there's another 1-3 dice. Each die is worth the same amount, but that amount varies with the "size" of the die (d6-d8-d10). It's simple, but it works well enough to make rough balance calculations. |
SouthernPhantom | 04 Aug 2013 5:17 p.m. PST |
I tend to use an x*y*(z/q) formula, to create multipliers (positive and negative) off a baseline stat. Say baseline movement is 4; the factor will be (t/4), where t = the unit in question's movement. If t=3, the unit becomes less expensive, if t=5, the opposite happens. This is my system for PARADOX; Galaxia space combat will use a system based on additive attributes. Each spacecraft can be considered a modular platform with broadly similar features; the differences are in number of missile bays, varying electronics, and such. |
Marshal Mark | 04 Aug 2013 11:27 p.m. PST |
If a points system is going to be of any use, it has to take into account everything – combat ability, movement rate, special abilities. A formula is good, but hard to get right. It is easier to calculate if points are added for each incremental improvement in a statline or ability, but really in most cases it is more correct to multiply by a factor for each increment. Points systems need a lot of playtesting if they are to be of any use. Start by playtesting X average vs Y elites, then adjust until the numbers give a balanced game. Then make other changes and playtest the numbers again. Things that are very hard to get right are abilities that improve performance under specific circumstances (for example an ability that allows faster movemement in certain terrain), as these are very valuable when those circumstances apply, but worthless otherwise. An educated guess as to the value of the ability may be the best you can do. The more of a rock-paper-scissors element the game has (ie X works well against Y but not against Z) the harder it is to work out a points system. |
Marshal Mark | 04 Aug 2013 11:34 p.m. PST |
From what I understand, most points systems are arbitrary assignments of values to particular troop types so that "better" troops are "more expensive". Yes, that is the idea of a points system. Which kind of flies in the face of the fact that historical availability of particular troop types depended on a variety of factors none of which were their relative effectiveness compared to others. But points are not supposed to reflect historical avaliability, or actual cost. Any such restrictions should be imposed by army lists (or using historical OOBs or organisations). |
Marshal Mark | 04 Aug 2013 11:38 p.m. PST |
I see aboslutely no reason why you would like to define point systems for your houserules. Maybe for the same reason anyone would like a points system in any rules – so you can get a relatively balanced pick-up style game without having to put a lot of work into preparing a scenario. |
MajorB | 05 Aug 2013 1:50 a.m. PST |
But points are not supposed to reflect historical availability, or actual cost. Any such restrictions should be imposed by army lists (or using historical OOBs or organisations). If availability amd/or actual cost is managed by army lists or historical OOBs then there is no need for a points system. Maybe for the same reason anyone would like a points system in any rules – so you can get a relatively balanced pick-up style game without having to put a lot of work into preparing a scenario. It is a complete myth that armies of equal points will give a relatively balanced game. |
Marshal Mark | 05 Aug 2013 3:51 a.m. PST |
If availability amd/or actual cost is managed by army lists or historical OOBs then there is no need for a points system. Yes there is – to give a relatively balanced game. Otherwise we could play WW2 Germans vs British, I could bring a division and you bring a platoon. Both correct according to army lists / historical organisation, but it wouldn't make for much of a game. It is a complete myth that armies of equal points will give a relatively balanced game. Well we'll have to agree to differ there, but it seems strange that you know this to be true so the thousands of wargamers who play equal points games every week must therefore be wrong. In the games I play, I am happy that an equal points game gives a relatively balanced game. We can both turn up with an army at a set points level, chosen from the army lists, and most of the time it will give a good game where the victor is decided mainly by player skill, and an element of luck, rather than due to having better troops. |
OSchmidt | 05 Aug 2013 6:44 a.m. PST |
Since we've wandered off the aiming point I don't feel bad chiming in. Even though I used a point system for one game I have designed I don't really care for it because of the potential game stopping problem. Like some clown figures that Engineer Infantry is the best buy for the points and wants his entire army made up of them. Since you don't have 400 stands of engineering infantry
. or any infantry for that matter
. I started my "Force determination system" from the other way around. HOWEVER!!!!! I'm dealing in Imagi-Nations here and I don't see why it can't be done in real life.
