Switch Theme:

Wargame Design Discusion: Point Based Army/Force Building  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Greetings designers,

Let's talk about the Pros and Cons of using a point-based system for "balancing" or force creation in your games.

What games use their point systems well, and what games are points less?

Discuss.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

A point based system has the massive advantage of creating indeed balanced games, the problem is they must be based on a formula and each part must be extensively play tested in order it to be fine tuned, then closely monitored and adjusted.

If you want to deliver to your customers a complete system a point system, even if it is hidden as for example in boardgames such as Aristeia and Mythic battles (were each unit costs the same), is the only real way to go, else you leave the game balance to the players and deliver an incomplete game system.

Historically GW never used points system well and their designers always pride themselves that they cost units at "what they feel", I am not familiar with their new games though, Corvus Belli is an example of good use of points system since they are praised on their game balance.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

There aren't any games that really do points well, but a fair few do it adequately. Points sorta work where the game is very simple, and can be exhaustively playtested for balance, as a specific goal.

That said, points shouldn't be looked at the way most players do. Points should really stand for money, and not everybody spends every penny wisely. So there should be imbalances for players to ferret out, and those strengths and weaknesses should inform the faction biases accordingly.

tl;dr - points are the least bad way of giving players a way to create their own forces.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Every game system with army construction has points. Some of them aren't blatantly obvious (in MtG each card is worth 1 point regardless of anything else, other games run in multiple currencies) but everything has some kind of option value whether its codified or not.

The grand advantage of points is that it provides a flexible way to exchange nonequivalent things. The big disadvantage is that it makes fighting against opportunity cost a bigger issue and facilitates skew. Also, depending on the granularity of your system, points can greatly limit valid combinations. Knight Models is particularly bad about charging in pennies but only printing dimes.

I think points are a great thing, but I find it better when a model is designed to fill a specific point bracket and adjusted to be worth that value rather than designed in a vacuum and "costed" appropriately. It also really helps diversity to have some way to break up types of units somehow. You're going to paint yourself in a corner rather quickly if any new option designed has to fight against literally every single option created to that point.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






Jacksonville, NC

Points based systems, by design, are good because you can create "two equal forces" based on the power of those forces via points.

As many said, however, points systems seem to be more subjective than they really should be. For example, if I'm going to make this tougher model over here (lets say, a Space Marine) 18 points, and this model over here (Guardsman) 5 points, I need to make the space marine worth those extra points. However, it breaks down in the grand scheme of things because the armies as a whole never balance out properly. As others pointed out, pricing things with "how you feel" rather than "how this should play" is a major difference in mindset.

Honestly, model games designers need to take the "feeling" out when they price models and use due diligence. I feel often when they are designing units within a codex they forget what the army is about or what a specific units purpose should be.

Check out my P&M Blog!
Check out my YouTube channel, Heretic Wargaming USA: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLiPUI3zwSxPiHzWjFQKcNA
Latest Tourney results:
1st Place Special Mission tourney 12/15/18 (Battlereps)
2nd Place ITC tourney 08/20/18 ( Battlerep)
3rd Place ITC Tourney 06/08/18(Battlereps
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

I don't know if "good" or "bad" is appropriate- they are good, like any mechanic, to the degree they accomplish a design goal, I guess. They are not essential to balance, as numerous games do not employ them (see chess, for example). They also generally assume that a game should use balanced forces, which may or may not be desirable depending on the design.

In theory, they help to bring in the quantity v. quality decision. But the more complex a game gets, the harder it can be to formulate appropriate costs. It can also be hard to give an absolute value to abilities that are selectively useful (IE A's power wrecks B, but is useless against C). To that end, I feel many games would be better off using rougher approximations that suit the scale. IE a basic unit is 10 spearmen, 20 goblins, etc, elites are a troll, 5 rangers, etc.. and you can take up to 5 basic units, 2 elite and a leader. You can swap 1 elite for 2 more basic units. When you start getting into the whole spend 2000 points on a per model basis, complete with +1 for shields here and there, you should probably try again (though such a system would be perfectly fine for a skirmish of a few individualized combatants).

