RE: Star Grunts Point System (Beware flame war erupting...)

Over the last few days ..... a lot of people wrote.........

In the Playguide/Rules Jon has stated he will put together a points
system if people want one. Obviously a lot of people DO want one. 

Let's ask him. If you don't want ot use them don't.

But from my perspective, as a recently retired professional soldier
these rules and guidelines for play ARE excellent and you will more
likely get a more realistic result from not using strict points

If you want a guideline for scenarios, then use what most armies use for
combat ratios:

In attack, employ odds of 3 to 1 as a minimum for infantry/armour
	   for arty 5 to 1 (including counter battery fire)
In Defence use mines and other obstacles to channel the enemy into YOUR
preferred killing ground.

As further guide; an APC has approximate firepower to a Section of
Infantry, a Tank to a Platoon+, Section of Power Armour to two sections
of Inf (although I admit I have never actually seen Power Armour in the
Training Areas of Northern Australia or Sennelagar!!)

I apologise if this ends up being another rambling on the list.

> >YOU may be paying him so, but not not suppose to presume what *I* am
> >giving my hard earned dinar to Jon for.
> >
> >I've invested in DSII and SGII for reasons entirely unrelated to the
> >absence of a point system in a negative sense; its absence actually
> >/encourages/ me to invest more, because I know I won't have to deal
> with
> >the munchkin min-maxers turning what should be an enjoyable game of
> >complex forces into an act of the accounting gods.  I give Jon money
> >because I think his system is /excellent/, smooth running and
> intuitive.
> >I do it because SGII doesn't look down its nose at my intelligence,
> it
> >presumes I have a brain-cell or two to rub together and don't need my
> >hand held for every little thing.
> >
> >In short, I give Jon money because I find his games are for the
> >'thinking man', not the point-allocating power trippers, because I
> have
> >great fun playing his much deeper game, and I have no interest in
> >pandering to the lowest common denoiminators.
> 
	>	 I don't have the time to sit down and do the point
analysis of
	>weapons effects, movement, etc.  I spend enough of my time in
High order
	>mathematics as it is.	I pay game designers to write and
evaluate good game
	>designs.  The games should be well design, smooth in operation
and have done
	>the complex algebra required to ensure that value of units mean
what they
	>are rated for.
	>	 This gives me a common mathematical language to use to
evaluate a
	>scenario without having to examine the die types, expected
values
	>maneuverability ratings and Skirtosis in the rules mechanics to
then
	>generate a scenario.  Give me a thumb nail point system and
then I can take
	>into account all the other variables we've been talking about.
	>	 Some of us have a living to make and do not have the
time to waste
	>to generate a common standard to start from before making the
myriad
	>adjustments required.	If you don't want to use the point
system, then
	>please ignore that portion, it took up a whole two pages in
DSII...
	>	 If you don't want to play against the power point
players, etc.
	>Then don't play them.	There is far more room for abuse in an
open
	>mathematical system than in a closed one.