CM:SF Points values.

[Peter Cairns]

There has been some discussion of points values for CM:SF,

What factors do people believe should go in to it. If we took a tank then the obvious three would be protection, firepower and mobility, but also fire control, or accuracy.

On a very simple level if the three basic were rated from 1 to 10 and multiplied together you would get a maximum value for the best tank of 1,000.

So where would people ut the following with a maximum at 10,10,10.

M1A2, Chllenger 2, Leopard 2, T-90, T-72, T-55. and what kind of ratios for tanks would that give you in a game . for example if an M1A2 came in at 750, and a T-55 at 150, do you think 5 to 1 would make a balanced game or not.

Daft topic, but I am bored.

Peter.

[37mm]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Daft topic

Finally some sense from a grog... who'd have thought it possible?

Though I suspect this is yet another one of the signs...

[ May 25, 2006, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Sir 37mm ]

[GSX]

A bit pointless as its not Soviets versus Allies and the Syrians wont field 200 T-55 to 4 M1's, more likely the US would field more armour in a given battle than the Iraqis, er sorry Syrians so if we are calculating points it will have to be done in a whole new way I think.

[Beastttt]

you could go on this model you just have to adjust HOW many points each side gets

instead give the allied player 1000 pts and the Syrian/Asurbistan player 10,000

Originally posted by GSX:

A bit pointless as its not Soviets versus Allies and the Syrians wont field 200 T-55 to 4 M1's, more likely the US would field more armour in a given battle than the Iraqis, er sorry Syrians so if we are calculating points it will have to be done in a whole new way I think.

[dan/california]

This really is the crux of the game design. The most important thing in a game like this that is almost entirely focused on multiplayer play is that it be well balanced. This is just insanely tricky with the forces on each side being so fundamentally different.

One idea that comes to mind is to have the players bid for the U.S. side. Who ever was is willing to take the lowest total amount of points gets to play with the fancy toys. If there was a record of both the bids and the game results scenario balance could be worked out very quickly. This goes all the way back to a sci fi paper war game MANY years ago. It can be fun to watch people bid themselves into impossible holes.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by GSX:

A bit pointless as its not Soviets versus Allies and the Syrians wont field 200 T-55 to 4 M1's, more likely the US would field more armour in a given battle than the Iraqis, er sorry Syrians so if we are calculating points it will have to be done in a whole new way I think.

Why? Since when did points values have anything to do with strategic reality?

Point values worked well enough in CMX1, despite being able to field more armour than existed in the whole of the Third Reich.

I don't think that the 50-to-1 ratio is realistic either, unless you plan on going head-to-head, armour only, over a flat plain. As BFC have stated, and anyone with some tactical nous will have figured out, combined arms is the name of the game. In addition, M1s are vulnerable to the sides and rear when attacked by the 100mm gun of the T55, let alone the 125mm of the T72.

Looking at the original post, there is more to a modern tank than the firepower, mobility and protection triangle. Toys such as thermal imagers, good quality vision devices (like the panoramic sight on the Challenger and Leclerc) and network capability add to the capabilities too.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by dan/california:

One idea that comes to mind is to have the players bid for the U.S. side. Who ever was is willing to take the lowest total amount of points gets to play with the fancy toys. If there was a record of both the bids and the game results scenario balance could be worked out very quickly. This goes all the way back to a sci fi paper war game MANY years ago. It can be fun to watch people bid themselves into impossible holes.

Actually, this goes back to various card games like Spades and Euchre and Skat, even.

[John Kettler]

dan/california,

I've encountered the bid system in wargames before, but I couldn't tell you where.

flamingknives,

Please forgive my ignorance, but what, praytell, does "tactical nous" mean?

Regards,

John Kettler

[flamingknives]

Nous; good practical judgement.