Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

thinking about points (long)
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2089
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:20 am    Post subject: thinking about points (long)


Jon and Scott have both many times bemoaned the complaints about the Warrior
point system, the lack of understanding about the rationale of the point
system, and the unwillingness of those interested in the topic to dig through
the archives and see what's already been said. I've been thinking a lot about
points systems lately, and thought I would see if I could spark a discussion
amongst players on topics that Jon and Scott need not weigh in on.

A couple of background principles to keep in mind:
-Warrior does not offer, and has never claimed to offer, a tournament-balanced
points system for tournaments that countenance a-historical opponents.
-Most Warrior events are tournaments that countenance a-historical opponents.
-List rules in particular seem to be a sore point, with players feeling
uncomfortable with the idea of getting something for nothing.

I think the deeper problem is that we, as a group, don't actually know what we
want from a points system, and even when we think we know, if we actually got
it we wouldn't like it.

Let me give some examples.

First, you can make an argument that a perfectly balanced points system would
mean that 1600 points of shiedless Irr D MI IPW would be an equal match, and
assuming equal players, should win 50% of the time against any other
combination of 1600 points. That is certainly one interpretation of "balance".

I don't think any one of us actually want that. That would reduce Warrior to
approximately the complexity level of checkers.

Of course I've skewed the example -- deliberately. Warrior is a beautiful
example of a combined arms game, and an inevitable consequence of combined arms
is that a troop type that has a certain value in isolation has a greater or
lesser value depending on what other troop types it works with. So a momogeneous
blob of 1600 points of Irr D MI IPW isn't a very helpful example. But the
combined arms aspect does make a tournament-balanced point system very
difficult, if not impossible. You can't say that one stand of Irr D MI IPW has
an absolute value, because it simply doesn't. We're talking about a non-linear
system where that stand's value is dependent on other stands and units that are
present in the army.

To capture this dependency, you'd need a point system that did something like
charged you a base point amount every time you added a new troop type or weapon
type to the army as a whole. In other words, heterogeneity itself has a value,
and any tournament-balanced point system would have to reflect that players
should pay a premium for the potential to make use of heterogeneity.

Even this step is a far, far cry from balancing things out. Not all combinations
are equally valuable. I like using regular foot with my elephants, because they
can charge together. I like using irregular foot with my cav because, assuming
I can get the foot going impetuously, they can charge together. I like using
crossbow and longbow together because they have the same close range (120p) and
because a full rank of crossbow can fire over a full rank of longbow. Using
longbow and handgun together, by contrast, is a disaster. If the handgun is
behind the longbow, it can't fire; if the longbow is behind the handgun, then
it can't fire either.

Cataloging all of these positive and negative combinations would be a nightmare,
because they increase geometrically with each new troop type or weapon type
added to the game (as well as other factors like terrain, table size, etc). I
suspect that any attempt to comprehensively assign point values in this way
would result in an essentially random point system, as the computational
complexity of working out all the combinations and their meaning would be on
the order of complexity of the universe of all Warrior games. This is analogous
to the way in which the number Pi is unhelpfully deterministic. Yes, there is an
algorithm for working out the value of any arbitrary decimal in the expansion of
Pi, but the computational complexity of the algorithm is such that we have to
treat the value of an arbitrary decimal of Pi as essentially random.

Furthermore, lots of game systems use blatantly unbalanced point systems in
tournaments to great effect. A bwell-known example is "Magic: The Gathering".
(My apologies to those of you not familiar with the mechanics of "Magic".) Two
green creatures, for example, might both have a summoning cost of 1 green mana,
and might both have an attack and defense of 1. One of them, however, might have
an extra ability, like being able to fly, or being tapable for additional green
mana. This is a blatant example of discrepancy in points value, and "Magic",
being an entirely fantasy game, can't even hide behind the veil of historical
simiulation. This is clearly an intended design feature of the game, and I
would argue, a successful and positive design feature of the game.

And at a very high level of abstraction, it does capture an important and
realistic element of generalship. Just because two resources are equally
available to a commander does not mean those two resources are equally valuable
to a commander. These dilemmas of command decision permeate every level command.
If you are playing SPI's classic "USN", are you going to focus production on
aircraft of submarines? If you are playing "Axis and Allies" are you going to
build bombers and fighters, or lots of tanks? At the tactical level, my buddies
and I used to use a point system for "Panzerblitz" that was published in an old
issue of the "General", and then agonized over the right balance of infantry and
artillery, fast tanks vs. battle tanks.

This is a very valid and very real part of command decision, and a nice nuance
to bring into any wargame. The paradox is that a "perfect" point system would
remove this level of command decision from the game. I bet very few players
want that kind of command decision taken out of their hands, and those that do
have already made their choice by playing set piece recreations rather than
tournament games.

Some troop types, and some combinations, are going to give you more bang for
your buck. That is a characteristic of many games, not just Warrior. And I
submit that most players, if they think it through, will conclude that this is
a feature, not a bug.

So: I know Jon et al would prefer no further diatribes against the Warrior
point system at all. I doubt they'll be so lucky. By I find it incredibly
hypocritical to complain about what's perceived to be wrong in Warrior when we
haven't had an honest and thoughtful discussion about what "right" would look
like.

I think we can have that discussion. I think we can have it without criticizing
Warrior or involving Jon and Scott. And I think the Warrior community would
greatly benefit if we'd think through what the hell we actually do want before
complaining about what we have.


-Mark Stone

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:24 am    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


I will be listening intently and encourage the discussion.
Mark, everything you said is 1000% our view as well.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:20:23 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] thinking about points (long)


Jon and Scott have both many times bemoaned the complaints about the Warrior
point system, the lack of understanding about the rationale of the point
system, and the unwillingness of those interested in the topic to dig through
the archives and see what's already been said. I've been thinking a lot about
points systems lately, and thought I would see if I could spark a discussion
amongst players on topics that Jon and Scott need not weigh in on.

A couple of background principles to keep in mind:
-Warrior does not offer, and has never claimed to offer, a tournament-balanced
points system for tournaments that countenance a-historical opponents.
-Most Warrior events are tournaments that countenance a-historical opponents.
-List rules in particular seem to be a sore point, with players feeling
uncomfortable with the idea of getting something for nothing.