-James
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

@jmurph - Chess is a balanced scenario, rather than a build-from-points thing.

Your rough approximation is simply assigning points at a very high granularity. It'd be like playing Warhammer, where points are assigned in blocks of 100 intead of 5.

   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

@JohnHwangDD That was my point- granularity should reflect the game scale. When you are playing a game of blocks of troops, fiddling with whether this model has an axe or a sword is silly. In a skirmish man to man scenario, it makes sense. So would mechanics tied to that level of detail.

DBA and its variants do balance with a fixed number of elements. Of course, there are arguments about the relative balance of each element and each lists ability to take certain elements (all BD lists, for example). I wouldn't consider that the same as a points system. It is a spectrum, though, and at some point you go from low points to number of pieces.

-James
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

@jmurph - no argument from me! We're agreed.

   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That said, points shouldn't be looked at the way most players do. Points should really stand for money, and not everybody spends every penny wisely. So there should be imbalances for players to ferret out, and those strengths and weaknesses should inform the faction biases accordingly.


Disagree here. Having imbalances for players to find might have worked in 1980, before the internet and global gaming community existed, but it doesn't work in 2017. Any imbalances you include will be found shortly after release and then broadcast through the internet to the entire community. There's no discovery process after the first few hours of a new release, only a list of overpowered units to take and trash units to avoid. Games like MTG have learned this the hard way and had to adapt to the new world.

Now, having faction strengths and weaknesses is a thing that works, but it's also a very different thing. Those strengths and weaknesses are presented up front in the faction concept, not hidden subtle advantages for the players to find. If Army A is bad at melee and great at shooting then you know that you will win by your shooting, and expect any melee units you have to take to be an act of desperation. And you know this the moment you read the first intro paragraph describing the faction. You don't discover that, say, one of your shooting units is priced 1ppm too low and that unit is the surprise that defines the faction.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Hi folks.
As far as point based systems. it is important to focus the point values at the level of interaction.
Eg evaluate the unit in a ''unit vs unit'' interaction.

Rather than assign point values for each item/combatant in the unit, then address ballance at the force level.Completely missing out the 'unit' the actual level of interaction like GW do.

Also rigorous play testing to find synergistic anomalies is important, for accurate costing .(Calculation only gets you a good starting point. )
   
Made in cn
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

GW actually does a fair job of points and testing. It's just that people have a completely unrealistic expectation of what points can do within a context of something as complex and varied as 40k. Also, that people are "breaking" a B&P game by playing it competitively...

   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW actually does a fair job of points and testing. It's just that people have a completely unrealistic expectation of what points can do within a context of something as complex and varied as 40k.


They really don't do a fair job. They consistently publish point costs that are significantly off, not just slightly off or off in some obscure edge case. We're talking about units/upgrades which clearly perform better per point than the alternatives, in very straightforward ways. This is the result of incompetence, not the difficulty of the task.

Also, that people are "breaking" a B&P game by playing it competitively...


Not this again. The entire concept of a "beer and pretzels" game is questionable in the first place and absurd when applied to a game like 40k that requires an investment of hundreds to thousands of dollars to buy an army, hundreds of hours of painting time, and multiple hours per game. And GW does not have problems because they have carefully crafted an ideal "beer and pretzels" game at the expense of competitive play. The flaws that make 40k break in competitive play are also flaws in a less-competitive environment. What we actually have is GW publishing poorly-designed and poorly-tested products and using "beer and pretzels" as an excuse for their failures.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@Peregrine.
The 'Beer and Pretzel' games concept is usually applied to a game that takes a short time to explain, (usually less than 10 mins,)And are fun to play with minimal investment.
EG ''Pass the Pigs'' and ''Story Cubes.''etc.

I agree that when it comes down to the comparatively complicated rule sets, games like 40k have.
Calling it a B&P game is just ridiculous.

If GW just wanted players to treat the rules as a ''sand box'' to narrate and develop their own games from, then they really should not assign any point value at all.
(EG Like Stargrunt II)

@JohnHwangDD
The issue with the way GW assigns point values, is simply one of what brief the game devs are given.

