bcgames -> RE: On Admin Points -- How Many? (5/19/2011 3:05:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Red Lancer hold on I was going to ask you that ! [:D] LAUGH! O.K. You and CM have forced my hand. Here are my thoughts. With the caveat that assigning APs to a small scenario “depends on the situation”, I think that there could be at least two schools of thought on the subject. I’d call one the “Fair share” approach and the other the “Managing Scarce Resources” approach. The idea that either approach could be the correct approach--depending on the situation--is stipulated. In the "Fair Share" approach, you take whatever the weekly allocation is for each side using a campaign scenario that begins in the same year as your small scenario. Then determine the percentage of the front line that your scenario occupies. So if your scenario is about 50% of the front then you allocate to your scenario about 50% of the APs available in the campaign game. One off-shoot of the Fair Share regime is the idea of main effort versus supporting effort. If it can be determined from the historical record that the “only show in town” happened to be in the area represented by your scenario then it is logical to assume that the sector represented in your scenario should/would/could receive more than its “fair share”. Likewise, if the sector represented by your scenario was a backwater to other areas, then maybe it should receive less than its “fair share” of APs. In the "Managing Scarce Resources" approach, maybe you don’t even get close to a “fair share”. Maybe you get some number of APs—way less than optimal, way less than the “fair share”—that forces the player to make some hard decisions about the use of a small number of APs during the scenario. So...On Admin Points? How Many? And remember, I'm talking about small scenarios here. What do you think about how many the "how many" should be? v/r bcg
|
|
|
|