I think the deeper problem is that we, as a group, don't actually know what we
want from a points system, and even when we think we know, if we actually got
it we wouldn't like it.

Let me give some examples.

First, you can make an argument that a perfectly balanced points system would
mean that 1600 points of shiedless Irr D MI IPW would be an equal match, and
assuming equal players, should win 50% of the time against any other
combination of 1600 points. That is certainly one interpretation of "balance".

I don't think any one of us actually want that. That would reduce Warrior to
approximately the complexity level of checkers.

Of course I've skewed the example -- deliberately. Warrior is a beautiful
example of a combined arms game, and an inevitable consequence of combined arms
is that a troop type that has a certain value in isolation has a greater or
lesser value depending on what other troop types it works with. So a momogeneous
blob of 1600 points of Irr D MI IPW isn't a very helpful example. But the
combined arms aspect does make a tournament-balanced point system very
difficult, if not impossible. You can't say that one stand of Irr D MI IPW has
an absolute value, because it simply doesn't. We're talking about a non-linear
system where that stand's value is dependent on other stands and units that are
present in the army.

To capture this dependency, you'd need a point system that did something like
charged you a base point amount every time you added a new troop type or weapon
type to the army as a whole. In other words, heterogeneity itself has a value,
and any tournament-balanced point system would have to reflect that players
should pay a premium for the potential to make use of heterogeneity.

Even this step is a far, far cry from balancing things out. Not all combinations
are equally valuable. I like using regular foot with my elephants, because they
can charge together. I like using irregular foot with my cav because, assuming
I can get the foot going impetuously, they can charge together. I like using
crossbow and longbow together because they have the same close range (120p) and
because a full rank of crossbow can fire over a full rank of longbow. Using
longbow and handgun together, by contrast, is a disaster. If the handgun is
behind the longbow, it can't fire; if the longbow is behind the handgun, then
it can't fire either.

Cataloging all of these positive and negative combinations would be a nightmare,
because they increase geometrically with each new troop type or weapon type
added to the game (as well as other factors like terrain, table size, etc). I
suspect that any attempt to comprehensively assign point values in this way
would result in an essentially random point system, as the computational
complexity of working out all the combinations and their meaning would be on
the order of complexity of the universe of all Warrior games. This is analogous
to the way in which the number Pi is unhelpfully deterministic. Yes, there is an
algorithm for working out the value of any arbitrary decimal in the expansion of
Pi, but the computational complexity of the algorithm is such that we have to
treat the value of an arbitrary decimal of Pi as essentially random.

Furthermore, lots of game systems use blatantly unbalanced point systems in
tournaments to great effect. A bwell-known example is "Magic: The Gathering".
(My apologies to those of you not familiar with the mechanics of "Magic".) Two
green creatures, for example, might both have a summoning cost of 1 green mana,
and might both have an attack and defense of 1. One of them, however, might have
an extra ability, like being able to fly, or being tapable for additional green
mana. This is a blatant example of discrepancy in points value, and "Magic",
being an entirely fantasy game, can't even hide behind the veil of historical
simiulation. This is clearly an intended design feature of the game, and I
would argue, a successful and positive design feature of the game.

And at a very high level of abstraction, it does capture an important and
realistic element of generalship. Just because two resources are equally
available to a commander does not mean those two resources are equally valuable
to a commander. These dilemmas of command decision permeate every level command.
If you are playing SPI's classic "USN", are you going to focus production on
aircraft of submarines? If you are playing "Axis and Allies" are you going to
build bombers and fighters, or lots of tanks? At the tactical level, my buddies
and I used to use a point system for "Panzerblitz" that was published in an old
issue of the "General", and then agonized over the right balance of infantry and
artillery, fast tanks vs. battle tanks.

This is a very valid and very real part of command decision, and a nice nuance
to bring into any wargame. The paradox is that a "perfect" point system would
remove this level of command decision from the game. I bet very few players
want that kind of command decision taken out of their hands, and those that do
have already made their choice by playing set piece recreations rather than
tournament games.

Some troop types, and some combinations, are going to give you more bang for
your buck. That is a characteristic of many games, not just Warrior. And I
submit that most players, if they think it through, will conclude that this is
a feature, not a bug.

So: I know Jon et al would prefer no further diatribes against the Warrior
point system at all. I doubt they'll be so lucky. By I find it incredibly
hypocritical to complain about what's perceived to be wrong in Warrior when we
haven't had an honest and thoughtful discussion about what "right" would look
like.

I think we can have that discussion. I think we can have it without criticizing
Warrior or involving Jon and Scott. And I think the Warrior community would
greatly benefit if we'd think through what the hell we actually do want before
complaining about what we have.


-Mark Stone



Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  

Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:33 am    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


I have often said that I would rather wargame the 300
Spartans (and 700 Thebians) vrs the combined might of
the Persian Empire than play checkers.

Harmon

--- JonCleaves@... wrote:

> I will be listening intently and encourage the
> discussion.
> Mark, everything you said is 1000% our view as well.
>
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
> To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:20:23 +0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] thinking about points (long)
>
>
> Jon and Scott have both many times bemoaned the
> complaints about the Warrior
> point system, the lack of understanding about the
> rationale of the point
> system, and the unwillingness of those interested in
> the topic to dig through
> the archives and see what's already been said. I've
> been thinking a lot about
> points systems lately, and thought I would see if I
> could spark a discussion
> amongst players on topics that Jon and Scott need
> not weigh in on.
>
> A couple of background principles to keep in mind:
> -Warrior does not offer, and has never claimed to
> offer, a tournament-balanced
> points system for tournaments that countenance
> a-historical opponents.
> -Most Warrior events are tournaments that
> countenance a-historical opponents.
> -List rules in particular seem to be a sore point,
> with players feeling
> uncomfortable with the idea of getting something for
> nothing.
>
> I think the deeper problem is that we, as a group,
> don't actually know what we
> want from a points system, and even when we think we
> know, if we actually got
> it we wouldn't like it.
>
> Let me give some examples.
>
> First, you can make an argument that a perfectly
> balanced points system would
> mean that 1600 points of shiedless Irr D MI IPW
> would be an equal match, and
> assuming equal players, should win 50% of the time
> against any other
> combination of 1600 points. That is certainly one
> interpretation of "balance".
>
> I don't think any one of us actually want that. That
> would reduce Warrior to
> approximately the complexity level of checkers.
>
> Of course I've skewed the example -- deliberately.
> Warrior is a beautiful
> example of a combined arms game, and an inevitable
> consequence of combined arms
> is that a troop type that has a certain value in
> isolation has a greater or
> lesser value depending on what other troop types it
> works with. So a momogeneous
> blob of 1600 points of Irr D MI IPW isn't a very
> helpful example. But the
> combined arms aspect does make a tournament-balanced
> point system very
> difficult, if not impossible. You can't say that one
> stand of Irr D MI IPW has
> an absolute value, because it simply doesn't. We're
> talking about a non-linear
> system where that stand's value is dependent on
> other stands and units that are
> present in the army.
>
> To capture this dependency, you'd need a point
> system that did something like
> charged you a base point amount every time you added
> a new troop type or weapon
> type to the army as a whole. In other words,
> heterogeneity itself has a value,
> and any tournament-balanced point system would have
> to reflect that players
> should pay a premium for the potential to make use
> of heterogeneity.
>
> Even this step is a far, far cry from balancing
> things out. Not all combinations
> are equally valuable. I like using regular foot with
> my elephants, because they
> can charge together. I like using irregular foot
> with my cav because, assuming
> I can get the foot going impetuously, they can
> charge together. I like using
> crossbow and longbow together because they have the
> same close range (120p) and
> because a full rank of crossbow can fire over a full
> rank of longbow. Using
> longbow and handgun together, by contrast, is a
> disaster. If the handgun is
> behind the longbow, it can't fire; if the longbow is
> behind the handgun, then
> it can't fire either.
>
> Cataloging all of these positive and negative
> combinations would be a nightmare,
> because they increase geometrically with each new
> troop type or weapon type
> added to the game (as well as other factors like
> terrain, table size, etc). I
> suspect that any attempt to comprehensively assign
> point values in this way
> would result in an essentially random point system,
> as the computational
> complexity of working out all the combinations and
> their meaning would be on
> the order of complexity of the universe of all
> Warrior games. This is analogous
> to the way in which the number Pi is unhelpfully
> deterministic. Yes, there is an
> algorithm for working out the value of any arbitrary
> decimal in the expansion of
> Pi, but the computational complexity of the
> algorithm is such that we have to
> treat the value of an arbitrary decimal of Pi as
> essentially random.
>
> Furthermore, lots of game systems use blatantly
> unbalanced point systems in
> tournaments to great effect. A bwell-known example
> is "Magic: The Gathering".
> (My apologies to those of you not familiar with the
> mechanics of "Magic".) Two
> green creatures, for example, might both have a
> summoning cost of 1 green mana,
> and might both have an attack and defense of 1. One
> of them, however, might have
> an extra ability, like being able to fly, or being
> tapable for additional green
> mana. This is a blatant example of discrepancy in
> points value, and "Magic",
> being an entirely fantasy game, can't even hide
> behind the veil of historical
> simiulation. This is clearly an intended design
> feature of the game, and I
> would argue, a successful and positive design
> feature of the game.
>
> And at a very high level of abstraction, it does
> capture an important and
> realistic element of generalship. Just because two
> resources are equally
> available to a commander does not mean those two
> resources are equally valuable
> to a commander. These dilemmas of command decision
> permeate every level command.
> If you are playing SPI's classic "USN", are you
> going to focus production on
> aircraft of submarines? If you are playing "Axis and
> Allies" are you going to
> build bombers and fighters, or lots of tanks? At the
> tactical level, my buddies
> and I used to use a point system for "Panzerblitz"
> that was published in an old
> issue of the "General", and then agonized over the
> right balance of infantry and
> artillery, fast tanks vs. battle tanks.
>
> This is a very valid and very real part of command
> decision, and a nice nuance
> to bring into any wargame. The paradox is that a
> "perfect" point system would
> remove this level of command decision from the game.
> I bet very few players
> want that kind of command decision taken out of
> their hands, and those that do
> have already made their choice by playing set piece
> recreations rather than
> tournament games.
>
> Some troop types, and some combinations, are going
> to give you more bang for
> your buck. That is a characteristic of many games,
> not just Warrior. And I
> submit that most players, if they think it through,
> will conclude that this is
> a feature, not a bug.
>
> So: I know Jon et al would prefer no further
> diatribes against the Warrior
> point system at all. I doubt they'll be so lucky. By
> I find it incredibly
> hypocritical to complain about what's perceived to
> be wrong in Warrior when we
> haven't had an honest and thoughtful discussion
> about what "right" would look
>
=== message truncated ===

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Ewan McNay
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2750
Location: Albany, NY, US

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:37 am    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


Mark Stone wrote:
> First, you can make an argument that a perfectly balanced points system would
> mean that 1600 points of shiedless Irr D MI IPW would be an equal match, and
> assuming equal players, should win 50% of the time against any other
> combination of 1600 points. That is certainly one interpretation of "balance".
>
> I don't think any one of us actually want that. That would reduce Warrior to
> approximately the complexity level of checkers.

Well, I want it. But the more useful response to this comes slightly
further down..

> Of course I've skewed the example -- deliberately. Warrior is a beautiful
> example of a combined arms game, and an inevitable consequence of combined
arms
> is that a troop type that has a certain value in isolation has a greater or
> lesser value depending on what other troop types it works with. So a
momogeneous
> blob of 1600 points of Irr D MI IPW isn't a very helpful example. But the
> combined arms aspect does make a tournament-balanced point system very
> difficult, if not impossible. You can't say that one stand of Irr D MI IPW has
> an absolute value, because it simply doesn't. We're talking about a non-linear
> system where that stand's value is dependent on other stands and units that
are
> present in the army.
>
> To capture this dependency, you'd need a point system that did something like
> charged you a base point amount every time you added a new troop type or
weapon
> type to the army as a whole. In other words, heterogeneity itself has a value,
> and any tournament-balanced point system would have to reflect that players
> should pay a premium for the potential to make use of heterogeneity.

Agreed. But why would that mean that I do not want such?

[Note that this value of 'want' is hugely idealised; I don't expect
anyone, ever, to even attempt such a system. It may not be achieveable.
But it's akin to army list balance: ideally, one should be able to make an
equally-capable (where 'capable' is defined as 'likely to win an
open-opponent tournament') army from every list, from a tournament point
of view. And for similar reasons in most cases: heterogeneity is a good
thing, and - as Mark notes below - some flavours of heterogeneity are more
equal than others.]

> Even this step is a far, far cry from balancing things out. Not all
combinations
> are equally valuable. I like using regular foot with my elephants, because
they
> can charge together. I like using irregular foot with my cav because, assuming
> I can get the foot going impetuously, they can charge together. I like using
> crossbow and longbow together because they have the same close range (120p)
and
> because a full rank of crossbow can fire over a full rank of longbow. Using
> longbow and handgun together, by contrast, is a disaster. If the handgun is
> behind the longbow, it can't fire; if the longbow is behind the handgun, then
> it can't fire either.
>
> Cataloging all of these positive and negative combinations would be a
nightmare,
> because they increase geometrically with each new troop type or weapon type
> added to the game (as well as other factors like terrain, table size, etc). I
> suspect that any attempt to comprehensively assign point values in this way
> would result in an essentially random point system, as the computational
> complexity of working out all the combinations and their meaning would be on
> the order of complexity of the universe of all Warrior games. This is
analogous
> to the way in which the number Pi is unhelpfully deterministic. Yes, there is
an
> algorithm for working out the value of any arbitrary decimal in the expansion
of
> Pi, but the computational complexity of the algorithm is such that we have to
> treat the value of an arbitrary decimal of Pi as essentially random.
>
> Furthermore, lots of game systems use blatantly unbalanced point systems in
> tournaments to great effect. A bwell-known example is "Magic: The Gathering".
> (My apologies to those of you not familiar with the mechanics of "Magic".) Two
> green creatures, for example, might both have a summoning cost of 1 green
mana,
> and might both have an attack and defense of 1. One of them, however, might
have
> an extra ability, like being able to fly, or being tapable for additional
green
> mana. This is a blatant example of discrepancy in points value, and "Magic",
> being an entirely fantasy game, can't even hide behind the veil of historical
> simiulation. This is clearly an intended design feature of the game, and I
> would argue, a successful and positive design feature of the game.

Well, the *game* is successful; but why would one ever take the former
creature? Answer: one wouldn't. And I don't see how that's helpful.

Similarly, your example of Irr D MI, IPW: why would one ever take that if
Irr D MI, B were available? One wouldn't. A point system should at
minimum reflect that fact - imnsho.

> This is a very valid and very real part of command decision, and a nice nuance
> to bring into any wargame. The paradox is that a "perfect" point system would
> remove this level of command decision from the game. I bet very few players
> want that kind of command decision taken out of their hands, and those that do
> have already made their choice by playing set piece recreations rather than
> tournament games.

I actually agree that optimising army list design - which is that this is
about - is a fun part of the game. I disagree that an optimal point
system would remove this; understanding what exact combinations you want
to use (and indeed are personally best at using - how would one capture
that in a point system? "Ewan gets close foot at -1 point, but has to pay
+3 points per elephant"??) is still going to be a player skill.

> Some troop types, and some combinations, are going to give you more bang for
> your buck. That is a characteristic of many games, not just Warrior. And I
> submit that most players, if they think it through, will conclude that this is
> a feature, not a bug.

Not convinced (yet), as should be apparent by now Smile. To use the Magic
example: over-powered cards became ridiculously expensive because it was
clear to the player base that they were overpowered, and so someone with
the resources to buy more of them could have an increased chance of
winning. Do we really want there to be a limit of ten Burmese elephants
in the world, at a cost to the player of $2000 each? OK, that's silly.
But let's take an almost-as-extreme example, and say that the point system
costed Burmese elephants at 1 point each while altering no other feature.
Does anyone doubt that we would see a lot of them to the excusion of
other armies? Doubt it. Would that be a good thing? Doubt anyone would
think so - I could be wrong Smile. But, if we believe that this would be a
bad thing, then we're in favour of a balanced point system; after that
it's just a question of how well the system *can* be balanced.

e

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1385
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:45 am    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


Thanks for bringing all this up and framing it well, Mark.

I believe that overall, for the most part, the troop points buy
system we've been using has worked.

We find that people bring varied armies to competition, do different
things from one another even with the same army list, and that it is
reasonably fair with player skill determining victors.

There are some things that seem 'weird' about the point system. I'll
mention a few for the sake of debate.

Nobody buys Sacred Standards, even though such standards provide a
significant benefit. That's because they cost so much. I can get an
entire, meaningful unit instead of a Sacred Standard.

A CinC in an Irr B elephant unit costs about 165 points while a CinC
in an Irr B SHK unit costs 205 points. Arguably, the elephant mounted
CinC is 'more powerful'/'useful'.