First off I really don't care about historical accuracy and so forth, but I am interested in a good game and wanted a system that would consistently yield useable forces every time. So after a lot of testing and trying and playtesting I came up with what I call "the two unit system." It assumes all games are part of a campaign, and you govern, and limit the size of the campaign by the Two Unit System. The gamemaster, course of the campaign,the players themselves, or the Inter-ociter decide what they will use. The Units spoken above are "strategic units" and you can have in your force one or two strategic Units, but only one of them may be an army. The second unit must be a Brigade. Thus the legal combinations are for each side one brigade two Brigades One Army One Army and one Brigade. Now armies have no connection to brigades. You cannot combine brigades to make an army or voluntarily break an army down into seperate brigades. This is of course highly realistic, but I don't care. I'm look ing to fight a table top battle and I want the forces reasonably in line An Army consists of 25 table top units and 10 leaders or commanders. These are 5 Line infantry regiments (2 Elite regiments (Light infantry or Grenadier) one dragoon regiment. Two Light and two Heavy gun, four light cavalry and four heavy cavalry regiments, and 5 wagons. Leaders are 1 value 4, 2 value 3, 3 value 2 and 4 value one, for a total leader value of 20. All armies, regardless of country are identical. Brigades are different and by type. All Brigades have 7 table top units nd 2 officers. There is one wagon, one dragoon Regiment, one light gun, and four units of type.. Thus a line regiment has four line infantry, a cavalry brigade two light and two heavy
And so forth. The Brigade "types" are Line, Elite (only 3 regiments of elites in an elite brigade) Militia Brigade, Frei-Korps Brigade, Engineer Brigade, Siege Artillery Brigad,e Wagon Brigade, Pontoon Brigade, There are also "special" brigades used in the campaign which are not combat brigades and used just to guage special actions or large scale things and need not concern us here. The advantage tothis is that I always have the troops to make the two sides on the spur of the moment for both sides, and I know what I will have a reasonably balanced game. We've even had one brigade against an army and a brugadem abd with the right terrain and victory conditions it can be a fair fight. |
Lion in the Stars | 05 Aug 2013 9:58 a.m. PST |
If a points system is going to be of any use, it has to take into account everything – combat ability, movement rate, special abilities. A formula is good, but hard to get right. It is easier to calculate if points are added for each incremental improvement in a statline or ability, In any system where an ability simply adds a die or two, it's pretty simple to make work. but really in most cases it is more correct to multiply by a factor for each increment. Yes, the vehicle design rules in Heavy Gear/Jovian Chronicles/Gear Krieg actually use cube roots to determine the points costs. Designing a vehicle in those rules is a bit of a pain (spreadsheets are a wonderful tool), but playing is fast, destructive, and conducive to large forces per player. ======= But again, the Ambush Alley points system is mostly there to give a quick balance check. You might really be facing a company or more when you have less than a platoon, but you're going to have one seriously badass platoon. |
MajorB | 05 Aug 2013 10:17 a.m. PST |
Yes there is – to give a relatively balanced game. Otherwise we could play WW2 Germans vs British, I could bring a division and you bring a platoon. Both correct according to army lists / historical organisation, but it wouldn't make for much of a game. You don't need points to solve that problem, just a soupcon of common sense: "How big a game shall we play this week?" It is a complete myth that armies of equal points will give a relatively balanced game. Well we'll have to agree to differ there, but it seems strange that you know this to be true so the thousands of wargamers who play equal points games every week must therefore be wrong.
They're not wrong, just labouring under a delusion that because they both have the same number of points they therefore have the same chance (50%) of winning the game. In the games I play, I am happy that an equal points game gives a relatively balanced game. In the games I play I generally want to see one side decisively defeated by the other. That's what happened most of the time historically. |
MajorB | 05 Aug 2013 10:19 a.m. PST |
If a points system is going to be of any use, it has to take into account everything – combat ability, movement rate, special abilities. A formula is good, but hard to get right. It is easier to calculate if points are added for each incremental improvement in a statline or ability, In any system where an ability simply adds a die or two, it's pretty simple to make work.
The thing that most points systems completely ignore is the effect of terrain. I'll take on your 500 pts against my 500 pts any day provided my army is entrenched in good defensive positions! |
Patrice | 05 Aug 2013 1:46 p.m. PST |
I use "pifométrique" calculation.
