--- In Piquet@yahoogroups.com, "johnleahy55" <johnleahy55@...> wrote:
>
> Isn't that really the issue with most points systems rather than
> using Historical Orders of Battle or Organizations to run games?
>


Not everyone wants to play only historical battles. As for
organisations, do you really want to turn up for a game with your
Napoleonic Spanish division when your opponent is running a French
Imperial Guard division?

> 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?

Your Austrian infantry is still Austrian infantry, D8/D4 or whatever,
regardless of whether you've gotten them into a good position using
your skill or luck. Fact is they won't be as good as a D12/D8 unit in
that position.

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.
>

That is, or should be, an aim of any rules system, but using points
or not, it all depends on the armies being relatively evenly matched,
taking into account the battlefield situation. Without points, it is
a subjective judgment. The only thing stopping an unscrupulous player
from fielding a better army than his opponent is the risk that
evewntually no one will play him.
regards
Bryan