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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
All procrastinating to avoid putting paint onto models! :d
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.
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
If course- when we get the new version of FWC we can put Henry J Cobb's thesis to the test.
(hint hint)
Quote from: sunjester on 10 January 2026, 10:05:30 AMAll procrastinating to avoid putting paint onto models! :d
Some people like painting, I like rules writing.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 10 January 2026, 12:11:48 PMSome 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.
Is a unit painted with seven colours worth more than a unit painted with only five? If so, how is this measured?
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.
Quote from: Orcs on 12 January 2026, 12:48:40 AMI 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.
QuoteIs 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.)
QuoteWell, for the Napoleonic period red coat > blue coat > white coat. :)
Works for rugby as well!
He says, deludedly...
Quote from: Last Hussar on 12 January 2026, 02:49:48 PMI 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.
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 10 January 2026, 12:05:44 PMIf 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 ;D
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 :o
Mark (F)
I always liked the concept of the ill fated Mongoose Games Babylon 5 A Call To Arms points system, each ship had a priority Level (Patrol, Skirmish, Raid, Battle, War, Armageddon)
Each priority level was effectively double the last.
This could slide depending on dates of conflicts, or opponents tech.
So a Mimbari cruiser is a Battle, and bloody hard.
A Vree flying saucer* could be a Patrol, so you could get 8 to a battle.
The Vree would lose, because the rules were pretty broken, In each category some powers were unbeatable. Mimbari, Shadows and Vorlons especially. Mimbari out gunned you, out ranged you, out armoured you, had cloaking and better moral
But you could go 'Vreeeeeeeee' any time you moved a ship!
They even did a WW2 version (it was really bad).
*Called Vree after the sound effects their ships were meant to make!
QuoteI always liked the concept of the ill fated Mongoose Games Babylon 5 A Call To Arms points system, each ship had a priority Level (Patrol, Skirmish, Raid, Battle, War, Armageddon)
Each priority level was effectively double the last.
They even did a WW2 version (it was really bad).
Victory at Sea. I liked it.
As someone who never fights historical battles but who aims for believable, even if ahistorical, forces I use points costs all the time. I don't need them to be exact (just as well!) just close and unbiased.
I remember having a copy of the formula for the points costs for GW's Warmaster and using it to point up home grown units. It needed a slight fudge for some units but it worked really well overall.
So, for me, OOB's are interesting as an indication of what might be available but points costs are essential if I want a reasonably balanced game.
I'm with Ithoriel.
Good to know that the many days/months & probably years I have spent trying to sort out army lists and unit points costs have not been in vain ;D
Points values are very helpful in sets of rules.
Players are also really quite good at spotting and then exploiting what they perceive as cheaply pointed units.
I think most of us want a good game as the outcome - if points help setup a game quickly and easily then that is very useful. I think it depends on your gaming background, for some people crafting an historical scenario based on actual troops numbers etc is key, for others building a force that is ultra competitive from a list of units is key. I suspect most of us are somewhere between these extremes.
I like a good historical scenario but these take time to research and setup. Points and army lists can get you to a game pretty quickly, with the expectation that one side isn't going to get rolled over in the first turn, which can be be great most weeks. I've also found that if the players are building their own army lists ahead of the game, they are a bit more involved.
With a scenario setup ahead of time, players rarely spend any time looking at it ahead of the game, then once it's on the table they start picking holes (which can sometimes be quite fair). But would have been good to resolve ahead of time.
Quote from: fred. on 13 January 2026, 07:26:07 PMI like a good historical scenario but these take time to research and setup.
There are loads of historical scenarios available for all periods and many different rulesets. Take advantage of those and the time and effort that others have already put into them for you.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 13 January 2026, 06:05:52 PMAs someone who never fights historical battles but who aims for believable, even if ahistorical, forces [...] OOB's are interesting as an indication of what might be available but points costs are essential if I want a reasonably balanced game.
Surely the situation and victory conditions provide the balance when forces are unbalanced?