"pif" is French slang for "nose", and "pifomètre" means very rough guesstimation by instinct! :-) |
Last Hussar | 05 Aug 2013 5:22 p.m. PST |
I like a rough points system, to help balance a scenario- they will never be an accurate guide, but they give a rough idea that both players have a chance of winning, remembering defence is a force multiplier. The method the Lardies have come up with for CoC is the sort of thing – a Force has so many extra slots, and you can fill them as you like. Not everything on list 4 will be equal, but will be more powerful than that on list 3. I'm not talking about +5pts if unit has a banner etc, just someway to gauge the relative worth- How many Poor Regular soviet platoons are roughly equal to a Veteran German platoon with attached MMG. (as it happens 6 Poor Reg Soviets =/= 2 Veteran German sections with 2 MMG. Which way it was bias depend on which son you ask!) |
Marshal Mark | 06 Aug 2013 11:26 a.m. PST |
You don't need points to solve that problem, just a soupcon of common sense: "How big a game shall we play this week?" That doesn't solve the problem at all. Say in WW2 you decide on a platoon level game – the British player brings an infantry platoon, the German player brings an SS Panzer Grenadier Platoon in Halftracks with a Tiger tank in support. Or what about a Dark ages skirmish game – how do you define how big a game you mean? Do you say we'll each bring 20 figures? Then you might get 20 Norman knights against 20 Saxon Fyrd. It doesn't really work without points, unless one player designs the scenario and determines both sides forces. |
Marshal Mark | 06 Aug 2013 11:33 a.m. PST |
They're not wrong, just labouring under a delusion
Surely if they are deluded, then they are wrong ?
.that because they both have the same number of points they therefore have the same chance (50%) of winning the game. I don't think many people (if any) think a points system gives each player an equal chance of winning, even assuming equal player skill. That would be a perfect points system, but nobody is arguing that that exists. When I said "a relatively balanced game" the word relatively does mean something. In the games I play I generally want to see one side decisively defeated by the other. That's what happened most of the time historically. And that happens in many equal points games. But it generally happens because of player skill (and some luck) rather than due to an unbalanced game. |
Lion in the Stars | 06 Aug 2013 11:33 a.m. PST |
The thing that most points systems completely ignore is the effect of terrain. I'll take on your 500 pts against my 500 pts any day provided my army is entrenched in good defensive positions! Granted. But with the Ambush Alley points system, I can know (roughly) how many points your defensive positions are worth. Like I said, it's really a scenario-balancing tool. Infinity sorta spins things the other direction. Sure, there's a points system, but terrain density really shifts the effectiveness of weapons. So what the designers suggest is that you FIRST decide mission (which typically determines terrain) and which faction your opponent is playing, then select your force. |
MajorB | 06 Aug 2013 4:08 p.m. PST |
Say in WW2 you decide on a platoon level game – the British player brings an infantry platoon, the German player brings an SS Panzer Grenadier Platoon in Halftracks with a Tiger tank in support. From what I understand, that is pretty much how "Chain of Command" will work. Or what about a Dark ages skirmish game – how do you define how big a game you mean? Do you say we'll each bring 20 figures? Then you might get 20 Norman knights against 20 Saxon Fyrd. It doesn't really work without points, unless one player designs the scenario and determines both sides forces. And why will 20 Norman knights against 20 Saxon Fyrd not work? As I said in a previous post, you are labouring under the delusion that the same number of points means that each player has the same chance of winning. Therefore if I have 20 Norman knights (which of course must be more "expensive" than your 20 saxon Fyrd) then you have no hope of winning. After all the "odds" are 2:1!! That is where points systems leads you astray. There is a very simple answer to making a 20 Norman knights against 20 Saxon Fyrd game work. It is called terrain and victory conditions. Put the Saxon Fyrd in a defended location and say that to win all they have to do is kill 5 Normans and you will very probably have an interesting and fun game! Remember that historically, it is very rare for two opposing forces to be evenly matched. Quite often one side was outnumbered (not in "points" but in men) 3 or even more to 1. You should try a few games with unequal opposing forces. You might actually find they are more interesting than "equal points" games. |
MajorB | 06 Aug 2013 4:09 p.m. PST |
When I said "a relatively balanced game" the word relatively does mean something. What does it mean then? |
Marshal Mark | 07 Aug 2013 11:27 p.m. PST |
