RE: [GZG] Re: Points systems

[Adrian <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Stepping lightly here (after Laserlight suggested we let it die..., so I'm 
going to jump in anyway....)

>  The problem is not with the VP rules
> specifically, but the how the player implements the rules.

Actually, the problem some people are having *is* with the VP rules 
specifically.


> Define military goals - there are tactical as well as strategic goals.
> You are focused on the tactical goals - how to kill the enemy ships on
> the board, but strategic goals may be very different. As in previous
> posts I have mentioned strategic, logistical, political or other reasons
> that may over-ride some tactical considerations

I think the problem people have with what you've suggested is that the 
system doesn't allow ME to know what MY strategic goals are.  If the VPs 
are blind and players are allowed to assign them completely at will without 
any rational process, then when you choose how to organize your VP, you are 
not defining how I can win the game, but the conditions by which you will 
lose or not lose the game.  You're defining what your strategic weaknesses 
are rather than letting me decide what my strategic goals are.  So, your 
strategic weaknesses exist in an information vacuum, and I have no 
idea.  Thus, any rational process I use to plan my tactics is just shooting 
in the dark.

In most circumstances, any military worth their salt will have a pretty 
good idea what their own strategic goals are.  That's why you have 
intelligence agencies, and why you watch your potential opponents during 
peacetime.  As other people have commented, your system allows me to go 
into battle with *no idea* what my strategic goals are, because you've 
defined them and keep them hidden.  That means that there is no rational 
basis for me to choose my tactics for the battle. SO, a player may choose 
to shoot up ships at random, or chose a tactical plan based on what they 
think is sound judgement.  But there is no obvious correlation between what 
I the player think is my sound judgement and what the actual victory 
conditions might be.  In other words, I might have a great battle, play 
well, have good luck, and discover at the end that I've lost because you 
put 1 point into everything except on ship that was worth 20 points.

I know that this is an extreme example and I agree that *any* system like 
this will be open to abuse by people who choose to take it to 
extremes.  But that doesn't relieve the concern people have.  There has to 
be SOME rational basis by which I translate my understanding of the 
strategic situation into a tactical plan for the battle.  That requires 
that I have some understanding of what MY strategic goals are. More 
importantly, there has to be some kind of connection between what I think 
my goals are and what the victory conditions of the game are.  Otherwise, 
victory is basically just random - and that is what is bugging people about 
this.

I know exactly where you're going with this, and I applaud the idea.  You 
want to introduce an element of "poor intelligence" into the game.  There 
may indeed be situations where you have a weakness that I don't know about, 
or where my view of the strategic situation is incorrect or 
misguided.  Your system seems to be a bit, well, extreme.  I know 
*nothing*; so rather than having poor intelligence, I have *no* intelligence.

This is why Jon's suggestion of "minor" objectives on cards seems to work a 
bit better.   They can add flavour, without producing a complete 
disconnection between what people *think* is going on and what is 
*actually* going on.

Sure, there are situations in which a commander is completely mistaken or 
gets it wrong.  To use an example that came up recently - if the Japanese 
had been able to sink the cruiser carrying the a-bomb across the pacific, 
that would have been worth much more "victory points" than sinking any 
other cruiser.

But this sort of thing should be the *exception* not the rule.  Most of the 
time, I should have a good idea what my strategic objectives are, based on 
my intelligence, etc etc etc.

I think why people continue to have a problem with your system is that it 
*never* allows me to have a good idea what my strategic objectives are;  in 
other words, the "a-bomb on this cruiser" situation is going to happen all 
the time.

Now, I can see this happening if you're playing a situation in which your 
forces truly have no idea whatsoever about the opponents.  From the 
GZGverse: Humans vs. Kravak at the beginning of their war, for example - 
the humans haven't got a CLUE what makes the Kravak tick, who they are, 
where they're from, how many ships they can build of what type in what 
time, etc etc. etc.    But if you're playing a game between the ESU and the 
NAC, both sides are going to have pretty good ideas about the other sides' 
productive capacity and strategic situation.  They might be wrong in some 
detail in a given battle, but *in general* they'll have a fairly decent 
idea of what their strategic situation is and what the other guys' 
situation is.

Anyway, I'm starting to beat this point to death, so enough.

I think your idea is a good one.  It just needs to be finessed a bit, so 
that it is less extreme.

:)

(Now, if it wasn't 5 in the morning and I wasn't asleep at the keyboard, I 
might even have some kind of constructive suggestion...)

-Adrian

Adrian Johnson
adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx
www.stargrunt.ca 


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