QuoteSurely the situation and victory conditions provide the balance when forces are unbalanced?
.... and the points values factor in to working out how imbalanced the forces are.
You clearly play very different games with very different players than I do.
Most of our games are knock 'em down, drag 'em out slugfests between balanced forces. Because that's what the group wants to play.
From time to time I managed to coerce them into a fighting retreat/ hold the crossroads/ opposed river crossing or similar game and I get a grudging admission in return that "it wasn't as bad as we expected." I might even get the odd "that was quite good, I suppose." But the next game had better be balanced forces and a straight up fight.
To quote Bruce Forsyth,"What do points make? ...." :)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 14 January 2026, 09:51:54 AMMost of our games are knock 'em down, drag 'em out slugfests between balanced forces. Because that's what the group wants to play.
Can't argue with that - gotta give your public what they want! One of my own comrades of long ago, now sadly departed, far from revelling in his Poles' heroic but doomed stand against the overwhelming Panzers, remains famous for his bleat of "but I couldn't have won anyway!".
QuoteTo quote Bruce Forsyth,"What do points make? ...." :)
To quote Humphrey Lyttleton
QuoteA pathetic attempt by an audience to feel part of the show.
QuoteWell, for the Napoleonic period red coat > blue coat > white coat. :)
(This applies to line infantry, before anyone gets clever.)
QuoteWorks for rugby as well!
Slight amendment: black coat > gold coat > green coat > red coat > blue coat > white coat :D
Thinking about points.
The old WRG ancients touched on this in a very limited manner.
You paid for your troops, their rating, arms and protection.
You also had to pay a command cost for the number of units you grouped them into.
Regular commands were cheaper than irregular commands.
I think the intention was to encourage big unwieldy mobs, but small agile maniples.
QuoteThinking about points.
The old WRG ancients touched on this in a very limited manner.
You paid for your troops, their rating, arms and protection.
You also had to pay a command cost for the number of units you grouped them into.
Regular commands were cheaper than irregular commands.
I think the intention was to encourage big unwieldy mobs, but small agile maniples.
That feels an odd system. And I think shows points need to work with some sort of army list system.
I suspect Regular commanders were more effective in game terms. So should be more expensive.
But then you have the different tactical structures used by different armies that should limit the number of (and type) of commander available.
The more general point about good commanders being a points multiplier is valid. But I don't recall seeing lists where commanders cost a %age cost.
In one set of home brew rules using Warmaster / BKC style command. Where we offered an option to increase the command value. Pretty much every player would take this every time- and even when we increased the cost significantly it was still felt to be a good choice.
One way to fine tune points costs is based on usage. Units that turn up all the time are likely too cheap. Those rarely taken likely too expensive. But getting a big enough sample to derive this is hard. But with more online tools for list building this feels more possible.
Obviously this makes more sense where there is largely free choice in what is picked. If you have to take a large amount of line infantry due to list building rules. Then that isn't an indication of there points being too low.
I came across an interesting - to me - post from Warwick Kinrade about the points costs of wizards in Warhammer: The Old World.
http://warwickkinrade.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-old-world-magical-effectiveness-and.html (http://warwickkinrade.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-old-world-magical-effectiveness-and.html)
They have nerfed wizards now, so level 1 & 2 only get +1,while 3 & 4 get +2. But still quite a lot mor e powerful. Until you roll a double 1, and your head blows off! ;D
The blog post calculation reminded me of this TV Tropes page
Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards)
A
Rereading it, it points out how Wizards tend not to make it to the higher levels in "real life"; they are very squishy. This leads me to the idea that a wizard can't make up more than a certain % of a force - if it is a 100 point army, you can't have a high level wizard at 65 points. (Dahrlink, I don't get out my tower for less than 10000 goblins...)
We can use this idea in real life, you can only have x amount of this per y amount of basic troops (and it has to be basic types, no well super unit 1 is 10%, super unit 2 is 10%...)
I always thought highly of Shock of Impact where the army lists used percentages on each of the troop types; it ensured armies that were fielded were fairly representative of the original historic troops.
Burrows and Badgers,when you set up a character as a wizzard, each starting spell cost 5 pennies out of your starting budget of 350. A mouse is 28p, a badger 65ish, so not expensive, when a sword is 8p and light armour 15p.
Makes your character 'weak' (-1 strength) and delicate (+1 for each damage they took).
So, you can start with a massively powerful caster as a mage, but will snap in a strong breeze!
Not that it matters! ;D
Quote from: Last Hussar on 15 January 2026, 09:35:23 PMWe can use this idea in real life, you can only have x amount of this per y amount of basic troops (and it has to be basic types, no well super unit 1 is 10%, super unit 2 is 10%...)
That's pretty much how Warmaster and BKC work at the moment. I presume CWC and FWC would be the same but I don't play them.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 14 January 2026, 09:51:54 AM.
From time to time I managed to coerce them into a fighting retreat/ hold the crossroads/ opposed river crossing
Some of my most enjoyable games have been these types of games.
Out here in NZ various forms of WRG rules have been the mainstay of ancient wargaming since the 1970's. Started with 6th and 7th Editions and moved onto DBM and DBMM.
There is a strong ancients contingent locally who play DBMM to the standard points total (400 points?), so using the assigned points values in the rules is a given.
My point is more that here the 4 DBMM army list books seem to have become to some extent peusdo reference books, and woe betide a player who fields anything not in an "official" army list.
I bought "To the Strongest" at the same time as FK&P some years ago now, but I have yet to play a game of TtS, too tied up in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms I guess.
Army lists are very useful but they should not preclude players from doing a bit of historical research themselves.
QuoteThey have nerfed wizards now, so level 1 & 2 only get +1,while 3 & 4 get +2. But still quite a lot mor e powerful. Until you roll a double 1, and your head blows off! ;D
Is the double 1 thing the actual game mechanism? And a 4th level wizard can cast up to 24 spells in a game. Feels that there would be no 4th level wizards left if they have a 2/3 chance of dying just from their own spell casting each game.
Of course, modern armies are points based.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 15 January 2026, 09:35:23 PMThe blog post calculation reminded me of this TV Tropes page
Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards)
A
Rereading it, it points out how Wizards tend not to make it to the higher levels in "real life"; they are very squishy. This leads me to the idea that a wizard can't make up more than a certain % of a force - if it is a 100 point army, you can't have a high level wizard at 65 points. (Dahrlink, I don't get out my tower for less than 10000 goblins...)
We can use this idea in real life, you can only have x amount of this per y amount of basic troops (and it has to be basic types, no well super unit 1 is 10%, super unit 2 is 10%...)
Which is the way Hordes of the Things (HoTT] works. You have a total of 24pts to spend, of which only half can be spent on 'special' units (costing 3pt, 4pts or 6pts each).
QuoteOf course, modern armies are points based.
Indeed they are.
The points are variously described as Dollars, Yen, Euros, Roubles, Pounds, etc., etc. :) :) :)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 17 January 2026, 06:28:14 PMIndeed they are.
The points are variously described as Dollars, Yen, Euros, Roubles, Pounds, etc., etc. :) :) :)
I did run a 1960s imaginations campaign once, and all the budget and kit were priced in US dollars. Turns out there is a direct correlation between missile and aircraft weight and cost, something like $1000 per 1000lb weight or some such. For some tanks I had the actual figures, and did the rest by ratio. I might still have the numbers somewhere :-\
Quote from: Ithoriel on 17 January 2026, 06:28:14 PMIndeed they are.
The points are variously described as Dollars, Yen, Euros, Roubles, Pounds, etc., etc. :) :) :)
I was hoping people would get that!
We got the (decimal) point! ;)
Many systems have rules that prevent "free point buy".
Army Lists are the classic example.
Sometimes it's freer, but with stated limits.
Examples:
* No unit may cost more than 10 points (Dragon Rampant).
* No more than half your points may be spent on destroyers (Nimitz).