Isn't that really the issue with most points systems rather than
using Historical Orders of Battle or Organizations to run games?

getting the points RIGHT seems to always be an ongoing concern. I mean
how many points are your Austrian infantry worth IF the move to occupy
a sunken road or some woods or a series of walls? I have never really
been a fan of points for historical based systems. The rules (if they
work right) should tend to have outcomes that reflect history while
still providing players some opportunity to change it.

Thanks,

John

--- In Piquet@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Unwin" <bjunwin@...> wrote:


>
> --- In Piquet@yahoogroups.com, Richard Jones <riddcowler@> wrote:
> the balance of superior numbers combined with poor leadership verses
> better quality troops with superior leadership provided an excellent
> game, rather than the 'equal' points games offered by so many rules.
> >
>
> If points values are done correctly, an equal points system would
> provide the same assymetrical, but balanced game that you had. You
> might have 10 Prussian units at 100 points each versus 20 Austrian
> units at 50 points each. No problem. Perhaps you are confusing equal
> points-based games with symmetrical games, ie, where each side has
the
> same number and same quality troops?
>
> regards
> Bryan
>