How many points do you typically field?

[Risaldar Singh]

Hello,

This is an informal poll if sorts: how many points do you typically field? Or, in other words, how big are your games? Our club games started at 1,500 points and basically stayed there for quite a while. The minimum then moved to 2000 points and often 3000. The reason I ask is that we have found BKC (that was v.2) to give very, very different games depending on the size of the forces fielded. In the bigger games, BKC's fast playing qualities shone through and the combined arms dynamics were much stronger.

[Steve J]

It largely depends upon which period of the war we are playing. Generally I will go with a Battalion of infantry, with its organic support and any other bits'n'bobs required for the scenario. I will then total up the points and from that work out what the Attacker or Defender should get. Lately our games set in Sicily 1943 have been around the 1,200 pts mark. So I use points as a guide, but don't stick rigidly to them, preferring more historical OOB etc.

[fred.]

I think the Warmaster engine suits big games, that way the odd command failure has much less impact.

[Stratoq]

Most of my games so far have been around the 1500 point mark. This is good for a quick/intorductory game but I am planning to play larger games (2500-3000 points).

[Prophaniti]

My games tend to be around 1000pts for the smaller side and then whatever the correct ratio is for the larger one.

[petercooman]

In the bigger games, BKC's fast playing qualities shone through and the combined arms dynamics were much stronger.

That's because in bigger games you have more units to 'gang up' on your targets. While a pz IV shooting at a sherman might not kill it in1 turn, 5 pz IV vs 5 shermans will more likely result in 1 or 2 destroyed shermans. One of the key points of BKC is to focus fire on your targets if you want to take them out.

In small games you quickly end up with several units that have received 2-3 hits at the end of the turn but are not destroyed. Once the turn is over this resets to 0 . This can make you feel like you achieved nothing in the turn. Bigger games see more casualties and then you feel like you are making progress!

Our games are generally between 1000 and 2000 points. IF one side is the defender this can be a lot less though!

[Big Insect]

1,500pts is our standard 2 1/2 - 3 hour game - "Go to" for points (across BKC and the other Commander rules)
It seems to provide a balanced force and enough command to make the game fast moving and allows games to be finished in an evening at the club.
Obviously 1,500pts worth of low-quality Chinese infantry will create a slow turn for the Chinese player, whilst the Japanese opponent will be speeding through his turns ... so you might want fewer points for massed infantry games and more points for massed armour games.

Limiting off-table assets - artillery and air - can also speed the game up - especially if you are getting the hang of the game.

We then progress with additional 1,000pts - so 2,500 or 3,500pts (or just 3,000pts)
The advantage/disadvantage of the 500pts (so 1,500pts as opposed to 2,000 for example) is that many of the list restrictions are per 1,000 points - so you have a natural limit on your commanders, AA and buying masses of high quality troops placed on you by the 1,500pts.

We play big games (& multi-player games) to OOBs and fixed formations + the 2 hits auto-suppression optional rule - this speeds up play.

Cheers
Mark

[Sandinista]

I have played 1000, 2000 and 3000 point games and have preferred the 3000 point games. This is, as stated above, the command failure are less devastating than in a smaller game. Plus it puts more toys on the table 

Cheers
Ian

[fsn]

I understand the whole points thing, but look upon it with some bemusement.

I have the fortune to be a solo gamer so can have totally lopsided games - and enjoy them too. But I always think in terms of a platoon, a troop, a squadron. My favourite scenario is to defend a bridge with say a supported infantry platoon (maybe an AT gun or something) and then randomly decide who comes along.

It may be a general fleeing the front in his staff car ... does he get to go over in front of those armoured cars going forward? At some point, inevitably, the enemy arrive. This may be in the form of a recce group, or an infantry platoon or a troop of tanks. Victory conditions apply only to the unit defending the bridge and are based on what gets over, if the bridge gets blown and how many of the platoon survive. 

No points needed. 

[Risaldar Singh]

I understand the whole points thing, but look upon it with some bemusement.

I have the fortune to be a solo gamer so can have totally lopsided games - and enjoy them too. But I always think in terms of a platoon, a troop, a squadron. My favourite scenario is to defend a bridge with say a supported infantry platoon (maybe an AT gun or something) and then randomly decide who comes along. [...]

No points needed.  

I get your point and I'm all for historical TO&Es and scenarios. It's just that points is a common language that is convenient for comparing game sizes. Of course, somany points won't put as many toys on the table in 1944 as in 1940. Our games tend to be mostly early-War brigade+ size. Frankly, below that I get the impression I'm playing Flames of War-lite and I don't even like FoW.

That's because in bigger games you have more units to 'gang up' on your targets. While a pz IV shooting at a sherman might not kill it in1 turn, 5 pz IV vs 5 shermans will more likely result in 1 or 2 destroyed shermans. One of the key points of BKC is to focus fire on your targets if you want to take them out.

There's that. Plus the fact that larger games, whether point- or TOE-based introduce the exciting world of interlocking fields of field because you get to use multiple support weapons rather than the odd MG or At gun.

[AJ at the Bank]

In our 2 player games - I think typically 1300-1800 points for the Defender in Attack/Defence type Scenarios.
This seems to increase a bit for many historically based scenarios.

At this level - you tend to be able to get a fair balance of infantry, AFVs, artillery, air etc without too much trouble.
Typically this would give us 3-4 CO/HQ Command units; one or two FAOs maybe an FAC ....and as many Reece (and now Reece Support) units as possible!
 

[Dave Fielder]

Points are a useful guide in setting up a good scenario, but often the historical Orders of battle provide more realistic (and fun?) games. I've also found over the years that smaller games 1000-1500 points often provide much better and satisfying games. There is more space to operate, you look after you troops better (there is less of them) and the game will come to an end quicker .... although my last game with Steve J ended too quickly, mainly because of the German mortars :-(


Confucius he say: "They point the way"

[Raider4]

. . . I've also found over the years that smaller games 1000-1500 points often provide much better and satisfying games. There is more space to operate, you look after you troops better (there is less of them) and the game will come to an end quicker

I common failing over the years - irrespective of ruleset used - is that gamers try and fit too many units into the space available. (A possible exception is Epic - for some reason there always seems to be plenty of space. But then the units tend to move quickly as well . . .).

I much prefer smaller games, with plenty of space available. And plenty of terrain as well.