The game developers I have talked to from GW towers past and present(ish) have all said the same thing.
They are not at GW plc to create a war game with suitable game play balance for competitive play. Or even reasonable balance for random pick up games.

They are focused on making sure the latest releases sell.(Inspiring sales short term is their top priority!)

They have very little time for play testing or any real sort of game play evaluation.

They guess at points for individual items/creatures in a unit, (based on whats all ready there.)
Then play a few games and reduce or increase points % per faction based on these few games is how points are still allocated. AFAIK.

They still do not assign points at the level of interaction, and adjust them on a case by case basis after serious amounts of play testing , like game companies do.

Using the terms 'Beer and Pretzel' or 'Narrative', to make up for the lack of any sort of effort in game play focus.Is misleading at best, and down right dishonest at worst.

Game companies have produce far more complex war games than 40k. With far less complication in the rules and far less imbalance in the game play.

As GW plc target ''collectors'' not ''gamers'' they do not think game play (or rule set,) is all that important.

However, my point that calculations can only give you accurate single interaction comparisons.And play testing EVERYTHING fully , is the only way to find synergistic anomalies.Still stands.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 17:59:34


 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Dorset, England

Points are pretty ubiquitous, but they do involve a certain kind of book keeping that I don't particularly enjoy.
In addition they place an additional hurdle between the player and a close, tactical game i.e. can he build a good army list.

I also think they also encourage a min-max mindset, purely by attaching costs to things you encourage people to think of them in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.

I think the pre-set armies from historical gaming are interesting as it completely removes the force selection part of wargaming and replaces it with an attempt to replicate the choices and challenges faced by the real commanders in these battles asking the player to have an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his force.

I also really like the idea of the Magic pre-constructed decks in which they explore a particular match-up of themes and toolboxes with which the players work out how to use effectively.

I thought that the AoS no points system was a really interesting experiment, weirdly the vast majority of my 40k games back when I was young were played this way as we all would play with whatever we had painted up/ thought was cool at the time.

Min-maxers get pleasure from finding clever ways to maximise their strengths within the rules, evaluating optimum choices etc and seeing that play out in success on the table. But without any rules the fun of that completely disappears, you can't min-max when everything is completely free form!
It asked a level of communication and maturity on the part of both players that is perhaps inappropriate for a game where you are expected to play strangers, but I can see echos of the idea in the power levels from the new 40k.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disagree here. Having imbalances for players to find might have worked in 1980, before the internet and global gaming community existed, but it doesn't work in 2017. Any imbalances you include will be found shortly after release and then broadcast through the internet to the entire community. There's no discovery process after the first few hours of a new release, only a list of overpowered units to take and trash units to avoid. Games like MTG have learned this the hard way and had to adapt to the new world.

There is a lot of truth in this, meta's that would always remained localised and unsolved in the good old days now get broken in weeks by the power of internet group think!

It has put a lot more of a spotlight on designing for balance which is a good thing, but I feel has also deprived us of a lot of the cool stuff they used to chuck in games just for the hell of it because developers are much more cautious about upsetting the holy balance!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 18:37:31


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Kroem wrote:
I think the pre-set armies from historical gaming are interesting as it completely removes the force selection part of wargaming and replaces it with an attempt to replicate the choices and challenges faced by the real commanders in these battles asking the player to have an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his force.


The downside is that it completely removes the customization element that is such a big selling point of games like 40k. Would 40k have been nearly as successful if it gave you specific lists for each scenario and you didn't get to create your own force based on your own fluff ideas? I doubt it.

Interestingly, some of the old FW campaign books used to do exactly this. They gave a series of missions from the fluff of that particular book, with specific forces (including every detail of unit upgrades, etc) that you had to use. And I have never seen anyone play those missions, or even heard of anyone using them. Later books seem to be a concession that this approach was a failure and nobody was interested in it, as the newer campaign missions use the standard army construction rules and allow each player to build their own force for the scenario. At most they'll have very general restrictions like "no vehicles" for a boarding action in the tight corridors of a starship, but leave the exact units and upgrades up to the player.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/04 09:06:07


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Dorset, England

nterestingly, some of the old FW campaign books used to do exactly this. They gave a series of missions from the fluff of that particular book, with specific forces (including every detail of unit upgrades, etc) that you had to use. And I have never seen anyone play those missions, or even heard of anyone using them.

