Re: DS3 points systems and features

John Atkinson wrote:

> >>The hell it doesn't.  The DSII construction system is
> >>a damn sight more flexible than any other one I've seen.
> >
> >As Alex said, in that case you don't seem to have
> >seen very many other vehicle design systems...
>
>The main ones mentioned have been Striker/Striker II
>(which doesn't pretend to have a balanced point
>system) and Heavy Gear's system. [...]
>Oh, and it [the HG system] hits your pet peeve by pretending that it's
>simulating the economic cost of the vehicles rather
>than the battlefield effects.

In other words, the HG system also doesn't even pretend to be balanced.
Do 
you have experience with any design systems which *do* pretend to be 
balanced...?

> >On an open field, the Romans are mowed down. Close the terrain down
> >however, and don't force the Romans to stick in formation but allow
them to
> >use their ingenuity and tech skills... how much do Terminators like
being
> >crushed under rock slides etc? (Shades of RotJ Ewoks here <G>)
>
>Hrm. . . So what you're saying is that any pretence at
>point balance is inherently flawed and depends on
>scenario design and usage?

Put it like this: if a Roman cohort or legion was facing a single enemy,

would they form up for a set-piece battle against him, or would they
spread 
out?

The (combat) points value of the terminator relative to the Romans is:

Average over the expected range of situations (open field, ambush, etc.)
of 
[Square root of ((Avg # of Romans killed by 1 Terminator in 1 turn)/(Avg
# 
of Terminators killed by 1 Roman in 1 turn))]

The ratio of average kills will of course be astronomically in the 
Terminator's favour, making the Terminator outrageously expensive
compared 
to the Romans

The "expected range of situations" is where the scenario design and
usage 
comes into play.

No, the points system can never be absolutely perfect. All it can be is
a 
more or less good starting point for the game balance... but a good 
starting point is, at least IMO, vastly better than no starting point at

all - and a bad starting point is, frankly, *worse* than none at all.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."