RE: [GZG] Re: Points systems

Binhan,

We are discussing the same thing and I think we all
agree.
  Scenarios and forces based on a larger economic or
strategic system that is not in play on the table are
important and need to be considered.  Use of VPs and
well crafted scenarios are a way to bring that portion
to the game.

Use of VPs to make the game "cheesy" or just randomly
assigned VPs do not promote tactical thinking for
either side and make for a poor game.  Someone who
continues to bend the VP system so that he can "win at
any cost" by cheating the system and not through
better tactical thought may have won the game on the
table but has certainly lost a much bigger battle with
his former opponent.

The only portion of your VP posts that I disagree with
is the assignment of VPs that do not reflect some sort
of strategic situation and can result in a win for one
side while following a non-effective tactical
strategy.  

Bob Makowsky

--- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:

> I do read the posts, and your first paragraph is
> exactly why people
> taking an extreme example and using it as a general
> criticism doesn't
> really work.
> 
> a) You said that you played with what some people
> might consider
> excessive fighter masses.  Does that mean that
> fighters shouldn't be
> allowed because some players take the rule to the
> extreme and it's no
> fun to play against a player who takes huge masses
> of fighters?
> 
> b) Unless you write a really restrictive ruling
> about something,
> min/maxers and rules lawyers will always find a
> loophole/breakpoint to
> exploit.  This doesn't stop the majority of gamers
> from not exploiting
> the loophole/breakpoint and enjoying the rules.
> 
> By your reasoning, people should not be allowed
> scatterguns, missiles,
> bubble carriers, fighters, ships of thrust greater
> than 8, use floating
> boards, build mega-ships or any of the dozen other
> FT things that when
> taken to an extreme, unbalance the game.
> 
> c) FT by it's nature does not impose it's rules on
> anyone - you can pick
> and choose what you want to play - FB only, no
> missiles, no fighters,
> 2000 point fleets, etc. etc. etc. Simply because a
> rule appears in a FT
> rulebook doesn't mean it has to be enforced (unlike
> other game systems).
> 
> I'm not likely to continue to play against an
> opponent who constantly
> brings his whole point total in bubble carriers, nor
> one who loads up
> solely on SM frigates, or scattergun boats, but that
> doesn't preclude
> other players from doing so.	Most people will
> choose a happy medium and
> gain enjoyment from it. By constantly focusing on an
> extreme case (i.e.
> 90% of your VP in a single ship) and extrapolating
> forward to say the
> whole system sucks isn't useful.  Taking the same
> relationship, just
> because fighters don't work as well with large
> numbers, then the entire
> concept of FT fighters is unworkable and fighters
> should be banned.
> 
> In addition, your example of a Death Star + frigate;
> sounds like a
> Min/Max strategy for ship selection in the first
> place, so why wouldn't
> they continue that to VP?  The problem is not with
> the VP rules
> specifically, but the how the player implements the
> rules. Assuming the
> other side has equal points, they are just as free
> to make a fleet of
> 100 thrust 12 scattergun boats and sending a couple
> of them to hunt down
> the frigate.	Comparing an extreme strategy vs. a
> reasonable one and
> coming to the conclusion that something is off and
> further concluding
> that the rules must be totally worthless misses the
> point.  What this
> really shows is that any rules taken to an extreme
> is senseless and what
> you should really be looking at is a range where the
> rules work well.
> 
> Just because FT is too bulky for battles with 100
> ships per side doesn't
> make FT a poor game - you need to look at FT in the
> context where it is
> best - small battles with 5-20 ships per side- and
> see how it rates
> there. The VP system should also be seen through the
> whole range of
> possibilities, and if necessary some arbitrary or
> optional limits can be
> placed to try reduce the extreme effects of the
> rule, just like
> fighters.
> 
> Define military goals - there are tactical as well
> as strategic goals.
> You are focused on the tactical goals - how to kill
> the enemy ships on
> the board, but strategic goals may be very
> different. As in previous
> posts I have mentioned strategic, logistical,
> political or other reasons
> that may over-ride some tactical considerations -
> such as a follow up
> battle where certain resources (missiles or
> fighters) are required to
> succeed may mean you don't expend them all in this
> battle,
> personalities, equipment or war material that is
> essential to the
> overall war effort that has no direct bearing on the
> combat
> effectiveness of the ships involved in the combat,
> or national morale
> effects from having a symbol of pride destroyed. 
> These should have a
> bearing on how closely you press an attack or defend
> certain ships or
> expend ordinance in a tactical game, but a regular
> one-off FT game
> doesn't model any of these factors at all in any
> way.
> 
> --Binhan 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
>
gzg-l-bounces+lin=rxkinetix.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces+lin=rxkinetix.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu]
> On
> Behalf Of Eric Foley
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 2:57 PM
> To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems
> 
> Old time list person who hasn't played in a while
> but still carries
> enough 
> interest to stay subscribed for some reason.	People
> will likely
> remember me 
> as being a rather crazed fighter masser whose usual
> answer to people's 
> complaints about too many fighters was "then bring
> more scatterguns!"
> :P
> 
> However, I have to say that I don't think you're
> listening a whole lot
> to 
> what people are saying.  They're not complaining
> about the basic idea
> that 
> victory points may vary depending on a scenario. 
> They're complaining
> that 
> VPs, under your suggestion, may be very arbitrarily
> assigned in ways
> that 
> may well bear very little upon any real military
> goal.  For instance, if
> I 
> were running a scenario like this, I might bring the
> Death Star together
> 
> with an itty bitty, highly mobile frigate with
> thrust 10.  I have 20 VPs
> to 
> assign... and just to be a snot, I'll assign 2
> points to the Death Star
> and 
> 18 points to the frigate.  Just for giggles, I'll
> throw in some PSB
> about 
> how Darth Vader's love child (conceived
> artificially) is aboard the
> frigate 
> for some unfathomable reason, and then I'll spend
> the entire battle
> having 
> the Death Star slog its way through your fleet while
> the frigate runs
> for 
> the outer solar system with enough speed that
> nothing has a prayer of 
> catching it.	No matter what you do, I'm probably
> going to "win" even if
> the 
> Death Star gets owned for fun.
> 
> Regardless of whether you, as my opponent, know that
> you're supposed to 
> chase down the frigate and not the Death Star, this
> scenario is
> LUDICROUS. 
> And yet it's perfectly reasonable under your system.
>  It's an extreme 
> 
=== message truncated ===

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l