Re: Another POINTless Argument (was Re: Scatterguns and SMPs... and PDAF)

On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Allan Goodall wrote:

> I haven't seen a point system yet that isn't broken. 

Neither have I. But the relatively good ones still provide a useful 
reference point. And it's generally easier to fix something than make it

from scratch.

> In fact, it's near
> impossible for a single number to represent the ability of a unit. 

Make that "perfectly represent" and I agree.

> Point systems, once an aid to scenario design, have resulted in the
Games
> Workshopping of the hobby. 

Geez, and it's all my fault? I have to defend GW here, as much as I hate

'em: Early GW games were much more laid back and used points as an aid
to 
scenario design. It's after Ansell sold the firm that the tournament
crap 
really came in -- and even then they didn't invent it. I think our 
beloved historical friends did.

Heck, the only good version of 40K has a very extensive random scenario
generator. Adeptus Titanicus also had a scenario system. They used to
publish scenario packs for WFB. Then some bright boy came up with these
idiotic mission cards and whatnot. 

> Hmm. I'm probably over harsh. A point system does allow the same sort
of
> unit building that exists in CCG deck building and Full Thrust ship
design.

Exactly! Ship and tank design are *the* most important reasons I ever 
bought anything from GZG. You can't do those without point systems.

I hate pre-fab settings. I never use any. I'm not going to. Thus any
game 
that restricts me to a list of Official Designs(tm) doesn't meet my 
needs. I want a game that can be customized for my settings without 
excessive work.

And "make up any stats you like" doesn't really cut it.

> You try to outguess your opponent on the unit design side in order to
give
> you the edge you don't have in terrain or numbers. This in itself
would not
> be a bad thing, except that it encourages game publishers to build
powerful
[Clip]

Agreed to a point. With a design-your-own system there's no need
for the Official Megawhatever(tm).

> I personally don't think that a point system is evil. But your
comments show
> the horrible downside of point systems: they destroy the imagination.

Whose imagination are you implying? Mine? How about backing that
statement?
Now... I said that without a point system, the only real choice for a 
one-off game is identical forces.

I *didn't* say that *with* points system you'd have to use equal points.

I think your telepathic powers must malfunctioning, or maybe a quick
trip 
to an optician might help with reading words that aren't there.

It's just that without prolonged experience with the game or a point 
system, it's pretty nigh impossible to give even ballpark figures for 
relative strengths. Especially in a game that is not rooted in
historical 
data.

Let's do a little test here. Say A has:
10 hypergoogles
5 uppityuppities
3 megasmashers
1 general (Napoleon)

While the opponent, B, has chosen:
25 plasmazoids
4 egocannon
12 larvae
1 Cheshire cat

To make an interesting game instead of a pointless slaughterfest, which 
side would YOU appoint to the defense of Hill 621?

Gee, it's hard to know when you haven't played the game, isn't it? It's
still hard to know after 10 or 20 or 30 games. At one game a week, it
could take a year or two before you can make meaningful assessments. 
Maybe you haven't fielded a Cheshire cat before. How can you tell how
effective it will be? 

Sure, you could do the math or punch it in a computer simulation to find
out. But that doesn't really match my idea of a fun gaming eve on
Friday. 

> Instead of having to think about a game, you just pick an arbitrary
number
> and build a force accordingly.

How's that different from picking an arbitrary unit size, e.g. "bring a 
company's worth of troops"?

> While your at it, you can show your expertise
> in the game by min/maxing the force to the point of absurdity. 

Well, that's why I try to mend these broken systems.

> Now if these
> games did what WRG's Modern Wargame rules (1920 to 1950) did, that is
MAKE
> players choose a mission and alter their points appropriately, I could
live
> with it. 

Actually, I own and play WRG 1925-1950.

> But most point games, ala WH40K, encourage tournament games of even

Make that "current edition of WH40K".

> doesn't have a point system (even a completely arbitrary, and
> broken one) the game must be crap.

Ahem. I never said that. I said "useless" and "otherwise fine". It's a 
bit like having a fancy electronic gadget without the owner's manual.
Sure you can spend hours learning through trial and error, but who has 
the time and the interest? Sure you can have your friend who already has

one show you the ropes -- if such a person exists.

As far as I know, I could be the only one in the entire country who 
actually plays and owns FT. Who's going to show me the ropes?

> So, Jon, include those point systems. It's no big deal to me. I'll
just
> ignore that section, anyway. Although, truth to tell, the page would
be much
> more useful if it simply said, "Notes:" and was left intentionally
blank...

Well, I feel the same about the Official Background(tm) pages...

Hey, mind if I ask: How do you design your Ft ships then? Do you just
use 
the vanilla designs? I'm really curious.

--
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |