Star Grunts Point System -- the Reason Why -- Retort

In a message dated 97-05-29 04:26:18 EDT, you write:

<< You are playing the wrong game!  If you want to try a campaign with
an
 entire planet or nation, you should move up to Dirtside!! >>

The background for my campaign is a mercenary universe a la Falkenberg's
Legion, Hammer's Slammers, et al.  Different missions require different
forces -- sometimes fleet actions, sometimes mechanized forces,
sometimes
commando raids.  So the points I was making was that I needed some way
to
integrate the equipping of a mercenary force down to the level of
specialist
commandos (using Star Grunt).

No, even I'm not dumb enough to try to do a major war campaign at the
platoon
level!

<<The only reason we would strive to make a balanced game is so it will
be
FUN to play!!!!   Both sides having a chance to pull off victory!!>>

That's exactly what the campaign is about -- having a chance to pull of
a
victory!  So, in the scenario writing, we "bid" for "jobs", trying to do
the
job with the least amount of force.  Scenarios are written so that each
side
has a reasonably equal chance at pulling off a victory, even though that
may
mean entirely different things to opposing players.  In fact, it is
possible
for both players to pull off a victory in the same game, simply because
the
objectives were different.  This is exactly what balancing scenarios and
forces is all about.

But, again, I reiterate, I need some way to build the pool of forces
from
which players "bid their contracts".  I suppose I could do it based on
"if
you have the model you can bring it to the fight", but then I'd win by
sheer
force of numbers!

<<The point is, as a force commander, you are given a job to do.  Your
enemy
is given the job of stopping you from completing your objectives.  That
is
the basis for all scenarios.>>

Sorry, that's just plain wrong.  It CAN be true, but not always.  Prime
example, at middle echelon, the US Army is terrain-oriented.  Battalion
commands plan missions to take and secure key terrain to support the
higher
HQ's mission.  The Russian doctrine is totally different.  They are
objective-oriented.  They'll happily bypass key terrain, ignoring any
enemy
on it, in order to get to their objective.  In the meantime, the US
forces
are wondering why they're not being attacked (just suppressed).  I used
to
see that puzzlement all the time when I worked for the Army Command and
General Staff College running battle simulations.

<<Need inspiration?  Grab any war history book>>

Not to be belligerent, but I got my start in historical gaming, and I
probably have more years of experience writing balanced, fun scenarios
that
you do.  And when I say balanced, I don't mean equal points -- I mean
equal
advantages, be it terrain, weather, technology, tactics, command and
control,
training, or whatever.	The point was, and still is, having some thread
of
continuity between games; otherwise there is a great propensity for the
GW
mentality of bringing killer forces to battle.	When a loss in a
particular
game can have a (albeit minor) effect on future games (because the dead
vehicle may not have been recovered), I end up seeing real tactics
working
the way they should.

Don't mistake me -- I love Dirt Side, and Star Grunt is nearly as much
fun
for me.  I lavish as much preparation as possible on every scenario for
each.
 But I still want a framework to facilitate handling the continuity
thread.