Remember that historically, it is very rare for two opposing forces to be evenly matched. Quite often one side was outnumbered (not in "points" but in men) 3 or even more to 1 I diasagree. Most interesting historical battles were quite evenly matched, and could have gone either way. If one side was significantly outnumbered, they would normally avoid battle if possible. In Philip Sabins "Lost Battles" he analyses 35 of the great battles of the classical ancient period, and assigns a "Fighting Value" to each army based on the quantity and quality of its troops. In virtually all of the battles the difference in the two armies Fighting Values is within 10-20%, and in not one battle is one side outnumbered 2:1 or more in Fighting Value. |
Patrice | 07 Aug 2013 11:55 p.m. PST |
I don't think a point system guarantees a balanced game. IMHO the point system is useful to prevent players to buy and paint as many miniatures as they can pay with real money because they want to outnumber their enemies on the game table. That's all it does. |
John Thomas8 | 08 Aug 2013 2:01 p.m. PST |
IMHO the point system is useful to prevent players to buy and paint as many miniatures as they can pay with real money because they want to outnumber their enemies on the game table. I agree: a point system guarantees nothing. However, the easiest way to regulate players with a battalion hammering a poor sot with a platoon is to write better scenarios. Major Bumsore hits it right on the head: you can "run with what ya brung" IF each side is given an achievable victory condition. |
Marshal Mark | 08 Aug 2013 3:18 p.m. PST |
I don't think a point system guarantees a balanced game.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone (on a forum or in a rulebook or anywhere else) say that it does. |
Marshal Mark | 08 Aug 2013 3:21 p.m. PST |
the easiest way
.is to write better scenarios. But that takes time and effort, and means you have to know in advance who is playing and what forces are at their disposal. The purpose of a points system is to allow for pick-up style games, and tournament games. Which a lot of people obviously prefer playing. |
John Thomas8 | 08 Aug 2013 6:05 p.m. PST |
But that takes time and effort, and means you have to know in advance who is playing and what forces are at their disposal Not really, except you probably already know in pretty good terms what's generally available in your gaming circle. Writing templates to fit those available troops with the ability to pencil in the specifics at game time is a way to do it. But that takes time and effort It takes time and effort to buy and paint the miniatures, too. Why leave the game play to some arbitrary goatbleep at game time? I just watched 3 sets of veteran-to-the-rules players set up a common set of WWII rules. Smart guys, nicely painted troops and vehicles. IT TOOK 45 flippin' minutes to set the forces onto the table. About as retarded as anything I've ever seen on a game table in 20 years. On the other hand, I use a different set of rules and take 45 minutes to write a scenario (I have about 40 per period I play just laying around now) and from the time I get to the table, we're rolling dice in 20 minutes, tops, briefings and shootin' the breeze included. If I want to do an actual historical battle, that takes about 2 hours of research (mostly tracking down accurate OOBs) and labeling the bases for the battle. No points required. |
Joes Shop | 09 Aug 2013 3:57 a.m. PST |
I've never used a points system or played with a group that did. Regards, J. P. Kelly |
etotheipi | 09 Aug 2013 12:23 p.m. PST |
First, a points system reduces what is a multi-faceted dynamic – 3d (or at least 2D) geometry, offensive power, defensive power, terrain/environmental effects, state changes in units, tactical envelope, operational modalities, etc. – into a one-dimensional quantity. Of course that looses information and only partially reflects relative combat effectiveness. That said, a point system can have a sweet spot (or sweet window) where for given sets of conditions equal point forces run under equally applicable strategies have roughly equal chances of winning (or, more specifically have the same minimal ordinality of Markov Paths from start to a win for their side). Where points systems usually break down is when you have a large variance in the component subsets that make the point system. If you and I both choose ten 10-point units from a list to make our 100-point force, the point system is likely to work for us. If you choose a 100-point unit and I choose one hundred 1-point units, the point system is likely to break down. So I think they're useful. In the games I design, I start with an area of effect normalized probability of kill ratio among the different units. Kind of the Lanchester Equation equilibrium point – if we both just stood here beating the snot out of each other, what forces would make both of us peter out just before the other guy did, on the average. Using that as a baseline, I like the playtest the crap out of the baseline. After all, I like playing games. Then I tweak them and playtest some more. The stuff I've published for QILS, Bones, and microgames reflects the playtesting of the scenarios with different units; i.e., just because its an XYZ system game, doesn't mean the units types/sizes are interchangeable across the scenario groups. With QILS, it very nearly is, but that's because the scenarios are focused on what I called the sweet spot above – skirmish games with ~20 units per side that fit on a dinner table and play in 1-3 hours. Hope some of that helps. |
