RE: [GZG] Re: Points systems

The items listed below are modeled using the following systems:

Tech Level - this limits the tech level of equipment that your
nationality can support - perhaps Class-2 beams are as good as it gets
for a 2nd rate nation, but a top tier nation can produce and maintain
Class 3+ weapons.  Ditto for torpedoes, missiles or needle beams.

Staffing/logistics - fleet sizes may be limited by the logistical tail
or recruitment limitations - i.e. a star-faring nation that encompasses
4 worlds with billions of inhabitants is going to be able to man
hundreds or thousands of vessels.  A nation from part of a single planet
with population of millions may not, even if it had the industrial
capacity to manufacture such a number of ships (say modular ships made
at an automated orbital factory).

Unless you implement detailed campaign rules to add these types of
factors to generate fleets, then the best method is to develop solid
rules for generating scenarios that are relatively "balanced".

Balanced doesn't mean equal points, but that each side has similar
opportunities to win the scenario.  For instance, in a convoy escort
scenario the defenders may outnumber the attackers by 2 to 1 in points,
but if the scenario objective is to destroy X number of freighters (a la
WW2 wolfpacks) then the scenario mayvery well be balanced.

Points should only be used as a rough tool to determine scenario balance
- the actual weapon mix is very important - Beam heavy fleets are less
effective vs. screened targets, torpedo heavy fleets are vulnerable to
long-range weapons, and the usual mis-match, massed fighters vs.
everything.  Scenario balance can be achieved by setting objectives or
initial conditions, and placing terrain or defensive structures rather
than just an equal points total.

For instance - in addition to points, a game might have Victory Points
(VP), with each ship being granted a certain number of VP.  An example
might be a player needs to secretly allocate 30VP between the ships of
his fleet with a minimum of 1 VP per ship.  Winning conditions might be
first player to destroy 15VP of ships.	The players are not required to
have the VP match the size of the ship and may have a DE worth 20VP and
all the remaining ships (Even a DN, CA or BB) worth 1. PSB for that
would be the heir to the throne is a Lieutenant j.g. on the DE and
everyone else is there for his protection.  This means that hitting the
largest ship in the enemy fleet may not be the path to victory but you
won't know that until you destroy the ship and the opponent reveals the
VP value.

VP can also be used to compensate for powerful expendables, such as
missiles, fighters or minefields - these items are purchased with VP's
given to the opponent at the beginning of the scenario and thus the
opponent starts with a VP lead.

The advantage to the VP system is that since the VP are not fixed, you
can play against the same opponents/fleets time and time again and not
know exactly what the key VP ships are going to be, and would thus have
to be prepared to deal with a wide variety of situations, sometimes
going for the capital ships, sometimes having to wipe all the escorts
out, or chasing down the cruisers. It also places more emphasis on ship
survival - if you have critical VP ships damaged, you are less likely to
throw them in on suicide attacks.

These are just some ideas to throw open the discussion on moving the
focus from trying to balance the ships/points to scenario balance.
 
--Binhan

-----Original Message-----
From: gzg-l-bounces+lin=rxkinetix.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces+lin=rxkinetix.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu] On
Behalf Of John Atkinson
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:16 PM
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems

On 1/9/06, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:

> of pocket greasing) to name just a few. As a result, the weapons and
> vehicles that give the most real-world bang per real-world buck for
nation
> A might not be cost-effective at all for nation B (if they're able to
> operate it at all)!

Was it you that brought up the example once of a third world nation
wanting tanks and after some study it was determined that the T-55 was
the closest thing to cost-effective for them because of the nature of
their probably opposition and the logistical problems associated with
maintaining anything more sophisticated?

> Unfortunately, the only way to reflect all these strategical and
> operational factors in Full Thrust *tactical* games and thus get the
> players to "voluntarily" design "realistic" weapons and vehicles is to
play
> a campaign with very detailed rules for the campaign economics... or,
like
> Hugh said, use army/fleet lists. 'Course, even with army lists you'll
still
> get players who only field SS divisions (because there were battles
with
> only SS divisions involved, so the lists have to allow for forces like
that
> too) :-(

Hmph.  German WWII players who play with the entire production run of
certain heavy tank models represented on the table at once. . .

Or German players who play a 1943 or later game with their
organization at more than 60% of book strength.  That's a no-go from a
realism standpoint too.  Americans you can run at 90%+.  Germans were
calling units "panzer divisions" that had a dozen tanks and two
battalions of "panzer grenadiers", and perhaps a few batteries of
artillery.  And that was in 1943 and early '44.  It goes downhill from
there.	The only time you'd see a full strength division was if a few
were pulled off the line and reconstituted to serve as the striking
force for an offensive.

It also depends on the difference between the best and the worst.  In
Full Thrust, where the difference between human-tech ships is all a
matter of taste and design choices, there may be relatively little
difference.

But in Real Life, the difference between an American Carrier Battle
Group and 90% of the world's navies is so vast that it wouldn't be
entertaining to game except as an academic exercise.  Schemes to
equalize the the tech gap generally make for bad games too (OK, roll a
d10.  On a 6+, the sailors out pulling watch wonder why that small
boat is getting a little too close.  On a 5 or less, it pulls up close
enough to explode.  Roll this handful of dice for damage).

> [The only other comment I had to Hugh's post was the same one John A.
> already made, so I don't have to :-) ]

Two compliments on one week.  Either you're getting soft in your old
age, or I'm getting better at this.

:)

John
--
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l