The quest for simpler balancing Rules...

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I would appreciate it if only people would post who are interested in using rulesets like these. Why do you even bother to respond, it does not serve a purpose for you and it is needlessly cluttering up the thread.

Thanks.

Redwolf, It would be helpful if you let us know to which post you answer. :confused:

[ June 19, 2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[JasonC]

To redwolf in re price category limits - First off, if that is what you want forget about "combined arms" and just specify armor force type. The armor is effectively unlimited in that type. You don't need to rejigger the combined arms numbers when another force type exists that does essentially what you want.

The real question is whether you want pre-game force composition decisions to matter seriously or not. The present combined arms limits are tight enough that they usually create nearly parallel forces when both are that force type. Some dislike the chance involved in deviating from that significantly.

I for one like the possibility of move and counter to focus on this or that aspect of combined arms. Alone, it can be taken overboard to silly, ahistorical force mixes. I thought the idea of all the other rules about cheap vehicles etc were meant to deal with that part of the problem, though.

You also mention that it doesn't make sense to try to limit cheap guns by points. If you mean by a lower "support" category budget, I quite agree. The incentive needs to be towards using the larger, more effective guns rather than pushing even harder to focus on the light, cheap ones.

I've already mentioned my alternative idea on that score. Limit the number of towed guns by the force size. That allows a player to buy "more gun" overall if he buys better, expensive ones. He can use the cheap ones instead of them being banned, but he can't make a horde out of them. The points he saves by using cheap rather than expensive guns effectively has to be spent on something besides guns. As for the amount, 2 guns per 500 points of scenario size, fractions round down, should work fine.

One man's opinion...

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by JasonC:

To redwolf in re price category limits - First off, if that is what you want forget about "combined arms" and just specify armor force type. The armor is effectively unlimited in that type. You don't need to rejigger the combined arms numbers when another force type exists that does essentially what you want.

In my experience many people will not play armor rules because you get slightly less infantry. That slightly less is sufficient to make them bail out and demanding combined arms.

But you are right, interest in this tuning seems to be nil. I will reduce the post since it detracts from the main thread.

I've already mentioned my alternative idea on that score. Limit the number of towed guns by the force size. That allows a player to buy "more gun" overall if he buys better, expensive ones. He can use the cheap ones instead of them being banned, but he can't make a horde out of them. The points he saves by using cheap rather than expensive guns effectively has to be spent on something besides guns. As for the amount, 2 guns per 500 points of scenario size, fractions round down, should work fine.

People tried that rule (3 guns for 1000 points) in the tournamenthouse CAL rules, but this did not work out. In my interpretation to a major part because people don't want to calculate at all.