[Blog] Thoughts on Point Systems

[Ruckdog]

Hi all! Just got a new post added to the blog. Apologies in advance for the stream of consciousness style 

http://www.manbattlestations.com/blog/2021/10/09/thoughts-on-point-systems/

[Covertwalrus]

 A timely and well thought out piece Andy.

 It's the curse of the "gaming" part of "war-gaming" that there is a tendency to try to make  the game fair by having equally balanced teams playing against each other so that only the skills of the players determine the outcome of the game . . . Which has never been a consideration in board-games where the rules themselves can advantage one force over another or even be a force in themselves against the players.

 Yet its also true that unbalanced scenarios make for the most exciting and playable games around.

 The biggest issue with points values in such games is that they have to reflect the way the rules treat them. It's no good paying a huge points cost to field a unit that the rules make an ineffective system either because a smaller unit exploits a weakness/rules point ( The GEVS in OGRE begin the example most turn to - Have enough of them and you can stop the Cybertank dead.) or the unit is hampered by other factors (Sure, you can field massive battlemechs with the maximum size weapons - Class 5 - in Dirtside2 . . . However, the size value rules allow everything to shoot at it with a bonus to hit, and the firecon rule prevents you using more than one weapon at a time. ). Points cost must be alligned with game mechanics.

 Just my first thoughts.

[hammurabi70]

Does the outcome depend on the command skill of the players or being lucky with the dice?  It rather depends on your view of the rules and what is important.

[Easy E]

I am glad to see that all this chatting with Game Designers is triggering your own thoughts on game design. 

Not long now, and you will be "one of us!" 

 

[Kelly]

Good post, and I agree with you up to a certain point, and think you only missed one thing.  I do not really see the downside of systems as they can ignored for historical / scenario play when that may be called for, am I missing the point?

In point of fact, the balancing of units is a separate issue that would arise when a system is not granular enough for the number of units in a game.  My favorite systems are multi-factored with eras of availability / force organizations / incompatibilities / type caps that also must be accounted for when putting a force together, but that is beside the point.

I read, and reread, and then searched the topic before hitting my breaking point, where were the puns?

[Covertwalrus]

Good post, and I agree with you up to a certain point, and think you only missed one thing.  I do not really see the downside of systems as they can ignored for historical / scenario play when that may be called for, am I missing the point?

In point of fact, the balancing of units is a separate issue that would arise when a system is not granular enough for the number of units in a game.  My favorite systems are multi-factored with eras of availability / force organizations / incompatibilities / type caps that also must be accounted for when putting a force together, but that is beside the point.

I read, and reread, and then searched the topic before hitting my breaking point, where were the puns?

 That's an entirely fair response, and I will grant that many people will ignore the points system for historically accurate purposes. . . . however, that's probably not the majority of players of most systems and indeed not even the intention of some games authors that the rules should be played that way. Most games are, I would suggest played as games rather than historical re-enactments.

 And I'm missing the puns as well. Andy did say he did this as a stream of consciousness so he probably wasn't concentrating. 

[Covertwalrus]

Does the outcome depend on the command skill of the players or being lucky with the dice?  It rather depends on your view of the rules and what is important.

 That's a good question. Any game in which there is a random element will always raise that question about the outcome. But even so, the random element shouldn't be the entire defining element in success or failure of a player, nor should the type of army/force they field . . . Something GW players and Napoleonic fans seem to disagree with at times 

 As to "Importance" my priority is first an enjoyable game - Even the player who "loses" should have enjoyed playing the game, which probably feeds into the second priority, that under most circumstances either side should have an equal chance of winning.