That word does not mean what you think it means...

"Implicit" is another word that doesn't mean what you think it means...

Without getting into a huge debate about points and point systems, I understand the idea of games and scenarios without points since most actual battles were not equal.  On the other hand why would I play a game that I didn't have a 'decent' chance to win!

One could 'tweek' the victory condictions so that the smaller force has a better chance to 'win' due to the scenario at hand, but that player is still going to be 'crushed'

-Bren

FWIW, this is why I advocate for point systems even in historical games (see GF2) -- it provides a very easy method for determining just how much more powerful one force is than another... and also helps understand what actually happened at a particular battle.

For example, when developing the "Goeben is Your Objective" scenario for the King & Kaiser supplement (another GF2 plug ), it was really strange to see that the British force out-classed the Germans, at least in terms of point value. Yet historically, Admiral Troubridge declined to engage because the Germans, in his mind, constituted a "superior force". Although he was court-martialed, he was eventually exonerated. But why were the Germans "superior" if the point values favor the British?

Well, you'll have to read the scenario write-up for one possible answer (of course, another answer would be that our point system is wrong, but let's ignore that one...) But the point values give a very good reason for digging deeper into the whys and wherefores...

Choose one:

A) Points are good.
B) Points aren't good.

If you choose A you are a pointilist. If you choose B you aren't a pointilist. Period.

However, points are necessary to some extent. If fact, when you decide that something will be hit on a 4+ on a D10, you are quantifying a the value of something, ergo, you are creating a point system. Do I play always with points? No. Of course not.

Do I play games where I now that the best I'll achieve is loosing but not being completely beated up. Sure. What makes a good game it's the game in itself, not the final result. It can be sweet, but playing an awesome scenario against a good opponent and achieving better than the real battle is better than win a game where you take 500 points and I take 500 points and I win.

I also love games where reinforcements can arrive completely out of my expectatives and get get me beaten. It's fate. It happened a lot.

And I played games where points where equal, forces matched perfectely, I out maneuvered my adversary with stile and then a row of bad rolling on my part followed by a row of good rolls from the enemy got me under...

Points are a reference. When you assign characteristics to something and quantify those characteristics you are learning more about it. I play starmada with points. I will play it without.

I have a Iron Star campaign where everything shipwise is rolled on a table. You can fight (or maybe you'll have to fight) a battle under armed, or you can run away, wait for reinforcements and return.

What I really could never understood was why people think that having only one system, one way, one pure credo is better than have the best of several different approaches. Maybe that's why I don't like Games Workshop. I do like some of their miniatures. Ans some old good rules. And some fiction... Yes... ah... I do like a little bit of almost everything, I suppose.

There is always a relative value, therefor there is always a points system. People just get upset at attempts to make it transparent to newbies.

It's a game.

It's not a war. If it were, you'd be morally obligated to stab your opponent, thus saving all those soldiers from needless death.

I think all the most successful commanders are.  In a real battle, the last thing you want is a fair fight.

Re: the 'Trafalgar Points' thing.  I'll bet you that Nelson DID know how many ships and how many guns those ships carried, and maybe even the overall proportions of gun weights.  Sounds like "points" to me.

Points are very useful for trying to stage a fair fight, or to get an idea just how unfair the fight is.  Since we're playing games, not trying to kill each other, a fair fight should be the goal.

Well, there are quite a few vocal "anti-pointists" on TMP to be sure, but many of them do go on about how rewarding it is to have an uneven battle...

Because its the key to ultimate power!

". . . one point system to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them!"

You know... the square root of pi is 1.772.

Just sayin'...