DS3 points and game balancing

One quick thought (silly though it is):

Legionares versus Terminators - Something tells me an original
generation terminator wouldn't have like javelins, pikes or other things
inserted in the occular sensors. They tended to stay broke. And
rockslides, spiked pit traps, stone-throwing ballistae, trebuchets, etc.
could all kill off the Terminators. Otherwise, if all you had was sword
weilding infantry, you might need a Legion to take out a terminator -
how? By running its batteries down (getting tired killing them). As an
extreme, this fight wouldn't be that entertaining. But it could be
points balanced, even were your game not to allow a disproportionate
chance of success to each Legionaire. The only question would be where
the balance lies.... 100:1, 1000:1, 10,000:1, etc. 

Pick up games and balance of games

Pick up games require some sort of consensus definition of technology
and force levels in order to not be oddly unbalanced. (Witness FT CanAm
1). This is why scenarios almost always exceed pick-up games in balance
and fun. 

DS2 wouldn't really preclude you saying your infantry stands were using
muskets and had no IAVRs as a consequence (thought it does not make
specific allowance for the reduced efficacy of the musket). But when you
meet the ACAV, expect to take a beating from the APSWs. 

SG2 has one strongpoint: No points system. It FORCES you to balance by
scenario, rather than balancing by a (possibly breakable) point system.
DS2 and FT leave illusions of balance. Sometimes they do result in
balance (with a good point system, more often than not in a straight up
fight). So the point system isn't a bad thing really, as long as you
keep in mind that it is a guideline and can sport artifactual issues
that can really make some games that are strictly point (and not
scenario) balanced un-fun. 

Scenario balancing is tougher, requires a better knowledge of the game
and the potentiation and synergy of forces within that game and on the
terrain the game will be played on, and obviously includes some
assumptions about the players playing it. Point balancing is easier, but
sometimes very deceptive. 

One good thing to do is to borrow good scenarios (even as baselines)
from experienced players and scenarios that have been playtested at
conventions and other places. These make a good starting points. It is
my hope that (when life calms) stargrunt.ca will sport a number more of
the scenarios I've designed, played, etc. over the years and that part
of the design notes for each scenario will be a description of some of
the thought that went BEHIND the scenario details (map, units, etc).
Maybe such analysis will provide some insight to newer or less
experienced players as to the WHY of adding certain units, splitting
units a certain way, or having particular terrain. Once you have
experience with playing/designing, you can usually put together
something reasonable with an eye to the gotchas. This is often harder
when you are new/inexperienced. So the trick is to soak up knowledge
from those who are "further along". 

I suspect (heh heh) we'll maybe see DS3 with a dice based combat system
(FMA like) and a revised construction system including points and
capacity with a few more choices. My crystal ball suggests this is a
strong possibility. But nothing shall be graven in stone until Jon has a