Re: Stargrunt "one" points system?

>We're playing a game here. At least I am.

So are we all, though I think there might be a few Historical period
players who'd take you to task over this!

>
>Games are supposed to be fun.
> 
>F-U-N. Fun. I'm sure you've heard of the word.

Now, where's me trusty old dictionary..... ;)
Surprising as it may seem, fun is still one of the main reasons why I do
all this at all - I mean, if it was simply to make a living I could have
been an accountant instead.... [ducks flame shots from the 12.735
accountants on this list]
More seriously, in my experience the FUN comes mainly from the attitude
of
the players. 
>
>Grossly imbalanced games are never fun for the loser and only fun for
the 
>victor if he happens to belong a perverted sect of newbiebashers.

I've often had more fun playing an "unbalanced" game that I actually
lost
than a supposedly "balanced" one that I won. At least if you lose an
unbalanced one you can console yourself that the odds beat you rather
than
the usual wargamers' excuse of "bad dice tonight"!

>
>Before you go off yacking, let me clarify: Grossly imbalanced in way
not 
>taken into consideration in scenario, terrain or victory conditions.

I couldn't agree more, which is exactly why in the rulebook we suggest
using such variables as the Motivation levels to help even out otherwise
unbalanced forces, whether you're playing a prepared scenario or not.
Used properly, this means that you can have an enjoyable game with
almost
any forces that two players happen to turn up with on the club night, so
you don't even have to talk beforehand and agree how many points to each
bring along!
Of course there will always be some powergamers in any group who will
insist on bringing every bit of their "super army" along, but hey,
that's
what Low motivations, exhausted troops and pre-game bombardments are
made
for... :)

[As an alternative, you could always pair your players off, give them a
square gridded battlefield (maybe around 8x8?) and tell them to each
bring
along an army consisting of one Royal Leader, one Royal Leader's
Consort,
two Fortifications, two Clerics, two Cavalrymen and eight
Infantrymen...they might even already know the rules, and then no-one
will
have to think up a scenario!!]

>P.S.
>"Major, take your unit and attack hill 457!"
>"I can't do that, Colonel, the enemy have got three battalions against
my 
>company, it would be a meaningless suicide..."

Ah, but what if this sacrifice is necessary to the overall battle
strategy?
A "suicide" attack by one company to allow the rest of a division to
safely
disengage from a hopeless position...? I'm not trying to nitpick or
score
points here [sorry, no pun intended :)], just to suggest that even a
one-off game can be looked at as part of a larger picture, irrespective
of
whether you are running an ongoing campaign or not. One of my own most
enjoyable games was playing a small British defence in a large
ultramodern
1/300 game (hypothetical NATO/WARPAC) and getting soundly thrashed by
the
Rooskies in the end, but by God I made them commies pay for every metre
of
West Germany they took that day...
>
>--
>maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)	  

Hoping the F-U-N never goes out of gaming,
Jon (GZG).