Lion in the Stars | 09 Aug 2013 9:14 p.m. PST |
@John Thomas8: But I don't know what everyone in the gaming circle has (in some games/eras/periods). We had 30-odd people playing Flames of War a while back, and all of us had multiple armies. For Ambush Alley (15mm, individually based platoons or so), I have Americans, two different platoons of Soviets, 4-5 different German platoons, and Italians (and need to get some Brits). That's just for WW2 gaming. If we punt that into moderns, I have more, and it's even worse if we start talking Tomorrow's War (scifi) factions! |
jony663 | 10 Aug 2013 11:34 a.m. PST |
I do not even try to balance with points. As battles were never fair and balanced. It is important for players to have historical accurate forces, so they can try to complete their tasks with some level of reality. |
Last Hussar | 10 Aug 2013 1:25 p.m. PST |
The anti pointers are missing the point. I know what the historical TOEs etc say. What I need is a way to gauge A vs Z, as in "3 A's are roughly equivalent to 2 Z's in this situation". "Not losing until Turn 8" isn't a victory condition, its a slightly better loss. You are still losing. The people who are deluding themselves are the ones who say 'I only play historical battles' because you aren't. Even in the highly unlikely event you have accurate force composition, you can't tell if that unit is of Quality 'x', or just got very lucky/poor 'die rolls' on the day. Additionally you are fighting with hindsight, devoid of context- often the general ship came down to one side forcing battle THERE not THERE. |
Last Hussar | 10 Aug 2013 1:34 p.m. PST |
What I would do is take a 'standard' unit. A unit which is 'Mr Average'. So, for Napoleonics you may decide it is a French line unit. (Its the one unit that will definitely be on the battlefield!) Give that an arbitrary value that is easy to divide up- say 24 points. Put another unit against it, and assume a 1 on 1 fight, no terrain, with perfectly average dice (ie on d6 you roll 1 of each number every 6 rolls, or that each 2 dice will produce 1 high 1 low etc.) If Standard unit wins roughly half the time then the Challenger is worth about the same. If it takes 2 challengers to win half the time, then it is worth about half and so on. Put the Standard unit in defence against an attacking Standard unit. This will give a guide as to the ration of Attack:defence points. You can also work out how much a defensive work will count as a force multiplier: If 3 standard attackers win 50% against 1 Standard defender in trench, then the trench is worth 2 Standard points per unit in it. |
John Thomas8 | 10 Aug 2013 7:04 p.m. PST |
What I need is a way to gauge A vs Z, as in "3 A's are roughly equivalent to 2 Z's in this situation". There isn't a point system I've seen that tells you that. The ones I've seen tell you if you buy X amount of dollars of unit Y you have Z number of points. I'll take a trained infantry platoon with no armour and beat a tank platoon with no supporting infantry every single time (with the proper die rolls, of course). I bet they don't cost the same number of points in any given points system, either. |
MajorB | 11 Aug 2013 7:30 a.m. PST |
"Not losing until Turn 8" isn't a victory condition, its a slightly better loss. You are still losing. Now you are just playing with words. Try rephrasing it as "Survive until turn 8". A victory condition like that could make even a game based on Camerone an exciting possibility! The people who are deluding themselves are the ones who say 'I only play historical battles' because you aren't. I don't think anyone actually claimed to play "historical battles". Any scenario based on a historical situation will begin to diverge from what actually happened the moment you roll the first dice. What surprises me therefore is how often, with a good set of rules, a game based on a historical scenario will more or less mirror reality. Of course there are also times when it doesn't
I know of several game designers who "calibrate" (for want of a better word) their rules by playtesting using historical scenarios. You can also work out how much a defensive work will count as a force multiplier: If 3 standard attackers win 50% against 1 Standard defender in trench, then the trench is worth 2 Standard points per unit in it. Good point, but I don't think I've ever come across a points system that includes such defences? |
Marshal Mark | 11 Aug 2013 12:03 p.m. PST |
