RE: Star Grunt 2 : Whenit finaly comes together.

At 10:43 AM 5/26/97 +0300, you wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 1997, Glover, Owen wrote:
>
>>	The rules make continual reference to a Referee/Umpire; this
>> would appear to be a type of game that uses the structured use of a
>> mediator
>
>But where do you get the third party? Do you rotate shifts?
>
>"Sorry Bob, you can't play tonight. You must design a scenario
>and referee for Al and Charlie. Oh, and Charlie just finished
>painting his power armor squad, so include that in the scenario.
>I've no idea what figures Al has. You have 30 minutes."
>
>Is it the duty of the club president?
>
>"Hi Dave, you've just been elected president. You can't play for a
year,
>you must referee and design scenarios for everyone else. And next year
>we'll just elect you again."
>
>Do you trust commercial scenario packs?
>
>"Hi Eric. I just bought the Xyzzy Battlepack. Care to help me buy and
>paint 3000 Xenovian Bug Marines so we can play it? Everyone's pitching
in
>to hire the author as a referee."
>
>Or maybe the tooth fairy does it?
>
>>	Relative strengths are apportioned on the basis of "Operational"
>> groupings eg a Recon team (one squad) is bumped by an enemy Fighting
>> Patrol ( one Platoon), as well as experience of the relative
>> firepower/combat effectiveness of the nations military forces.
>
>So it's a point system by another name with an attached fuzziness
factor.
>	
>>	Actually it is the Ancient Art of the Military Appreciation and
>> Assessment.
>
>Call it whatever you like, I'll call it guesstimation, because that's
>what it is. With enough experience you can make pretty good guesses,
>but games are a rapidly changing environment with a multitude of choice
>combinations and it is not bound by natural laws. In my opinion, most
>casual players never reach the level of proficiency to make consistent
>and accurate guesstimates of all possible force combinations.
>

Oh come on.  It doesn't take too many brains to look at opposing forces,
the
scenario and the setup and design a balanced game.  I've done it many
times
and I've played as well.  I can balance a game 100 times better than any
points system.	I KNOW the capabilities of the application of one force
against another.  A points system can't adjust for these scenario.
"Hmmmm
lets see, this powered armour is worth 100 points, but I'm deploying it
hidden and versus lightly armed NAC troops, therefore its now worth 200
points. If it had been against that light tank, they would only be 75
pts.
Oh and I have to add 50 points for giving them and extra SAW.  Oh yea,
they
have an EW element..that make them even more dangerous...better up the
points again.  Of course..the NAC have air support, so I better lower
the
powered armor points by a quarter, they're less effective now..."  A
point
system can't adjust for the situation or the forces they are deployed
against.  On the other hand, I can.  Point systems are worthless.  If
you
want to play a tournament, have everyone play the same scenario with the
same forces, from both sides.  Then you can find out who has the
superior
skill or luck, and go from there.  Allowing players to show up with an
arbitrary number of points, and deploy against whatever anyone else
brings,
has to be the most unbalanced play ever.  Sounds like that horrid
skirmish
game from Gouge Workstore.  We all know how balanced their points system
is...works good too! <sarcasm for those that didn't catch it :) >

Jerry McVicker	

"Don't worry soldier, weapons will be available in a moment."

Blackwind and Raddix Gaming
http://www.imagixx.net/~bnrgames
bnrgames@imagixx.net