Re: [MISC] [OT] Bring and Battle

chadtaylor wrote:

>
>
> OK, I admit defeat (and I only just started).  But wouldn't the
easiest way
> to accomplish the above be to use a points system?  After all, how can
you
> get more generic than a points system?  So, does this mean that you
intend
> to remove the points system from FT or DS on the same theory?
>
> Chad

  Actually a point system usually has to be very specific to be
worthwhile.
Each factor - range, penetration, power, ammo, armor, movement, type of
movement etc. needs to be evaluated and assigned a value then the unit's
value tabulated.  A generic system on the other hand allows people to
say
here are 4 heavy tanks, a similar armed force would be X, Y and Z.  The
down
side is when you play with people who are nit-picky as in "well your
tank
has one more armor factor on the front side so really my 4 heavy tanks
are
a lot worse and I should get another tank to even things out". 
Reasonable
people should be able to agree to things like that, otherwise you get
bogged
down in counting points, and unless the designer has tested each and
every
possibility of weapons vs. armor at various ranges under various
conditions,
there are bound to be weapons which are over/under rated.

One of the problems in converting skirmish games to point values is that
it is
extremely difficult to correctly assign values, since in reality the
value of
the
weapon is how you use it - i.e. a 100 point light machine gun may be
worth
more or less than 100, 1 point pistols - if the combat range is in
hundreds of
yards then the pistols will lose, if it is dense jungle and the LMG is
attacked

from multiple directions at close range, the pistols will win.	How then
would
you equilibrate the values?  Are pistols worth less than 1 because they
have no

long range capability?	Are LMG's worth less than 100 because they can
only
cover 1 arc at a time?	What happens if you get multiple LMG's, does the
price
go up for each additional one, even if they aren't placed together? 
Does ammo
become a consideration? an LMG with one round is much less valuable than
100 pistols with one round each.  Do big weapons get unlimited ammo? 
Does
each additional ammo cost extra? and how much? Is a weapon used by
different
units costed the same way? (i.e. a sniper rifle in the hands of a sniper
would
be much more effective than in the hands of a mob)  Is portability an
issue?
Easily
transported items would have to cost more or might that be offset by
differences
in range, ammo or penetration?	Imagine having to do this for each and
every
weapon system available - from a pocket knife to plasma cannon and
determining
how troop types, terrain, range, penetration value, area effect value,
morale
value
all effect each weapon and then trying them out to make sure that the
point
values
are correct.  I merely point to GW to show what unbalanced points can
do. It's
not
totally GW's fault, but they don't test the systems hard enough to
figure out
what
really creative and enthused players will do for an edge.

FT, especially FT/FB alleviates this in that a) there is minimal terrain
and
movement types, b) there are only two types of damage - normal and stuff
that bypasses screens, and c) there are basically 2 types of weapons
ones
that roll dice based on range and those that roll a to-hit then roll
damage.
FT/FB simplifies stuff and it is evident that if you nit-picked some
things
would not be realistic (i.e. a heavy freighter with a PDS should not be
able
to destroy a Superdread with Firecons and engines out, but given enough
turns
the PDS will be able to destroy the SD by rolling enough 6's)  You can
still
min\max in FT/FB but it's less obvious and the advantages are much less.
 So
I would suspect that most of the points have been equilibrated in FT/FB
and
it won't need much more tweaking in the future.

Some fuel for the fire.

--Binhan