That is interesting, I wonder why it found no traction? Perhaps re-creating fictional history is less compelling than real history, or perhaps GW has cultivated a particular type of player to which this holds no appeal.

Although, I could immediately disprove myself by citing the example of LOTR, where recreating scenes from the films wit set army lists for at least one player was very popular (Weathertop, flight to ElfRiverHouse, battle of DwarfTomb etc).
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

For many years, pre-made army lists based on historical research and precedent was enough. So this "Points" thing is the newer phenomenon and probably speaks to the state of "modern" wargaming rather than anything inherent in wargaming itself.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

 Easy E wrote:
For many years, pre-made army lists based on historical research and precedent was enough. So this "Points" thing is the newer phenomenon and probably speaks to the state of "modern" wargaming rather than anything inherent in wargaming itself.


I would agree with this in part. Really, it illustrates the divide between historical gamers (who very much still do this) and those who haven't branched out of GW and have a very myopic view of wargaming (perhaps due to GW encouraging such a narrow outlook and portraying itself as the wargaming hobby). It's kind of like people who can't divorce RPGs as a game type from D&D tropes and customs.

-James
 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

Of course it is a modern wargame state.

In the past the historical wargamers were recreating existing battles or what ifs in mutual agreement, balanced forces were not even in consideration.

In modern gaming with limited time and resources were a planned game is almost a legend and a detailed scenario with preselected forces is almost non existent the pick up and play games with random forces in a random scenario make points a necessity of commercial success.
   
Made in hk
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Please. Everybody knows that 40k is NOT a competitive game system, and is not designed that way. Points are notional, and that's as far as it goes.

And the issue of points not being accurate holds for pretty much ALL game systems of non-trivial complexity. It's beyond ridiculous what people expect points to do in terms of balancing a game, particularly something with the detail and interaction of something like 40k.

If points were so easily fixed, how come nobody has successfully implemented them, ever?

   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

Sorry, are we talking about wargames in general or for "I don't give a damn for balance" GW?

Points are the best solution to get a balanced game on the table between two unknown players meeting for a pick up game, its not a perfect solution, it is the most practical.

Now, you can try to implement points as good as CB does with Infinity or as bad as GW always did, don't know their latest games, I am expecting it to be slightly better now that all the "its not a competitive game" game designers have left the company, but that does not say much.
   
Made in hk
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I'm not even sure we've addressed whether a wargame is supposed to be a "game" or a simulation.

   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

I think that is pretty clear by terms- war game = game, military simulation = simulation. A simulation is about "things"- systems and behavior. Games may have simulationist elements, but are rarely true simulations as simulations are generally not focused on producing and enjoyable experience. Since we are not talking about systems designed to test military theories, train forces, etc. but are focused on player experience and how to enhance it, we are firmly in game design.

I think saying no game has ever successfully implemented points goes too far. DBA and HoTT, for example, do quite well with their simple points schemes. DBA uses fixed number of elements, HoTT has a army point buy system where various elements have fixed costs. As I understand it, SoBH does pretty good with their system. I also read positive things about GRUNTZ.

Of course, every system will likely have issues, but it is a stretch to say that a game must be perfect to accomplish its goals. If the game is generally enjoyable for what it is supposed to be, that is a success. Ironically, I would say GW games are a success as they are designed to push model sales and they certainly do that while being fairly enjoyable, despite generally having fairly poor mechanical design.

-James
 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

I agree a wargame is a game, it can be realistic but never a simulation, a simulation on the other hand is not a wargame.

Even realistic wargames are not simulations, realistic been the key, feel real is not the same as simulating reality.
   
Made in hk
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 jmurph wrote:
I think that is pretty clear by terms- war game = game, military simulation = simulation.

Ironically, I would say GW games are a success as they are designed to push model sales and they certainly do that while being fairly enjoyable, despite generally having fairly poor mechanical design.


OK.

