RE: [Epic] Hello all from an ex-lurker

From: Andy Skinner <andy.skinner_at_...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 08:17:00 EST

Eric the ex-lurker:
>It disturbs me, because all of these factors tend to make players look =
>to fielding only those units which are considered "good", and in a point
=
>based system there really should be no "good" units, only trade-offs in
=
>the different factors that comprise the unit (cost, speed, CAF, guns, =
>breakpoint, abilities, etc.). It also tends to have a detrimental effect
=
>on creating a "customizable" army - for instance..
>
>EXAMPLE, I want to create a very fast and mobile Marine army, so I =
>decide to not take any vehicles slower than speed 25 realizing that I =
>will most likely be sacrificing fire-power to meet this goal. I want my
=
>troops to go in fast, so I choose Thunderhawks and drop pods for their =
>insertion capability to deliver all of my troops - net result, a 6,000 =
>point game, I have 8-10+ T-hawks and 2 Drop pod special cards (along =
>with the troops and few other bits)... Can you smell the cheddar? My =
>original intentions were reasonable, I just wanted fast stuff - but =
>because T-hawks and the pods are considered "to cheap for their own =
>good" my opponent is upset (and in some cases, rightly so)... If you =
>look at my army and say "you should take more variety of units to offset
=
>the cheese" - what you are basically saying is that I take "worse" units
=
>that don't match my goals to balance my "artificially better" ones... =
>what is the point of that? Would my opponent still be upset if T-Hawks
=
>cost 200 pts apiece? I don't think so!! If my opponent has the =
>argument that I am "taking too many units of a certain unit type" what =
>he or she is really saying is that "there is an accepted army =
>composition list that I should follow", in which case there is simply no
=
>reason for points.=20

I don't think I've thought about it in these terms before,
but I agree with this. You might want a certain army
because it will accomplish the plan you want to execute,
and it would be nice if the army selection process let
you do that without feeling guilty about it. :-) On
the other hand, getting the points to balance out is
probably the hardest part of designing a game. Points
have to represent the typical value of a unit, but that
can change wildly by opponent, terrain, mission, etc.
That's good--units should have different strengths and
weaknesses--but the points can't say it all.

The problem with just fiddling with points or combat or
movement stats is that you then have to reach agreement
with anyone whom you might play, and the published values
are the most easily agreed upon.

It might be interesting to specify a point level, but
also give some number of points that could either be
added to the army (to get that one more unit you would
really like to have) or used during the game to change
things (initiative bonuses, adjusting terrain just before
the game starts, maybe a few extra victory points).
If you already had the army you wanted, and had 150 points
left over, instead of trying to cram something into that
space you could save those points to use for some advantage
during play. Hmmm. Probably best handled on a scenario
basis.

Anyway, interesting thoughts, Eric.

andy
andy.skinner_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 30 1997 - 13:17:00 UTC