18 December 2010

Point Values for Squadron Strike

I had a long discussion with my friend Ken yesterday about point value systems in games, and specifically how this can be applied to his game Squadron Strike (Ad Astra Games). We spent several hours hashing out the details of a Lanchester type scoring system, and how various aspects of the game ought to affect the point value. I came prepared with the best I could muster from the theoretical standpoint, and Ken kept the focus on taking what the math says ought-to-be and turning it into something that works. At times we argued - a good sort of argument - and the very best work people can achieve often comes from such discussion.  I can't reproduce all the details, but I think I can recall the high points:
  1. There is no theoretically correct way to make a point system where values and simply be added together, but ...
  2. There is a way to balance point values, somewhere between Lanchester's Linear and Square laws, that is optimal. That is, a point system can be structured so that there is a small advantage to be gained by taking a moderate strategy - with moderate meaning the right combination of intermediate sized ships should be superior to both a swarm of small ships and a single Dreadnought.
  3. We argued discussed at length how various ship capabilities should affect the balance point. The result is that player ship-building decisions are going to change the balance point, and building The Ultimate Fleet that beats all challengers is going to be quite difficult (perhaps nigh impossible).
  4. Squadron Strike has a detailed ship construction system that already has it's own checks and balances built in. I encouraged Ken not to penalize point costs for aspects that should already be self-balancing. For instance, I suggested that movement didn't need to be part of this point cost, because ships with more hull space devoted to maneuverability automatically have less space left for weapons and defenses. Making movement increase costs too much could penalize players for building maneuverable ships, and Ken wants plays to build maneuverable ships. (I think that's when Ken accused me of being a closet Republican.)
I think we ended up hammering out a good basis for Squadron Strike point values for scenario balance. It isn't the the last word in the mathematics of game balance. Squadron Strike is far too complex to be able to write out as any sort of "equation for victory", but then most games are far too complex to solve in that way. That very complexity is why game are fun, and why we play them. A point system doesn't have to be perfect. It is after all just another rule by which a game can be played. A lot of hard work went into making this rule, and I think it's going to be a good one.
GBR Giant Battling Robots Favicon

5 comments:

Desert Scribe said...

Points systems are good for defining parameters for units and then designing units according to those parameters. However, when designing scenarios, many wargamers think that a battle between sides of equal points values makes a good game. I think it can be boring, which is why the scenarios I create don't specify points values, but list the units for each side, and give various objectives as victory conditions.

nunya business said...

I agree with Desert Scribe. Victory conditions can make things interesting. Its even possible in some cases to have each side achieve their objectives.

It’s more interesting to try to exploit weaknesses and maximize your strengths of the two somewhat unequal forces.

Dan Eastwood said...

Objectives are good too, and far more realistic if the game represents any real world military conflict. Point system are for setting up "fair fights", and a military commander who knowingly leads his forces into a fair fight is desperate or incompetent.

There is more to this than just scenario balance. If I can establish a basis for measuring the capability of forces in a game, then I can look at how other aspects factor in. For instance, I want to take a good hard look at optimal strategy, and how players make decisions.

Dan Eastwood said...

And if you haven't already, check out Desert Scribe's blog: Super Galactic Dreadnought

Desert Scribe said...

I agree, points systems can be useful--and many popular games use points values for tournaments. But outside of tournament play, sometimes it takes a good scenario to make a game interesting. And I say this as an avid player of Hordes of the Things, a game which is designed around a battle between two armies of equal points values.

Oh, and thanks for the plug!