Unit prices consistent throughout the BE line?
- Thread starter AmanAgain
- Start date
Rabidchild
Mongoose
msprange said:
Seems like you could, they just need to be planned that way. A and B could have the same stats, the two games could have the same points scale. Would that make them the same game?
Am I reading it right that you're saying it's not possible to have games share units? We can't move units between these games because they don't share the same points scale, but what if they did? It seems to me that's how the OGL works, Tread-Head: Armored Combat in WW2 shares the points scale of WaW, I assume the German Vehicle Compendium does as well, and Apocalypse Z shares the scale with MC.msprange said:If you think about it, you _can't_ just move some units between games anyway. Take an Abrams or Challenger II - now stick them in World at War.
What sort of stats would they have in WWII?They would have to change from their MC scores anyway. . .
For example, the Abrams could have been made to have a Front Target score of 15 and a gun of D10+11. It becomes immune to WaW weapons from that facing, but if all the other anti-armor in MC scales up as well, the game(s) would remain consistent. In the same way, its weapon would destroy any WaW vehicle it faced. The only place that this breaks down is guns vs infantry, but even that is workable. I'd recommend using Agis' HE rules for the tank guns to resolve it, or perhaps a HE stat for each weapon. (For the AT rounds vs infantry, a D10+2 and a D10+11 are virtually the same thing: don't roll a 1.)
Rabidchild said:
I have to differ Rabidchild. Just check some stats and points between my German Vehicle Compendium and your Tread-Head book. We come sometimes to slightly different points and stats! :wink:
Rabidchild said:
Agreed! That was the approach when I tried to design the Abrams using my WaW baseline, but to what point?
I fail to see the value of having - let's say a German Panzergrenadier army - against a modern Abrams...
Rabidchild
Mongoose
Oh I know, but slight variation doesn't mean you are statting your PzIV to be in line with an Abrams.Agis said:
Rabidchild said:
The trouble is, once you have those stats, you then have to start thinking about armoured vehicles in the Korean War, those in 60's Cold War, Vietnam, the Falklands, tanks of the far future. . . You end up having to stat all those vehicles out to get the progression right, and you will _always_ forget something.
The alternative is to let BF Evo developers have a completely free hand in the army lists they design for their specific games. At the moment, they are just working on additions to our current games but, sooner or later, someone will do, say, the Korean War, and they will be free to approach the stats anyway they choose - basing them off WaW or MC, or striking out on their own.
The benefit is flexibility which, really, is what BF Evo is all about. . .
msprange said:
I agree that you can't transfer a vehicle from one time line to another - the limitations on the dice would prohibit the "true expression" of an Abrams v. a Panther combat. The simplest way to put an Abrams in a WWII tank battle, say Kursk, would be to just figure out how many targets the Abrams can aquire in a given time period, and then remove that many Panther / Soviet tanks (depends on whose side the Abrams is on!). Return fire would only be capable of damaging the electronic and other peripheral gear on the Abrams. So sure, no point in sending a vehicle from one time line to another.
However, in game design terms, as Agis points out, you can take a "baseline Tank" with identical stats in all periods, and work from there. This "Baseline Tank" merely represents a tank that is considered average given the anti-tank equipment of the period in question.
So from this standpoint, the WaW baseline is the Mk IV, Sherman and T34-76. For Korea, it might be the Super-Sherman and T34-85. 'Nam and the early Arab-Isreali wars might be the M60 and T54. Today it sure wouldn't be the Abrams, which is probably the premier tank of the planet, but it might be the T-72 instead.
In each of these periods, the baseline stat and points values might be exactly the same. Furthermore, the standard infantryman with a gun might also be the same stat and points. However, the net accumulation of technology should result in the decreasing usefulness and points cost of say Militia infantry with a bolt-action rifle and a home-made molotov cocktail. In WWII that soldier would be considered pretty standard and possibly effective on certain ground. in 2008 the same soldier with the same gun would probably be considered nearly useless and totally ineffective against any but the lightest armored vehicle.
So the question is not about the relative realities of the units, but about the game stat lines and how they are priced out. The cost of a WWII squad with BAR, Garands and Bazooka should be half that of a modern US squad with SAW, M16 and LAWs, and their firepower should be about half.
So as Agis et al points out, you need to start with a baseline, but that baseline might represent different things - including the compression of time - in modern v. WWII combat.
Still no answer to the way one designs points. Sounds like you wing it to me.
Rabidchild
Mongoose
Agis:
"wing it"
To say or do something without preparation, forethought, or sufficient information or experience; improvise: "She hadn't studied for the exam, so she decided to wing it."
I'll let Aman answer your question himself.
"wing it"
To say or do something without preparation, forethought, or sufficient information or experience; improvise: "She hadn't studied for the exam, so she decided to wing it."
I'll let Aman answer your question himself.
Ok... so you'd like a point system that allows you to get identical point costs for two identically stated vehicles in two different settings? Not going to happen. Why?
It is not the matter of getting an identical baseline vehicle, or even the slightly differen rules for both settings. It is easy to compensate for it. The problem is much deeper.
What really does a point cost of a unit represent? It's relative value in the environment it is supposed to exist in. So, in the process of assigning point cost to your vehicle or infantryman, you have to consider the enemies it's going to fight against - not only their statlines, however. You also need information on how likely you're going to encounter various types of opposition. Say... RPG armed infantry. A anti-infantry vehicle fighting in environment in which the opposition has almost no way of harming it will have different point cost than an anti-infantry vehicle fighting in environment, in which he, who shoot first lives. Even, if their statlines are exactly the same. An anti-infantry vehicle fighting in environment dominated by tanks will have a different point cost from one fighting in environment dominated by infantry, or one in which the forces are likely to be balanced.
It is also the reason for why you won't see a universal point cost system for game as generic as Battlefield Evolution. The setting will often determine, how important various stats are.
Let's consider a pure CC model (for simplicity) - an Arachnid Warrior. In a setting, in which it is expected to go against Mobile Infantry, its two most important aspects will be its mobility and survivalability - close combat skill is secondary, as it will come into play only if the bug manages to walk through MI's killing zone.
In a setting, in which it is expected to go against another CC opponent (say, Arachnids vs Dinosaurs), its speed becomes secondary. Suddenly, the most important aspects are its survivalability and CC skills - if the enemy has no way of killing you from distance, you don't have to hurry. To kill you he has to get into CC just like you have - so you even may let him do all the walking..
As the importance of various statline elements changes, their point costs will too. So - no way to get a generic point cost system.
To be honest, even trying to create a point cost system for a specific setting is usually more trouble than it's worth. You have to consider so many different variables (remember the interactions with environment? not only the enemy units fall into "environment" - the tabletop does too, e.g. what is the average LOS), it is much easier to determine (by the use of fancy maths, guesswork or playtesting) the point costs of a few baseline units and estimate the other point costs using them as the starting point. And modify the costs after playtesting. And that's it - it's that simple and that complex at the same time.
It is not the matter of getting an identical baseline vehicle, or even the slightly differen rules for both settings. It is easy to compensate for it. The problem is much deeper.
What really does a point cost of a unit represent? It's relative value in the environment it is supposed to exist in. So, in the process of assigning point cost to your vehicle or infantryman, you have to consider the enemies it's going to fight against - not only their statlines, however. You also need information on how likely you're going to encounter various types of opposition. Say... RPG armed infantry. A anti-infantry vehicle fighting in environment in which the opposition has almost no way of harming it will have different point cost than an anti-infantry vehicle fighting in environment, in which he, who shoot first lives. Even, if their statlines are exactly the same. An anti-infantry vehicle fighting in environment dominated by tanks will have a different point cost from one fighting in environment dominated by infantry, or one in which the forces are likely to be balanced.
It is also the reason for why you won't see a universal point cost system for game as generic as Battlefield Evolution. The setting will often determine, how important various stats are.
Let's consider a pure CC model (for simplicity) - an Arachnid Warrior. In a setting, in which it is expected to go against Mobile Infantry, its two most important aspects will be its mobility and survivalability - close combat skill is secondary, as it will come into play only if the bug manages to walk through MI's killing zone.
In a setting, in which it is expected to go against another CC opponent (say, Arachnids vs Dinosaurs), its speed becomes secondary. Suddenly, the most important aspects are its survivalability and CC skills - if the enemy has no way of killing you from distance, you don't have to hurry. To kill you he has to get into CC just like you have - so you even may let him do all the walking..
As the importance of various statline elements changes, their point costs will too. So - no way to get a generic point cost system.
To be honest, even trying to create a point cost system for a specific setting is usually more trouble than it's worth. You have to consider so many different variables (remember the interactions with environment? not only the enemy units fall into "environment" - the tabletop does too, e.g. what is the average LOS), it is much easier to determine (by the use of fancy maths, guesswork or playtesting) the point costs of a few baseline units and estimate the other point costs using them as the starting point. And modify the costs after playtesting. And that's it - it's that simple and that complex at the same time.
Thanks!Rabidchild said:
actually, I meant "to consume huge amounts of buffalo wings", as in "I don't know the design principles behind the points system of a given BE rulebook, so I decided to go to the local bar and wing it while consuming lots of local brew."
:lol: :lol:
Pietia: Points well taken. Yet somehow, the Traveller rules do it, right? And even if you are making a rulebook for a specific time/place/event, you can still start with a baseline stat and build from there.
But then again, winging it is so much more fun! :lol:
Coming up with a consistent points system within a specific era shouldn't be too much of a problem (many rules out there have done it with varying levels of success). Of course the question remains whether its really worth it - as a self-confessed hater of points systems. and someone who has staunchly resisted attempts by my publishers to inflict points systems on some of my rules, I'd have to say "no" But I can see the attraction in some quarters.
But I can see the attraction in some quarters.Traveller is an RPG. The vehicle build system there is supposed to let you build a believable vehicle, not to calculate it's tabletop cost AFAIK (at least not a tabletop cost that will tell you, how many TL7 MBTs you'll need to have 50% chance of winning a battle in which the opposition is a single TL14 APC). It's a big difference.AmanAgain said:
@DM - the "varying level of success" is the keyword here, I'd say. The more I play (and work on game design) the less confidence I place in point cost systems. Especially ones using math formulas to come up with the costs.
100% agreed Pieta!Pietia said:
I remember the time when DP9 tried a math points system with Heavy Gear.
Square roots and all, now they are back at the good old, start with a VERY basic formula, test it, adjust it, compare it, test again, adjust it etc.
You get the idea... :wink: :wink:
Pietia said:
Yup, at some point they always break down (usually when you start taking multiple versions of units).
You also have an issue when some armies/forces are geared towards one thing. The example I always gave was of a warrior bug in an MI force. In an arachnid army, 15 points was a reasonable amount. But in an army with no real close combat ability, the introduction of a warrior bug would be worth far more than 15 points (imagine a typical MI force taking ten warrior bugs for 150 points. . .).
