sillypoint | 18 Nov 2017 7:20 p.m. PST |
It is a dark art. Sometimes I think costs reflect some sort of value in how they are recruited and their cost to train and arm, rather than their tabletop effectiveness. |
McLaddie | 18 Nov 2017 10:03 p.m. PST |
The rationales that I have read for points systems was to provide balanced games, where an army with high quality troops will have fewer than those with lower quality--and/or that it will create historically valid ratios of different arms. I haven't read anywhere that designers have actually tested the point costs for different units. |
basileus66 | 19 Nov 2017 12:23 a.m. PST |
Balance is tricky. If you have an army formed by high quality units, but most of them are mounted and will fight poorly on wooded areas, balance will be a function of how many or how few woods -or built up areas- are present in your table. Imagine the Grenadiers a Cheval of the Imperial Guard in a scenario where in order to win they must capture a Belgian chateau defended by Netherlands militia. Bottom line is that trying to achieve balance through the use of pre-set unit points values is an elusive, if not impossible, endeavour. |
UshCha | 19 Nov 2017 12:40 a.m. PST |
Points systems only work when the terrain is also fixed. DBM does this. Even then some troops do not function correctly. Romans cannot use engineering to defeat cavalry as they would have. Integrated points,terrain systems are for games only, they are not for simulations. A tank in a swamp is not great asset |
korsun0 | 19 Nov 2017 5:47 a.m. PST |
I see points merely as a mechanism to limit certain troops types and try and keep historical ratios. Therefore unit costs are gauged on historical capabilties….. …..although I am probably utopian in my outlook. |
MajorB | 19 Nov 2017 6:14 a.m. PST |
There is no such thing as "balance", so point systems are a waste of time. |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 19 Nov 2017 11:34 a.m. PST |
I agree with MajorB. The objective of playing a wargame is to have a social and intellectual good time. When I run a game, I put that objective into the written operations orders for each side. It's a big picture / eye on the prize kind of thing. Game balance should serve that big picture. Game balance means that each side has a real chance to win, and that each side understands that each side has a real chance to win. I try to get that balance through the victory conditions in a scenario. Unit point costs are not an effective way to get that balance, because conflict has many other variables that can outweigh the relative value of individual units. Terrain is discussed above, and the strategic situation, morale, motivation, supply, health, and weather are other important variables affecting a battle. I also don't run hopeless last stands where one side faces overwhelming odds, because players don't usually find them much fun. |
emckinney | 19 Nov 2017 1:34 p.m. PST |
A perfect point system is perfectly pointless. If the point values of all units literally reflect their combat effectiveness, it literally does not matter what units you pick! |
Rich Bliss | 19 Nov 2017 4:36 p.m. PST |
|
Dynaman8789 | 19 Nov 2017 5:00 p.m. PST |
Scenarios. Problem solved. |
Thomas Thomas | 20 Nov 2017 10:55 a.m. PST |
Point systems are balancing mechanisms so that two players can meet, bring their own armies and fight a battle which either one can win (this does not imply perfect balance). Points are not the only mechanism for doing this as we have shown with Combat Command where balance is achieved by matching historical units. Which ever approach you use, it must also incorperate terrain and objectives. For instance in Combat Command we vary who gets to set up (most) of the terrain and who gets to defend based on the type of units taken. Infantry based forces tend to set up terrain and defend while those built around armor tend to attack – by that means balancing the two types of forces. So its not just "points" for units but the entire package that must be considered. People are confusing the difficult with the impossible. We run balanced pick up battles using forces that resemble historical battlegroups in WWII as a regular part of our monthly gaming schedule (working on North African campaign as I type). Historical scenerios are different but also great gaming experiences. Balancing systems can help here too. Go over the historical forces using whatever balancing system your game system provides. Determine which side has the advantage and then set the objectives accordingly. You can then balance an historical battle – much more fun for the players. Everyone seems to be forgetting that vital gaming element – player decisions. If you have chosen a tank heavy force and your opponent has put out dense terrain – you must adjust your tactics. It helps for instance to have created acombined arms force with at least some Infantry to create an initial gap in the enemy defenses that the armor can then exploit. Might not work in a 1-1 skirmish game put most platoon level games allow for cracking nuts in different ways. Thomas J. Thomas Fame and Glory Games |
Great War Ace | 20 Nov 2017 8:12 p.m. PST |
We have a rather detailed points system which I seldom use. Usually I go the scenario and randomly rolled units route. Points armies were originally intended to provide a venue for chance meetings at gaming cons. Alternately, they are a facile way to buy troops in a campaign. But I haven't done one of those in decades. |
MajorB | 21 Nov 2017 3:01 p.m. PST |
Everyone seems to be forgetting that vital gaming element – player decisions. If you have chosen a tank heavy force and your opponent has put out dense terrain – you must adjust your tactics. And therein lies the fallacy. In real life the commander would know the type of terrain he has got to deal with beforehand. And would thus tailor his force to suit it. |
COL Scott ret | 23 Nov 2017 7:48 p.m. PST |
In his book the "Wargame " C.S. Grant included a point system into the campaign section. It was roughly cost oriented to build armies or recruit new units. It allowed each commander to build armies that they liked and prevented each commander from running an all elite force. |
etotheipi | 29 Nov 2017 1:18 p.m. PST |
I disagree that there is no such thing as "balance" in a war game. It is multifaceted concept. The challenge with a point system is that you are trying to project a multi-dimensional problem down to a single dimension. So you get a "shadow" of the real thing. Sometimes the shadow of a gnomon is a reasonable representation of the object itself. Sometimes it is not. If you do it well and plan ahead, a point system can be useful, and even simpler than handling all the relevant dimensions of the problem. Even if you do it well and plan ahead, a point system will break down and not be useful in situations where you want it to. A single number for the volume of something is often easier to handle than a triplet of length x width x depth. And you can do a lot of analysis and comparison using volume. The volume number alone, however, will not tell you if a cello will fit in the trunk of that car you want to buy. QILS has a point system built in. It is presented as a "rule of thumb" type tool, not the scientifically balanced equation to answer every question of equity in the universe for all time. I'm OK with that. |
Rudysnelson | 29 Nov 2017 6:28 p.m. PST |
A lot depends on the era. A small unit with heavy weapons may have a higher level of explosive capability than a larger unit with more primitive guns. In the old WRG 4th edition rules which were my first point system. Unit point was based strength plus weapons plus defensive armor and mounted status. Napoleonic s system was based on size x melee and morale status. Tanks were tank armor and main gun. These were back in the 1970s. The advantage of board games was very few had a need for them. |
etotheipi | 30 Nov 2017 5:15 p.m. PST |
|