Shields or armor upgrades for rear ranks are far far less valuable
than shields and armor upgrades for front ranks...yet cost the same
amount of points. I rejoice when I can have shielded HI up front,
with shieldless MI in back.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
>
> Jon and Scott have both many times bemoaned the complaints about
the Warrior
> point system, the lack of understanding about the rationale of the
point
> system, and the unwillingness of those interested in the topic to
dig through
> the archives and see what's already been said. I've been thinking a
lot about
> points systems lately, and thought I would see if I could spark a
discussion
> amongst players on topics that Jon and Scott need not weigh in on.
>
> A couple of background principles to keep in mind:
> -Warrior does not offer, and has never claimed to offer, a
tournament-balanced
> points system for tournaments that countenance a-historical
opponents.
> -Most Warrior events are tournaments that countenance a-historical
opponents.
> -List rules in particular seem to be a sore point, with players
feeling
> uncomfortable with the idea of getting something for nothing.
>
> I think the deeper problem is that we, as a group, don't actually
know what we
> want from a points system, and even when we think we know, if we
actually got
> it we wouldn't like it.
>
> Let me give some examples.
>
> First, you can make an argument that a perfectly balanced points
system would
> mean that 1600 points of shiedless Irr D MI IPW would be an equal
match, and
> assuming equal players, should win 50% of the time against any other
> combination of 1600 points. That is certainly one interpretation
of "balance".
>
> I don't think any one of us actually want that. That would reduce
Warrior to
> approximately the complexity level of checkers.
>
> Of course I've skewed the example -- deliberately. Warrior is a
beautiful
> example of a combined arms game, and an inevitable consequence of
combined arms
> is that a troop type that has a certain value in isolation has a
greater or
> lesser value depending on what other troop types it works with. So
a momogeneous
> blob of 1600 points of Irr D MI IPW isn't a very helpful example.
But the
> combined arms aspect does make a tournament-balanced point system
very
> difficult, if not impossible. You can't say that one stand of Irr D
MI IPW has
> an absolute value, because it simply doesn't. We're talking about a
non-linear
> system where that stand's value is dependent on other stands and
units that are
> present in the army.
>
> To capture this dependency, you'd need a point system that did
something like
> charged you a base point amount every time you added a new troop
type or weapon
> type to the army as a whole. In other words, heterogeneity itself
has a value,
> and any tournament-balanced point system would have to reflect that
players
> should pay a premium for the potential to make use of heterogeneity.
>
> Even this step is a far, far cry from balancing things out. Not all
combinations
> are equally valuable. I like using regular foot with my elephants,
because they
> can charge together. I like using irregular foot with my cav
because, assuming
> I can get the foot going impetuously, they can charge together. I
like using
> crossbow and longbow together because they have the same close
range (120p) and
> because a full rank of crossbow can fire over a full rank of
longbow. Using
> longbow and handgun together, by contrast, is a disaster. If the
handgun is
> behind the longbow, it can't fire; if the longbow is behind the
handgun, then
> it can't fire either.
>
> Cataloging all of these positive and negative combinations would be
a nightmare,
> because they increase geometrically with each new troop type or
weapon type
> added to the game (as well as other factors like terrain, table
size, etc). I
> suspect that any attempt to comprehensively assign point values in
this way
> would result in an essentially random point system, as the
computational
> complexity of working out all the combinations and their meaning
would be on
> the order of complexity of the universe of all Warrior games. This
is analogous
> to the way in which the number Pi is unhelpfully deterministic.
Yes, there is an
> algorithm for working out the value of any arbitrary decimal in the
expansion of
> Pi, but the computational complexity of the algorithm is such that
we have to
> treat the value of an arbitrary decimal of Pi as essentially random.
>
> Furthermore, lots of game systems use blatantly unbalanced point
systems in
> tournaments to great effect. A bwell-known example is "Magic: The
Gathering".
> (My apologies to those of you not familiar with the mechanics
of "Magic".) Two
> green creatures, for example, might both have a summoning cost of 1
green mana,
> and might both have an attack and defense of 1. One of them,
however, might have
> an extra ability, like being able to fly, or being tapable for
additional green
> mana. This is a blatant example of discrepancy in points value,
and "Magic",
> being an entirely fantasy game, can't even hide behind the veil of
historical
> simiulation. This is clearly an intended design feature of the
game, and I
> would argue, a successful and positive design feature of the game.
>
> And at a very high level of abstraction, it does capture an
important and
> realistic element of generalship. Just because two resources are
equally
> available to a commander does not mean those two resources are
equally valuable
> to a commander. These dilemmas of command decision permeate every
level command.
> If you are playing SPI's classic "USN", are you going to focus
production on
> aircraft of submarines? If you are playing "Axis and Allies" are
you going to
> build bombers and fighters, or lots of tanks? At the tactical
level, my buddies
> and I used to use a point system for "Panzerblitz" that was
published in an old
> issue of the "General", and then agonized over the right balance of
infantry and
> artillery, fast tanks vs. battle tanks.
>
> This is a very valid and very real part of command decision, and a
nice nuance
> to bring into any wargame. The paradox is that a "perfect" point
system would
> remove this level of command decision from the game. I bet very few
players
> want that kind of command decision taken out of their hands, and
those that do
> have already made their choice by playing set piece recreations
rather than
> tournament games.
>
> Some troop types, and some combinations, are going to give you more
bang for
> your buck. That is a characteristic of many games, not just
Warrior. And I
> submit that most players, if they think it through, will conclude
that this is
> a feature, not a bug.
>
> So: I know Jon et al would prefer no further diatribes against the
Warrior
> point system at all. I doubt they'll be so lucky. By I find it
incredibly
> hypocritical to complain about what's perceived to be wrong in
Warrior when we
> haven't had an honest and thoughtful discussion about what "right"
would look
> like.
>
> I think we can have that discussion. I think we can have it without
criticizing
> Warrior or involving Jon and Scott. And I think the Warrior
community would
> greatly benefit if we'd think through what the hell we actually do
want before
> complaining about what we have.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:56 am    Post subject: Re: Re: thinking about points (long)


Thinking out loud here... always dangerous.

If the entire Warrior playership agreed on 3-5 things about the point system
that just stick in the craw and if we would just damn fix them, FHE would never
hear a point complaint again....and
If no member of FHE had to catherd getting that agreement..and
If this agreement was reached well before the publication of Warrior
Armies....and
If no army or category of armies suffered from changes associated with the
above...

....then I'd look at it.

Note that the entire Warrior playership isn't exactly literal, but it is also
not equal to the ten loudest posters on this e-group...

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:45:38 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: thinking about points (long)


Thanks for bringing all this up and framing it well, Mark.

I believe that overall, for the most part, the troop points buy
system we've been using has worked.

We find that people bring varied armies to competition, do different
things from one another even with the same army list, and that it is
reasonably fair with player skill determining victors.

There are some things that seem 'weird' about the point system. I'll
mention a few for the sake of debate.

Nobody buys Sacred Standards, even though such standards provide a
significant benefit. That's because they cost so much. I can get an
entire, meaningful unit instead of a Sacred Standard.

A CinC in an Irr B elephant unit costs about 165 points while a CinC
in an Irr B SHK unit costs 205 points. Arguably, the elephant mounted
CinC is 'more powerful'/'useful'.

Shields or armor upgrades for rear ranks are far far less valuable
than shields and armor upgrades for front ranks...yet cost the same
amount of points. I rejoice when I can have shielded HI up front,
with shieldless MI in back.

Frank


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  

Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:09 am    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


I'd like to see a points system that best reflected each specific
"nation's" ability to arm and train an army, rather than a balanced
tournament system.

Nations that went cheap on training and arming got more fighters for
their money. Those that spent time (and gold) on arming and training
would get something better, and probably fewer soldiers as a result of
the higher cost in time and money. By this logic, perhaps some of the
list rules should be costed -- if they represent additional training
(or arming) that a nation would have had to pay for. But some list
rules represent a special military tradition (that wouldn't have been
an extra expense) or some are simply oddball fixes for units that
don't fit the mould.

