Re: Star Grunts Point System (another point of view - scenario design)

On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Terrance L. Smith wrote:

> 1. Point systems are commonly used to develop "balanced" scenarios.
Why do
> we assume balanced games are best? They are good for intro games and
> balanced meeting engagements can be interesting, but most combat is
not
> between carefully balanced forces. Many scenarios I design are
unbalanced
> on purpose. (Assuming they are for experienced players.)

IMHO, "balanced" means "equal chance to achieve victory conditions", NOT

"equal strength forces".

Points are a tool to evaluate force/unit effectiveness, nothing more.
How you use that information is strictly up to you.

Now, some people *do* abuse point systems, but IMHO they're the people
who'd abuse the system anyway. If they didn't have points, they'd ask
for
official army lists or whatever. E.g. Tactica Ancients doesn't have a
points system. But it has strict, unmodifiable army lists and strict, 
unmodifiable victory conditions, which is IMHO the worst of both worlds.

Or, as some people seem to hope, they'd leave the game. I personally 
don't like to kick people out when differences can be worked out.
There are far too few gamers around here to get elitist.

-- 
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 |