In saying GW games have poor mechanical design, you are clearly wrong. GW games are bad from a simulation standpoint, but they have (had!) excellent design for something that's designed to quickly move through a LOT of models on the tabletop. If you were to put 200 vs 150 models under just about any other game engine, it would be worse than GW's 40k3E-5E.

   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

For me GW games up to 7th 40k and whatever fantasy was had poor design, much clutter and crunch and atrocious realism and balance, they never was or are try to be simulations.

Mechanical design? they had antiquated design, many compromises of decisions of the higher ups like RT designed to be a D10 game but ended up been a D6 game.

I really do not know how the new editions are, but aside their balance issues, GW main games were always a problematic coexistence of large armies with too much detailed rules and an attempt to streamline the huge bulk of moving pieces while retaining the uniqueness of individuals.

I am not sure if GW has poor mechanical design, their overall design is bad though, unclear, undecided and unguided.

Don't know about AoS and the new 40k, from glance they look like they go to the direction they should have gone decades ago, but I have not actually played them.
   
Made in hk
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Did you even play 40k 3E straight from the rulebook? That was easily the smoothest and cleanest version of 40k ever. It would scale to more models than any edition of 40k / WFB before or since.

While the mechanics are "dated", they are still good for what they intended to do. Arguably the best possible choices available out of the vast sea of things since (most modern mechanics are a reaction to 40k, rather than truly innovative).

   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





The problem with GW systems is not really a problem with particular values assigned to particular models, but the context of those values in a broad spectrum of possible scenarios on the actual tabletop. I'm talking about terrain layout, winning conditions, huge spectrum of possible opponent forces (around 450 unique faction vs faction matchups, without taking actual lists into account). This is a sandbox environment, not a tournament seting by design. There are some interactions within this broad context that cannot be put into point system ever and this has been discussed over and over again. Of course GW could do better in concealing this flaw using at least a "planet bowling ball mathhammer" as a basis of it's point system, but result would be just slightly better in practical application.

To make a "proper tournament setting" out of 40K one should start by defining battlescape and winning conditions first, as those will in turn give meaning and value to particular abilities. Next step would be to limit army composition freedom, because number of unrestricted combinations is simply too huge for any reasonable technique of practical cost aproximation. We also have to ensure that everything is able to participate in a battle in a meaningfull way regardless of matchup, so we want to have important non-offensive abilities in edge case but still legal matchups (like Knight/Baneblade vs cultists for example). Then, after all those steps, we could start assigning "start point" point values and refine the system over time. Resulting game would be nothing like 40K we knew at any point, but it might, just might satisfy a small tournament crowd a bit more than now...

And to give one example of how tournament point value is not really usefull for judging value in narrative context think about this: Booby G.'s value increases significantly if you can park a lot of things around him and just shoot at everything with such blob. But if scenario played is that said Bobby G. starts with a small squad in one corner of the LOS/movement blocking, maze-like board (as a result of, say, surviving "last stand" scenario just prior to first round of this particular game) and has to cross to the other corner to use his boosting abilities on the rest of your army arriving as reinforcements, with enemy forces having strong presence on the rest of the table, then he might even appear as overpriced as hell, depending on exact opposing army composition, faction and exact terrain layout. If anyone can develop a point system that is universally adequate in strict symetrical play and narrative sandbox context then he should seriously consider a career in game development at once...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/10 15:02:25


 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Well I define ''games'' as those that operate in the abstract.With very little to do with interactions in the real world,

So most ''games'' have well defined rules that totally encapsulate the game play.Every game from Yahtzee to chess falls into this sort of catagory

In my experience most good ''war games'' are SIMPLE simulations of a type of actual warfare.

They abstract the resolution to simplify the level of interaction, but do not abstract the results.
Good war games are won by players using good tactics during the game.

War games do not have to totally define the game play with the rules.Just the level and type of interactions allowed.
If the appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods are used, the game play will evolve intuitively from the players, based on their real world experiences, and learned experience from playing the game.

One important point is that the level of interactions is often defined by the stats used in the games resolution methods.
Just because one game does not need a particular stat, does not mean it is not required in a another similar game.
Having the most appropriate stat line to allow the expected level of interaction, is important.
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: