Points aren't linear value. Thoughts?

[Last Hussar]

Can anyone help me out with my memory of this, correct me, or just join in the debate. This will be memory paraphrasing, so don't treat as gospel.

Decades ago – pre-internet – I read an argument in the Steve Jackson games magazine arguing that points for units are not strictly linear. Instead in a game context, where there are multiple units, powerful units are less valuable than they appear – basically a 30-point unit isn't worth two 15-point units.

Instead, the actual battlefield/tabletop value is the square root; in the above example about 5½  to just less than 4, giving an actual equivalence of about 3:4.

It appears to be taking Stalin's alleged quote about Quantity/Quality.

Like I say, memory may not be entirely correct, but that was the thrust of it.
Thoughts?

[fred.]

I've not seen an article positing that. 

It depends very much on the game, I've found in a lot of games powerful units are very strong, as they can deal damage, take damage, and may be manoeuvrable as well. So are often well worth their points. 

Lots of games struggle with effective ganging up of weak units on a strong one - often due to footprint of units. So you can end up with a strong unit beating multiple weaker ones. 

So my experience would be to not agree with this theory. 

Also points are just an approximation of unit strength, often they seem quite arbitrary and can't take into account the tactical situation a unit might find itself in. 

[Ithoriel]

I have to agree with fred. Much depends on the terrain, the scenario, the rules and accuracy of the points system.

Long time ago I played a WW2 game as a US force attempting to stop the Germans escaping the Falaise Pocket. Entirely fictional forces and a fictional action.

Victory points were entirely down the the German armour exiting the table, or not. The Germans scored the points cost of any tank or assault gun exiting the table. The US scored the points cost of any such units still on table.

We set up and I asked my opponent if he'd like another game as he'd lost this one as a Major Victory for the US.  My opponent was outraged until I pointed out that he'd opted for a small number of expensive but tough and well armoured Tiger I's ... which couldn't move fast enough under the rules to exit the table in the time allotted.

[petedavies]

I believe the article was "Ogre and the Fuzzy Wuzzy Fallacy" in Space Gamer 12, 1977. I first saw it in "The Ogre Book" a few years later.

Can dig out my ancient copy later to check out more details but Googling with that title brings up hits.

Cheers,
Pete

[steve_holmes_11]

I always through that points were the penultimate step in rules writing.
 * Make up some random points values.
 * Compile Index - on second thoughts, can't be arsed.

[Gwydion]

Sounds like it is messing about with Lanchester's Square Law - if you double the number of units firing you don't double the effect you quadruple it/square it. There's more to it but people playing with points values often fiddle with the concept.

[Last Hussar]

Pete, "The Ogre Book" sounds like a likely source. I can actually remember where I was when I read this in the 80s (gaming shop in old town Stevenage!) It just popped into my head yesterday.

I realise that it has had an effect on my gaming, and rules writing.  I sometimes need to point things, and run a series of paper tests; 1 v 1 average win/loss, what happens 2 v 1 etc.

[sunjester]

All procrastinating to avoid putting paint onto models!

[steve_holmes_11]

Big armies are great as long as:
 * You can get your numbers into action (Lanchester's square law applied to a chaotic dogfight).
 * Your numerous weedy units can damage the enemy (early Libyans - can they pull it off on a windy night in Teutonia?)
 * Units of routing weeds don't provoke a stampede.

[flamingpig0]

If AI can be  believed it is  "Lanchester's Laws"  which is frequently attributed to Henry J. Cobb, a prolific contributor to The Space Gamer and a key figure in the mathematical analysis of Steve Jackson Games' Ogre game

[flamingpig0]

If course- when we get the  new version of FWC we can put Henry J Cobb's thesis to the test.

(hint hint)

[Last Hussar]

All procrastinating to avoid putting paint onto models!

Some people like painting,  I like rules writing.

[Orcs]

Some people like painting,  I like rules writing.

I would  suggest that you would dislike painting less, if you actually got a meaningful amount done. You could easily make significant progress if you spent painting rather than on here discussing  theoretical points about rules. 

[d_Guy]

Is a unit painted with seven colours worth more than a unit painted with only five? If so, how is this measured?

[sultanbev]

I generalise despise points values, and have only ever used them in campaigns as part of a budgeting system. And we ditched that many years ago.

The problem is not the application of presented points values between two armies, it's the actual calculation of the values in the first place.

Traditionally most are created in a linear fashion, you might have factors for example for tanks,  speed, armour thickness, armour penetration, number of machine guns, and you end up with something like
Bren Carrier 15pts
Sherman 100pts
Tiger I 120pts

Clearly one Sherman could outfight a whole platoon of 13 Bren Carriers, but 5 Shermans are not going to beat 4 Tiger Is.

In practice you should cube those numbers, and divide by 1000 or similar
eg
Carrier 15 x15 x15 = 3375 call it 1 as a minimum
Sherman 100x 100x 100 = 1000,000 call it 100
Tiger I 120x 120 x120 = 1728,000 call it 170
Even that isn't providing a good ratio of Shermans to Tigers, so the original linear construct is still wrong.But you get the idea hopefully.

The there is the command and control, morale and training values of the equipment.
In BKC or CWC, it gives fixed points for HQs. But a CV10 commander will increase the units under its command by ~30% in number of activations, a CV9 ~15% and CV7 ~ -15%. So those fixed points values are understating it, or in the case of CV6 and CV7 commands, overstating it.

And a CV10 platoon of Sherman 75mm probably will beat a CV8 platoon of Tiger Is.

Lets take a pre-modern era.
say a average trained infantryman with a spear or sword or bayonet is 5pts.
Give him a musket 6pts (?)
Baker Rifle 8pts perhaps
Make his D class, ie poor morale - the temptation is a -1, or a +1 for B class.
No, what you would do is add up the points of the unit, then increase it by say 15% for a B class unit, or -15% for a D class unit, assuming your morale rules are a D6 based system. Then apply a similar modifier depending on the Brigade commanders rating.
So the maths gets beyond boring or would fill out more pages of your rule book than the combat rules, if you want them to be truly accurate, and becomes more accounting than gaming.

Is that where you want to go? One of our gaming group works in county council finance. He made a telling comment that he does accounting all day at work, the last thing he wants to do is the same in his hobby.

So this is my universal points system.

It's in victory points (VP). Most units cost 1VP. Guard units cost 2VP, militia 0VP. You pick VP totals for a game. Might be 12VP of units for an evening game, up to a divisional structure, or follow historical organisation.
You get 1VP during the battle for each unit routed/destroyed. You get 2VP for winning the battle. You get 1VP for losing the battle, ie just turning up 
Thats it. If you ending up dicing all elite commanders and your opponent all poor commanders, that's just tough luck for that game, make the most of it.

For WW2 games we often go simpler - 1 Btn HQ, n teeth arm companies and n+1 support platoons including air support and off-table artillery in the latter. For every 1 level worse in morale rating, training value and command value a force has relative to his opponent, they get 1 extra platoon.
So in a 1942-43 Russian front game, you might have BT2 CV9 Germans versus BT4 CV7 Russians, that gives the Russians 4 extra units (same morale, but 2 worse training values, 2 worse command value). If three of those extra units make another company, it gets a corresponding CHQ.

A lot of the time its based around what models players actually have, and its more about getting the lead on the table quickly than spending an hour calculating points of your ideal army.

[Last Hussar]

I would  suggest that you would dislike painting less, if you actually got a meaningful amount done. You could easily make significant progress if you spent painting rather than on here discussing  theoretical points about rules. 

I am painting - ECW at the moment. It's one of the techniques suggested by my mentor at the Mental Health services - the so called '5 minute rule'; timetable a task, and commit to doing at least 5 (or 10) minutes. Part of the upside is once you start something, you'll go 'I'll just do that next bit... oh then that bit won't take long... well, if I do that I might as well do this..." and you spend more time than originally planned.

[fsn]

Is a unit painted with seven colours worth more than a unit painted with only five? If so, how is this measured?

Well, for the Napoleonic period red coat > blue coat > white coat.


(This applies to line infantry, before anyone gets clever.)

[Raider4]

Well, for the Napoleonic period red coat > blue coat > white coat.

Works for rugby as well!



He says, deludedly... 

[Orcs]

I am painting - ECW at the moment. It's one of the techniques suggested by my mentor at the Mental Health services - the so called '5 minute rule'; timetable a task, and commit to doing at least 5 (or 10) minutes. Part of the upside is once you start something, you'll go 'I'll just do that next bit... oh then that bit won't take long... well, if I do that I might as well do this..." and you spend more time than originally planned.

Thats the idea, although I never seem to get to the point I have actually spent more time than planned. I sit down to do a days painting, and somthing always seems to need sorting out - Inlaws get taken to A&E, Rubbish has spilled out the dustbin when it was collected and needs clearing up , sweeping snow and Ice off the drive etc etc.

[Big Insect]

If course- when we get the  new version of FWC we can put Henry J Cobb's thesis to the test.

(hint hint)

One of the 'interesting' (yawn!) things about trying to unravel Pete's original points systems - for FWC (or BKC or worse CWC) is that there actually is a strange sort of logic to what he did, but at first glance it is completely unfathomable. It also, in some cases, looks at first glance to be completely counter intuitive.

As I am now finding out, some of what went on is actually more about game play balance, (e.g. getting the right effect) than it is about comparative points. But we'll see how my unravelling of these particular Gordian Knots goes.
It's one (of many) reasons why any kind of linear progression from BCK to CWC to FWC is out of the question.
Also, its a nightmare to try and design an automated unit cost calculator that works properly, all the time. Because there are so very many exception rules, and many of them contradict themselves (e.g. you can only have 'Tough' as a Special Characteristic on a Tiger IV if the moon is on the wane, but you can have it on a Churchill if its a leap tide after the equinox. etc.etc.etc). And before anybody states "well we had a perfectly good FWC unit calculator previously", yes you did but it was playing total havoc with the stats and a lot of what it produced, particularly at the upper end was total gobbledygook 

I agree with Mark B - that points should generally be a last resort. OOBs are far better, but they require time - to research, time - to convert into an on-table force and often you then end up with less playing time or you have the challenge that you don't have a certain model or that extra truck you wanted for Xmas doesn't have a 'true home' in that OOB. Also an OOB for a force in FWCII is fairly unusual, despite some good detail in the novels and films of many sci-fi authors.

Points are also a crude, but almost universally accepted way of allowing 2 players to field, what they believe are balanced forces, to play a 3hr pick up of an evening, down at the club and not feel cheated if one or other of them wins or loses.

Anyway - unit stats and army lists are the bane of almost all rules writers I know. Maybe (one day) AI will do it all for us ... who knows 

Mark (F)