Good point, but I don't think I've ever come across a points system that includes such defences? In FOG (AM and R) you can have field defences (if allowed in the army lists). These cost an amount of points per base width. I'm sure there are many other rules that give a points cost for prepared defences. I'm pretty sure BKC has a points cost for barbed wire, mine fields, etc. |
Last Hussar | 11 Aug 2013 6:58 p.m. PST |
Try rephrasing it as "Survive until turn 8". A victory condition like that could make even a game based on Camerone an exciting possibility! and you still get to walk away having been slaughtered. I'm not saying never play these- but it should be clear what the defender's role is. 'This is a rearguard'. I don't want a game to defend point 'x', when it is actually impossible. Nor do I want a game which is impossible for the attacker to win. Even if it is "survive until turn '8'" you need to gauge if that is reasonable target for both sides. In these type of games its pointless saying 'to this time' if it isn't possible. You are still set a realistic target. I don't think anyone actually claimed to play "historical battles". There are, usually on 'points' threads. I'll take a trained infantry platoon with no armour and beat a tank platoon with no supporting infantry every single time (with the proper die rolls, of course). Depends on the tank and on the AT weapons really. Again I am not arguing (I'll make it specific) that GW style points systems work accurately. Frankly in this scenario, if the tanks haven't gone with an historical leg support, then good rules will punish this. What I'm talking about is some way to roughly gauge whether you have a 40-60% chance to win. Even if you are doing Thermopylae as Greeks you want a Victory condition you feel you have a reasonable chance of fulfilling- Note a defender's VC is basically anything where the Attacker doesn't make his VC, "including wins but too late". This 'rough guide' must extend to designed scenarios- I'm not just talking about 'Bring x points'. In a game of IABSM #1 son had 6 platoons of poor Regular Soviets. I had no idea how much Veteran Germans to give to #2 son to defend with. I went with 2 sections plus 2 MMG with proportionately more and better Big Men. They gave a good account of themselves rendering many of the soviet units combat ineffective, but were still overwhelmed by sheer numbers. #1 son is STILL convinced he had the weaker force (because they were 'poor') while #2 points out weight of numbers. |
Lfseeney | 20 Dec 2013 3:50 p.m. PST |
I like the weight stat method. Each stat should be have a value of 2 to 10. Based on how much the stat affects the game. Special abilities are given a point cost. It takes some fiddling but the end is based on math not gut. Then if needed adjust points, but when ever one can change by adjusting the weights. Spreadsheets are your friend. |
Murvihill | 23 Dec 2013 7:40 a.m. PST |
I don't use points for most of my historical games, but for fantasy I have a combat system that is based on a "Kill Number" between .5 and 10, going up by .5. When I created the points system I started out by squaring the kill number. weapons that shoot have a kill number and range, so I squared the Aerial Kill number and multiplied it by the variance between the range and 12" (the average speed of a critter in the game). Magic is all based on the kill number system as well, determining both the number of spells and their effectiveness so I squared the magic value of the figure. Add those numbers up, multiply by the number of figures and you have a value for the unit. There are multipliers for special capabilities, like Pikes, flying or high speed. You get point values from .5 per figure for a snotling to about 200 for an ancient dragon, who can be killed by 6 snotlings if they roll a 10 on a d10
|
Andy ONeill | 23 Dec 2013 9:01 a.m. PST |
Although nobody's claiming point systems guarantee a balanced game. The one thing a point system definitely guarantees is that someone will attempt to min max their army build. If you read a bunch of tactica for warhammer fantasy battle. Many are about the "tactic" of what you put in your list. The thing to do is guess at some starting values. Build a list of ten using those values and see what you get. I think just by looking at your first lists you will catch some obvious glitches. Then TRY and break the system and gain an advantage with each list. Fix them. Once you've stomped the obvious bugs I recommend getting a few other people to look at what you've come up with. That'll catch a bunch more glitches you overlooked. Once you've done the air-gaming approach it's time to put a few units on table and see what they do. A simulation programme isn't a bad idea. Very difficult to allow for variations in movement though. You can work out what happens in straight out fights, just watch out for units which can avoid fighting fair. Then release to play testers. You need people who will try and break your lists. As the creator of a game the tendency is to defend your baby and pick people who will be nice to you. They're no good. You want that awkward rules lawyering cheating sob who is the min max exploitation champ. |