Some nations spent plenty of time and plenty of gold training and
arming outdated forces. Some nations did very little training and
arming and ended up with very effective forces -- typically barbarian
nations. Some armies provided their own equipment, food, and served
for free. Some had everything provided by the state. Good generals did
well, even with crap. Bad generals lost battles with the best armies.

In the end I like the unfairness, as long as it best represents that
nation's army. That might mean that the same troop type in one army
might have a different points cost in another.
I'd also like to see some of the Merc's with a higher points cost.

I think the point system used now is a friendly blend between the two
ideas. It works better for some armies than for others.

Sorry folks, I think tournaments are a little goofy in the first place
-- I can't get over the time warp. I think balancing the points for
that purpose only would be a mistake. If you want to win tournaments
you can play whatever army you want... just pick "the best".

That is my opinion.
Noel.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2089
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:11 am    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


--- On March 29 Ewan said: ---

> I actually agree that optimising army list design - which is that this is
> about - is a fun part of the game. I disagree that an optimal point
> system would remove this...

Well, I always have trouble figuring out where Ewan and I are going to agree or
disagree... often even after the email exchange. But this is clearly a point of
disagreement, although perhaps not such an important one. I'll revise my
statement:

An optimally point-balanced, tournament point system would diminish the command
decision aspect of determining what equally avialable resources are in fact
more useful.

> But let's take an almost-as-extreme example, and say that the point system
> costed Burmese elephants at 1 point each while altering no other feature.
> Does anyone doubt that we would see a lot of them to the excusion of
> other armies?

Now we come to a really interesting point of agreement between Ewan and me, and
one that I think cuts much closer to the heart of the matter. Given that a
truly balanced point system would be of essentially unattainable complexity to
design -- and I hope I've offered some preliminary arguments that point out why
this is likely to be the case -- the result is inevitably a point system that
favors some choices over others.

This favoritism can either be capricious or deliberate. FHE has made some
deliberate choices, manifested in part through the use of list rules. We see
more Alexandrian armies than Seleucid armies. Yes, I know there are Seleucid
enthusiasts out there (hi Dave Lauerman), but in terms of showcasing our hobby
I see a lot of merit to seeing Alexandrian armies on the table, as well as many
other historical "favorites" that are gaining popularity thanks to FHE. I really
dread thinking back to the days when no one played Caesar, or Genghis, or
Richard, or the Black Prince, or Hannibal, because the rules and points
capriciously favored Seleucids, Late Romans, and drab knight armies who
happened to be able to wedge.

So FHE has gotten some things hugely right in recognizing that a complex point
system is inevitably going to skew things in some direction or other, and that
it might as well be towards the armies from history that even those outside our
hobby actually know something about and might pay attention to. Here in Silicon
Valley we call that "smart marketing".

My point is this: if we, as players, feel some dissatisfaction with the point
system, then we ought to stop thinking about some idealized and unattainable
"balanced" system, and instead think about what we want the point system to
motivate.

There's some tinkering that could probably be done. I don't think anyone would
question that there's something odd about the notion of adding a general to a
knight unit making the unit more expensive, but adding a general to an elephant
unit making it cheaper. Frank Gilson has pointed out this and a few other
"tweaks" that might be in order.

But I want to take the discussion deeper. Is there something we want the point
system to be motivating that it really isn't right now? I say that not in the
context of criticizing FHE, who have done, in my opinion, a brilliant job even
if imperfect. I say it in the context of asking if there is something we want
the point system to motivate, what it is, and why we think it isn't happening
now?

We cannot constructively criticize if we don't know what we want. Ewan, I know
what you want, and you and I both know that it is computationally impractical
if not impossible. So get over it, and tell me what _else_ you want that might
actually be achievable.


-Mark Stone

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Todd Schneider
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 904
Location: Kansas City

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:26 am    Post subject: Re: Re: thinking about points (long)


>So FHE has gotten some things hugely right in
>recognizing that a complex point
>system is inevitably going to skew things in some
>direction or other, and that
>it might as well be towards the armies from history
that >even those outside our
>hobby actually know something about and might pay
>attention to. Here in Silicon
>Valley we call that "smart marketing".

I can't say I don't disagree with the "Smart
Marketing" Concept. As a relative newcomer to
Ancients games, it was a bit odd at first that Armies
that I would consider "good" just based on their
historical results, didn't perform as well on the
tabletop against their historical opponenents. Some
of that is obviously attribuble to tabletop
generalship, but in the long run, if its Armies such
as Romans, Alexandrian Imperial, Mongols (and not, for
example the Bleyme) being played by more players and
winning games, is that hurting the game and/or hobby?

I'm not sure, I think it's to early to tell.

Todd

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


_________________
Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   AIM Address
Bill Chriss
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1001
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Re: thinking about points (long)


>
> Now we come to a really interesting point of agreement between Ewan and
> me, and
> one that I think cuts much closer to the heart of the matter. Given that a
> truly balanced point system would be of essentially unattainable
> complexity to
> design -- and I hope I've offered some preliminary arguments that point
> out why
> this is likely to be the case -- the result is inevitably a point system
> that
> favors some choices over others.

I agree, but doubt this was quite as intentional (or instrumentalist) as
you assume below. I stand to be corrected by those whose intent is in
issue. It really doesn't matter, though. The effect is the same.


>
> This favoritism can either be capricious or deliberate. FHE has made some
> deliberate choices, manifested in part through the use of list rules. We
> see
> more Alexandrian armies than Seleucid armies. Yes, I know there are
> Seleucid
> enthusiasts out there (hi Dave Lauerman), but in terms of showcasing our
> hobby
> I see a lot of merit to seeing Alexandrian armies on the table, as well as
> many
> other historical "favorites" that are gaining popularity thanks to FHE. I
> really
> dread thinking back to the days when no one played Caesar, or Genghis, or
> Richard, or the Black Prince, or Hannibal, because the rules and points
> capriciously favored Seleucids, Late Romans, and drab knight armies who
> happened to be able to wedge.
>
> So FHE has gotten some things hugely right in recognizing that a complex
> point
> system is inevitably going to skew things in some direction or other, and
> that
> it might as well be towards the armies from history that even those
> outside our
> hobby actually know something about and might pay attention to.


