Reply To: Creating points values

[McLaddie]

I often get the impression that the reasons for points systems often gets lost in the juggling of numbers.  The points can be an attempt to produce ‘balanced’ games in whatever measurement the designer uses for one-off games or tournament play and/or an attempt to contain the players to ‘historical’ or reasonable OOBs.  Those two purposes can create very different approaches to points systems.  I’m thinking of strict points systems where each regular infantry stand is two points, particular leaders 36 points with limits of 300 point armies to the other extreme where specific unit OOBs are given with possible support units costing so much.

Some games use a formula, some use eye-balled values.
Some are very approximate, some try to account for every factor.
Some are constant (the same gun always costs the same), some are relative (the gun depends on the unit using it).
Some are intended to be an integral portion of game play, some are there as an afterthought.

These choices strike me as going for balanced games and/or tournament play.  Of course, the premise is that the points relate closely to the ‘value’ of the unit’s benefits and weaknesses in game play.  I sometimes find that there was never any testing of that premise with the point system.  It can be part of the reason that a ‘super mix’ of units within the points system can be created.