Point Values

[Jason Petho]

Well, I have played 28 games since becoming active once again a few months ago. The new version is, IMO, a very positive move forward, but even with all the posts I have seen, and all the comments that have been made, I refer back to my original post.

The point system gentlemen, "is broken", and that was & is my only issue. CS is a great game. Some scenario designers have done an excellent job at creating challenging and relatively fair scenarios. Others have done a very, very, poor job at designing scenarios, and I scratch my head, trying to understand what the designer was thinking about.

What remains is a need for a point system to be created that gives a fair cost for a unit based on game capabilities, and then it is up to the scenario designer to do the rest. Right now, we don't have that, and again, IMO, that is a real issue for the game.

- Greg

:bow:

Suggestions for solutions?

What is... What remains is a need for a point system to be created that gives a fair cost for a unit based on game capabilities... in your opinion?

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

LOL!
1)Maybe we can make each unit in the game have the same point value?
2)Then we can do the same to terrain. Gosh, more AP's to move into one terrain than another terrain hex? What's up with that?
3)We can make each hex a square. Because hexes are confusing to look at. Especially if they have the same value?
4)To differentiate the squares we can have one colored red and another black, layed out in checkerboard pattern?
5)Units, since they are equal value, should then be made in round, plate like graphics? It would save a lot of work.
6)Keep the IGOUGO format. But, only allow movement in one direction.
7)Remove victory hexes/squares and just have the "plates" move from square to square toward the opposite board edge. If they jump an opponents "plate" you remove it from the map/checkerboard.
8)Maybe if a player is lucky enough to move his plate from one map edge to the other you can give it the extra ability of moving in more than one direction?
9)Then you could just get rid of scenario designers because the map, units, and victory levels would all be equally set for both players?

10)The one who has the most plates left, wins the game?

I hope that is not too much of a fundamental change to the way the game is played? It sure would solve scenario design problems. ;):chin:

RR

[K K Rossokolski]

Very droll, Ed. I always like the reductio ad absurdum approach.

[Jason Petho]

I'll get on that.

1.05 here we come!

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

I bet on a checkers forum somewhere the players are arguing about how to improve the game by adding variety to the pieces and terrain. And there will be other players who will protest that the game is perfectly good the way it is and needs no changing. Someone will let a snide comment slip, and the gloves will be off, and the moderator will have to threaten to lock the thread down unless everyone calms down.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

LOL! Humour is wasted here? ;)

Maybe the checkers forum would discuss creating "real world" terrain the chips could move across. Then maybe make the chips into "real historical" combat units, making simulated attacks. Maybe change the board from squares to hexes so that it is more "round"? :chin:
Then instead of moving to the board edge the pieces could move about the board any way they are capable and with different objectives set to attain victory? :)
I wonder how the checker players will develop scenario designers? Or, will the scenario designers want to devolve the game back to checkerboard and chips so they won't have to think, or recreate history?




RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Very droll, Ed. I always like the reductio ad absurdum approach.

LOL! Just call me Mr. Droll. :rolleyes:
I was going to suggest circular chips that represent naval units to replace the ones we have now. :kill: :cheeky:

Ed

[K K Rossokolski]

LOL! Just call me Mr. Droll. :rolleyes:
I was going to suggest circular chips that represent naval units to replace the ones we have now. :kill: :cheeky:

Ed

I'll let this one go through to the keeper, Ed. I expect my views on the "naval" units are well enough known. :chin:
Wouldn't want to upset anybody. :stir:

[Valor]

The point system gentlemen, "is broken", and that was & is my only issue. CS is a great game. Some scenario designers have done an excellent job at creating challenging and relatively fair scenarios. Others have done a very, very, poor job at designing scenarios, and I scratch my head, trying to understand what the designer was thinking about.

Greg,

Designing scenarios is something like art. One are better on that than the other. That's the answer to your question. Not the "broken" point value system.

Even if you start revamping the points assigned to each units, after some time there will be still the same percentage of "good" and "bad" scenarios. It will be still up to the designer to do the job.

As beginner in the scenario designing, am I for making scenario designing easier? Not necessarily. It looks for me like trying to define programming code that help writers write novels. Will be there more interesting books because of that? I doubt.

As I said, some people have it, some don't. Some are still looking. And there is nothing to do with the point value system.

There is no sense to compare units value of Polish infantry of 39 and German of 44. As Jason said previously, they have no chance to meet each other.

We can question whether the Volksgrenadiers are much better than line infantry or not. We can argue whether "cost" of 3 VP for trucks* is valid or not but it doesn't mean that all values must be changed.

All the best

Slawek

* 3 VP for trucks influences the pre-1.03 scenarios (or 1.02? :chin: ) in the way that now trucks can carry twice the strength of infantry as previously. So for transporting infantry platoon you needed 6 VP unit (6SP trucks x 1 VP = 6), now you need 9 VP unit (3SP x 3 VP = 9). Adding bigger defense value of motor transport makes sense to me. :smoke:

[RADO]

Jason & Slawek,

I completely understand your points, and Jason, I thought my suggestion on what to do was made clear before. To clarify once again; I understand that a plain Jane Russian infantry unit and German infantry unit of the same year (whatever year) are the same point cost now, but have greatly differing abilities, firepower being the main one.

I see an issue with that. If no one else does, then fine, leave it alone. Having designed many game scenarios myself in other game systems, I fully understand the difficulty in creating a "balanced" scenario, but I believe there is a market out there that wants to be able to "build " their own army for a particular time period, create or have a randomly created map, and go at it with "X" points per side. This is quite common in miniature based games for various periods, and I feel that such a capability would increase market share for CS.

To create a point system is not rocket science but requires that one have all the variables and data that affects play. Then it is a simple matter to assign initial values to the variables, and then a lot of playtesting.

Me, I love the game. Sure, I have issues with certain aspects in the game, particularly with the seemingly bias in favor of German forces and equipment, but as long as the scenario is good, and these factors taken into account in the OB, I'll play.

Many of the scenarios are outstanding! There is no question that the designer went to great lengths to create a fair and challenging game. A few of the scenarios have me scratching my head thinking the designer did one OB, then got drunk, and did the other side's OB.

So, that being said, time for a cold beer!



- Greg