[GZG] Re: Points systems

[wscottfield@xxxxxxxxxxx]

John Atkinson  wrote: 

> This idea confuses me.  Seriously, every military mission has a
> specific goal.  In the Army, it's called "commander's intent".  If I
> execute the commander's intent without taking losses out of proportion
> to the relative value of that goal, then I have "won" regardless of
> what the enemy was trying to achieve or what their perception of the
> situation is.  

I agree with what you're saying, although it's worth pointing out that commander's intent is only as good as the intel the commander has at that time - there may often be things going on that you don't know about. I have no problem with there being a few surprises in a scenario.  But the example given does seem a bit random: how are players expected to develop a tactical plan when they have to guess at VPs? Or if I'm concentrating on the SDNs but screw up my maneuvering so that the only thing I get in arc is one whimpy DD, which "just happens" to be worth more points than all the other ships... have I won because I'm the better player, or did I just get lucky?  (Or did I misunderstand Binhan's point?)

OTOH, I have no problem with the defending player's mission being based on protecting a DD that the attacker doesn't know is valuable.  This could conceivably lead to a situation where both players win: the attacker because he destroyed the defender's Big Ships, and the defender because the Heir's DD got away. I don't have a problem with win-win (or lose-lose) scenarios myself, `tho some more competitive players might. 


Scott Field
?Your mouth is moving. You might want to see to that.?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l