Re: Another POINTless Argument (was Re: Scatterguns and SMPs... and PDAF)

Allan Goodall wrote:
> 
> At 08:09 PM 4/22/97 +0300, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> >
> >It's a pity. Lack of a points system renders otherwise good games
> >practically unplayable, IMHO.
> 
> Here we go with the old "point system good/point system bad" argument.
Sigh.
> 
> I haven't seen a point system yet that isn't broken. In fact, it's
near
> impossible for a single number to represent the ability of a unit.
Take the
> following historical example. Choose between a squad of Polish cavalry
> (circa 1939, no anti-tank weapons) and a Panzer III. My money's on the
> panzer and it's machine guns. How about a Panzer III and a 57mm
anti-tank
> gun? Depending on terrain, it could be even odds. Now, how about that
57mm
> gun and the Polish cavalry squad? My money's NOW on the cavalry. So,
with
> this endless game of rock/paper/scissors, how do you make one number
> represent the combat effectiveness of a unit in all situations. You
can't! A
> unit's effectiveness depends just as much on the composition of the
enemy
> and its fellow units than its own abilities. Only if both sides are
> configured EXACTLY the same will a points system work. Yawn.

Not so....

The Silloette vehicle system has four seperate stats-
THREAT VALUE:An, "overall" ability stat.
OFFENSIVE VALUE:Combat value of a unit's weapons and the accuracy with
them
(so you have The Cannon Of The GODS, can you *aim it*?)
DEFENSIVE VALUE:Armor, speed on various movement types, how nimble the
buggers
are, and such.
MISELLANEOUS SCORE:Things such as communications, sensors, ECM/ECCM
gear, little
"perks" that don't fit in the other two stats.

While tanks are heavily armed(big Offensive Value), and well
armored(High Defensive
Value), an anti-tank gun can outshoot a tank(HUGE Offensive Value), but
is stuck
like a rock(low Defensive Value).
 
> So, Jon, include those point systems. It's no big deal to me. I'll
just
> ignore that section, anyway. Although, truth to tell, the page would
be much
> more useful if it simply said, "Notes:" and was left intentionally
blank...

Or you could work out a system like the one above....

Just my 0.02 cents....

Jon