I see FHE as not so much ruthless marketers as historically dedicated. Let
us not forget, Mark, that THE REASON ordinary folks know so much about
Alexander and Genghis Khan is BECAUSE they were the best armies/generals
of their times. So they SHOULD be better on the tabletop, whether that
constitutes good marketing or not!


-Greek


_________________
-Greek
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  

Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:47 pm    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


My respected two cents, as a new player with limited experience:

Points are there for some semblance of balance, although (as Mark has
pointed out), ultimately true balance is impossible.

I think that Warrior goes a good way to create basic balance, and I
think that the strange, internal inconsistencies are few, and could be
corrected without changing the overall point system (per Jon's
suggestion, creating a "unilaterally" agreed upon list of several of
the worst cases could help).

However, I strongly feel one part of a balanced point system rewards
good general-ing not good 'generals'. I dislike the fact that a player
of an Alexandrian list would get a special 'general' rule just
because, historically, Alexander did well. We are not merely trying
to recreate historical battles, but replay the scenarios out to create
'what-if' situations. If all the Warrior system is attempting to do
is recreate history exactly, than every Alexander/Persian conflict
would result in the same end: Alexander wins.

Obviously, this is not what is desired. Therefore, the lists should
enable a good player to develop a good army and command it the way
they want. They should not be rewarded (especially at no cost) for
the way the historical *general* performed.

Also, at a basic level, I feel we should have to pay for better troops
of the same type. Again, I hate to bring this up, but why would a
point system allow the same costed troop types (same points) have
dissimilar effects. For example, why would one unit of Irr B LC B
have additional effects at no cost over any other LC£¿

I'm not attempting to argue the list-rules issue again (although I do
realize I am coming close), I am merely saying that, in my opinion, a
'balanced' point system would not allow this (saying what I would
prefer from such a system).

In such a situation, the player's ability to play would take priority
over the ability of various special rules.

To create an analogy (and step closer to that perilous point of
arguing), why do the Chinese need to pay points for fire lances but
Mongols don't need to pay for being able to fight 1.5 ranks?

I'll back off that point now, but again, my "ideal" point system would
emphasize balance in cost for similar effects, so that any additional
effect would have a cost associated with it.

Finally, I think the excuse that promoting 'winning' armies like
Genghis, Alexander, etc. is a bit narrow. Many armies 'won' in their
period, and most people are skewed by the history they have read. How
many in the West know of General Yue Fei or Deng Shi Chang? They, and
many others, are equally successful and famous, here in China. So why
no Yue Fei armies? Why no bonuses for them? Again, in my 'ideal'
system, generalship of the players would be emphasized, and the
historical operation of the armies, not the specifics of a single
general, no matter how famous or successful.

Apologies if I rambled a bit, and I mean no offence to the FHE team,
who have done a remarkable job. I am merely stating what would be an
¡®ideal¡¯ point system in my mind.

Cheers,
Dan

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Ewan McNay
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2750
Location: Albany, NY, US

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Re: thinking about points (long)


Mark Stone wrote:

> --- On March 29 Ewan said: ---
>>I actually agree that optimising army list design - which is that this is
>>about - is a fun part of the game. I disagree that an optimal point
>>system would remove this...
>
>
> Well, I always have trouble figuring out where Ewan and I are going to agree
or
> disagree... often even after the email exchange.

:)

So Mark revised to:
> An optimally point-balanced, tournament point system would diminish the
command
> decision aspect of determining what equally avialable resources are in fact
> more useful.

With which I might agree - 'diminish' rather than 'remove' - but I think
the amount of diminution would be small and possibly insignificant.
However, Mark and I agree that this is not really the point of interest..


>>But let's take an almost-as-extreme example, and say that the point system
>>costed Burmese elephants at 1 point each while altering no other feature.
>>Does anyone doubt that we would see a lot of them to the excusion of
>>other armies?
>
> Now we come to a really interesting point of agreement between Ewan and me,
and
> one that I think cuts much closer to the heart of the matter. Given that a
> truly balanced point system would be of essentially unattainable complexity to
> design -- and I hope I've offered some preliminary arguments that point out
why
> this is likely to be the case -- the result is inevitably a point system that
> favors some choices over others.

Agreed.

> This favoritism can either be capricious or deliberate.

The latter of which assumes that the authors of the system understand
which choices are favoured - in which case they could design to reduce or
remove such favour, and I believe that they should. So, while one
possibility is that a point system has designed-in imbalances - here Mark
and I agree - in that case, I think that the designer and I have a
fundamentally irreconcilable goals.

Let us then assume that the designer(s) are in agreement that an imbalance
which is known should be corrected (otherwise we're back to my Burmese
elephant example above). In that case, as Mark's argued and I've
accepted, we will still have imbalance but they will be due essentially to
chance.

[Digression: I think that caprice implies intent rather than chance, and
the OED agrees, kinda - "guided by whim or fancy rather than by judgement
or settled purpose". So capriciousness is, I think, a bad thing in all
cases; hence my use of 'chance.' YMMV]

To sum: either the point system has known imbalances, in which case I
believe that to be a flaw*, or it has (as-yet) unknown imbalances, and I
accept that it is likely that that will always be the case.

*Now, Mark argues that it is OK, even good, to have known imbalance in the
direction of favouring some class of armies deemed to be 'well-known' or
'historically interesting'. I disagree. Moreover, I doubt that this is
in fact possible unless either (i) all of those armies you're trying to
favour share common characteristic(s) - not likely - or (ii) an
overwhelming part of the imbalance is produced by special case list rules.

> So FHE has gotten some things hugely right in recognizing that a complex point
> system is inevitably going to skew things in some direction or other, and that
> it might as well be towards the armies from history that even those outside
our
> hobby actually know something about and might pay attention to. Here in
Silicon
> Valley we call that "smart marketing".

In case anyone hasn't noticed, here at Yale we call that 'pork' Smile. It's
also a red herring. Introducing imbalances - through list rules - to
favour some small class of army may be enough to skew the game towards
those armies, if the underlying point system has only smaller imbalances.
However, just because there is a list-rule skew, that does not remove
any underlying skews; otherwise we could simply ban all such list rule
armies and have a perfectly balanced point system, which we already know
not to be the case.

