[GZG] Small arms tech and troop quality

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lPoi
nts:

1) OA has it pinned. When you stackup k farmers against j SF Operators
and
are trying to determine at what point k and j equate (or the relative
worth), you have two problems:

a) your k/j balance is as affected by survivability (ability to take
multiple hits, ability to bounce impacts off, ability to autoresolve and
be
back on your feet, but primarily the armour question) as by firepower

b) firepower probably doesn't accrue linearly - I don't have the
brainpower
handy, but I'm betting that doubling the number of farmers opposing the
SF
may more than double their chances, once you pass a certain point. For
instance, the difference between 1 and 5 farmers may be near zero - they
may
all just get whacked before they can do anything (SF has greater range,
accuracy, and effectiveness and typically acts first and with good
coordination of fire) so their value is pretty much unaffected. But
going
from 7 farmers to 14 may very well mean bad things for the SF team. So
the
progression may not be linear.

Ultimately, every point system I've seen, including those agonized over
by
many smart people (DS, SFB, Car Wars, etc) all have flaws and places a
smart
player can exploit the system and usually quite a few of those.

This was one of the reasons I always loved SG2 - it ultimately didn't
engage
in that particular straw-man of trying to calculate (using simple math)
the
very complex. So much of a units utility is scenario dependent - how
much
cover is on your game board? The value of an autoshotgun is high if all
sight lines are 6" or less, the value of a sniper rifle is high if all
sight
lines are cross-board, for example. RO&E, relative balance of one force
to
another, etc. Similar other factors come into play in SG2 in things like
commander quality, number of units on the board relative to the other
side,
relative mobility, etc. There's a reason that OA and others in his trade
don't do their estimations on the back of a napkin with very basic math
for
people who can't handle range bands.

This kinda sucks, but good prefab scenarios provided by experienced
players
are the best route for newbies to a game - I'd recommend that approach
far
more than any point system. New players then get a scenario that is
mostly
balanced (by playtesting and hard-won experience of from the designers)
and
they aren't given an illusionary point value scheme that they'll be mad
about when they find the holes. Play a few scenarios, start to get a
feel
for the underlying issues, make small changes, see how they work,
develop an
expertise in setting up fun, workable scenarios without the
artificiality of
a point system. Ultimately, point systems seem to me to be just a hard
road
- hard to come up with, destined to fail, illusory for new players, and
despised when exploits are found as they inevitably will be.

If you feel you have to develop a point system to be in the required
market
niche, then I wish you the greatest of luck. May God have mercy on your
soul.... :)

TomB
PS - Did I mention how good Stargrunt is lately? :)

-- 
http://ante-aurorum-tenebrae.blogspot.com/
http://www.stargrunt.ca

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

"When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty
quits the horizon." -- Thomas Paine