RE: [GZG] Re: Points systems

Binhan,

There are good ideas on both sides of this discussion.
 Adding VPs or some method to track success is a good
thing. It allows for different scenarios etc.  This
could also be done with scenario Victory Conditions
(VCs).	

On the other side the point I agree with is this.  If
your VPs or VCs do not match what a reasonable
military force would do given the knowledge that they
have then the game is not going to be fun for any of
the "problem solving, real-world tacticians".  These
folks are more than happy to work within the rules of
the "game" to come up with the optimal solution (that
they can at that time given the forces available etc
etc).  

To make a seperate set of rules that they have to
decipher to win and ones that are hidden at the start,
and most importantly are ones that have nothing really
to do with "most efficient way to win tactical and
strategic encounter" is not going to endear these
folks to the game.  

I think this is an interesting point in wargaming in
general, there are folks who like to play for the
thrill of the game and don't mind unusual VCs as they
are in it for the excitment.  There is another subset
that is more interested in learning about how things
would be best run if the physics and rules of the game
were those of reality in that universe.  

Given that we may be at a "I understand what you are
saying but not why" position.

Bob Makowsky

--- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:

> You don't have to fire at random targets.  You need
> to make intelligent
> decisions regarding your opponent - if you think he
> has piled a majority
> of VP into a few ships, then you can achieve your
> goal with a few select
> shots.  If you think he has dispersed his VP evenly
> across his ships
> then you need to determine which are the easiest to
> kill. The goal of
> killing a sufficient number of VP it doesn't say
> that you have to
> randomly shoot at targets hoping for an instant win
> (and I would worry
> about commanders who thought that way in the first
> place) but it changes
> the priority of your firing - you'd still win if you
> eliminated the
> opposing fleet, but there may be a chance to win
> sooner by killing key
> ships.  This means that players will have to pay
> more attention to what
> their opponents are doing and try to deduce why they
> are doing it.
> 
> Like in all military matters you are trying to
> achieve your goal with
> maximum concentration of firepower with as little
> loss to yourself.  VP
> merely changes what that goal might be.
> 
> If your opponent is truly using a random system, is
> it worth your while
> to play against them?  It would be like playing
> against someone who
> picks a few random ships and assembles them into a
> fleet.  I don't think
> most people enjoy that, and would prefer to play
> against someone who has
> taken to time to plan a strategy and form a fleet to
> support that
> strategy.
> 
> As usual you've taken the extreme cases and points
> and presented them as
> what will happen every time, which is definitely not
> the case.
> 
> I don't see people arguing that the 6 re-roll rule
> has ruined FT because
> a measly DE could potentially wipe out a dreadnaught
> or that players who
> make mega-ships or field giant flocks of fighters or
> missiles have
> broken the system.  People have adapted by making
> house rules to suit
> their play style and the addition of VP is simply
> another tool they
> might use to help them create balanced scenarios.
> 
> --Binhan
> 

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