> My point is this: if we, as players, feel some dissatisfaction with the point
> system, then we ought to stop thinking about some idealized and unattainable
> "balanced" system, and instead think about what we want the point system to
> motivate.

Mark, we may just be talking past each other. For me, as soon as the
point system/army lists/special rules/whatever motivate me to take (say)
Alexandrian, because that army has a better chance than others, that's a
failure.

So - I agree that we can't attain nirvana. I am even willing accept that
for the game as a whole, it is better to have stability than to
continually tinker, even if that tinkering is an improvement. I just
don't believe that painting a smiley face on the flaws and calling them
features is desirable outside Silicon Valley Wink.

> We cannot constructively criticize if we don't know what we want. Ewan, I know
> what you want, and you and I both know that it is computationally impractical
> if not impossible. So get over it, and tell me what _else_ you want that might
> actually be achievable.

What I *want*? I want me to be the general - so just because some guy
called Hannibal did well with the Carthaginians doesn't mean that the
*troops* are any better; it's up to me to emulate Hannibal's skill. And
if those troops can't do, under the point system, what they did - then
neither can identical (say) Reg C MI LTS, Sh in any other list, and the
system should be changed for all (or none), not for some select few. I
*want* benefits from list rules (which I think are a neat idea, if
appropriate) to come with a point cost integretaed into the overall system
- so I can choose to have Mongol cav which get free dismounting, at cost
X, or some other cav without that ability at cost Y where Y<X. And so on.
I actually agree with Derek that such stuff diminishes the game, and the
game is all I care about.

I don't expect to get any of this, nor do I even expect to have some of
(what I perceive as) egregious system errors like the cost of Ally
generals addressed. But you asked Smile.

Stepping aside from the 'special case' question for a moment and back to
the underlying point system, so we're once again back to a world where
there's no *intentional* favouring of certain armies. What do I then
want? Well, then I *probably* want to start by multiplying all current
costs by say 10, and then tinkering (so that e.g. a Reg D MI, IPW is going
to cost me 4 - or 6, or whatever - while a Reg D MI, B is going to cost me
20. But, given that the chance that this would get me anywhere even
*after* designing and multiple years of playtesting, that's not going to
happen either, much less so in the context of already-published rules and
list books that it would obviate.

So, finally (!), coming back to 'what do I want that's achieveable'? I
don't see meaningful change as achieveable. Which is pretty bleak, and
not where I expected to end up, but I think true. Sorry. One major
reason for this is the resolution attainable at the current point levels,
but another is the inertia of the system and a third is the unlikelihood
af getting to any agreement on what change is desired. Given those, *and*
the context of special-case imbalances that are explicitly seen as
desirable, that's where I end up. Which is not to say that I expect
anyone to share my view: I understand that I am an [extreme] outlier on
the multidimensional curve for what I desire in terms of historical
relevance (don't care), appeal to outsiders (don't really care), or
simulation of history (don't really care) versus game balance (care!).

Anyway, while I enjoy the philosophy, I think I led myself to backing out
of this discussion. Carry on, folks Smile.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Ewan McNay
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2750
Location: Albany, NY, US

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Re: thinking about points (long)


hrisikos@... wrote:
> I see FHE as not so much ruthless marketers as historically dedicated. Let
> us not forget, Mark, that THE REASON ordinary folks know so much about
> Alexander and Genghis Khan is BECAUSE they were the best armies/generals
> of their times. So they SHOULD be better on the tabletop, whether that
> constitutes good marketing or not!

If I were to confess to a desire for historicity, I think that part of it
might be that doing things which worked historically should result in them
working on the table. But not exclusively - that way lies rote and
boredom, and it's not as if the HYW English ever acutaly fought the
Sumerians..

So Alexander or Hannibal should be able to obtain good results, becuse
they are good generals. But so should Mark or you or I; the troops should
either be not-different (and hence equally costed) or, perhaps,
better/specially-trained (and hence more expensive). All in my unpopular,
iconoclastic, and sometimes-humble opinion.. Wink)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Greg Regets
Imperator
Imperator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2988

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:52 pm    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


In my opinion, this is all a very easy fix ... hardly worth more than
an afternoon's work.

1. Keep the current system as is with simple changes like: (examples)

a) Make 2HCT cost one point. They are not twice as good as every other
weapon.

b) Make all standards cost the same. A flag doesn't know if it's
regular or irregular.

c) Make cavalry and infantry shields cost the same. Cavalry pays more,
but infantry gets a much greater benefit.


2. For everything that FHE added to enhance the game, (list rules, epic
generals, etc ...) assign and multiplier per element for each of these
things.

*****

Two additional points:

I think it's completely fair to have FHE say, "We don't think there is
a problem, so we are not changing a thing." It's their game. We are
just players.

BUT ... if they do think it needs changed, they shouldn't make a
mountain out of a mole-hill. Just pick some of the major points, and
work through a quick, easy solution. Trying to do a complete redo, will
NEVER get done, and is a bit like trying to make a Ferrari out of a
Ford that has already been made. If you got the materials before the
car was created, you could probably make a Ferrari, but since it's
already a Ford, just make it the best Ford it can possibly be.

Just my opinion ... g

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Doug
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1412

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Re: thinking about points (long)


DBMM has a long list of "Brilliant" and "Inept" historical generals.
If the player wishes, he can buy their equivalent capabilities
(incorporated in the DBMM equivalent of list rules) for points.

The brilliant little game Strategos published by the SOA allows
certain generals to conduct two moves in a row, once per game.

There are many possible ways to model various kinds of
(in)competence. Leaders who used personal courage to inspire a small
body at a critical time could have a combat dice bonus. Leaders who
developed a superior staff system could get more than 15 minutes to
spend. Warrior is a "deep" enough game to support different
approaches to the same end.

This thread postulated that interested players should "hash out" list
equality issues independantly of T4H so they don't have the burden of
refereeing. Maybe a completely separate list group would be
appropriate?

***

It seems to me that the faction which thinks that list rules should
be optional and costed for points should set about determining a fair
points value, and then set it before the Warrior universe for
comment. I don't have the experience to do so, but I would not mind
the result. At the very least an agreed-upon value could become an
optional rule.

Whether or not list rules should be available in tournaments is a
different question.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group