PITS Page
Is PITS winnable from the Anglo-Egyptian viewpoint or are the victory
points flawed?
This question is aimed at those who have actually PLAYED 'Patrols In The Sudan' not read it, for it
is one thing to read a set of rules and say how easy it is, but another thing to ACTUALLY play a set
of rules and try to win.
Firstly before all you PITS devotees et al, decide to rip me to pieces I must state that I really like
PITS. I like the randomness of the whole thing. I like the fact that the goalposts constantly move. I
like the fact that coordination of movement and tactics is difficult. I like that it is fun. I like that it has
the feel of ,what I imagine, fighting in the Sudan in 1884-5 was like. However, I realise that it is a
GAME and not a simulation. I am not a bad loser or a person who strives to win. I like a good GAME
not simulation. But for it to be a GAME someone has to be in a POSITION to win.
There, that's all the good stuff.
Now for the negative, slightly contraversial stuff.... Chatting after games, I think we hit on the
problem of the GAME...
VICTORY POINTS
We've played a dozen games now and the British have lost all but three times and even then their
wins were single figure scores.
"You're crap" I hear you cry. "Stop moaning, its just sour grapes". Maybe, but I play as the Dervish
chappy and I have to admit something somewhere is wrong...
Playing as Anglo-Egyptian, how the hell do you get 22pts or more which is the top level of scoring
mentioned in the rules?
If anyone has scored this high, even a playtester, then I would like to shake his hand, and buy him
a drink whilst chatting over tales of the Yeti, the existence of Nessy, his 18" manhood, and other
myths...
The British lose -2 per base lost and gain +1/2 pt per base for routed or killed Dervishes. That's a
1:4 kill/rout rate required. Holy cow give a guy a chance, and before anyone mentions Omdurman,
the rules are for 1884-5.
Devils advocate time...
I would argue that as soon as the British player loses a base, its all downhill from there on. Most
scenarios give you 4d6 VPs for successful missions. That's a range from 4-24 pts, averaging 14
pts (as the average on two dice is 7). So even if you get there to your objective and do your bit,
without any casualties you are plus 14, on average.
However, a lot of scenarios are there AND back. It's hard enough getting there, let alone surviving
to get back in order to win. Any PITS player out there who have played a FULL GAME, not one of
Martin's demo games, care to disagree?
What are the chances of getting the objective done, with as fewer casualties as possible, to make
a winning score POSSIBLE.
The system as a GAME works but the rewards are too low!
Possibly the best chance a Brit has of winning is to find one Dervish unit shoot a few at long
range then call the GAME over without bothering to try for his mission? He may not get any VPs for
scenario but if the Dervish bloke wants to carry on he will possibly lose VPs trying to extend the
game.
One VP lost is like losing 2 bases, 2 VPs lost is like losing 4 bases, of his troops.
Granted from beginning of the game, I would argue that the initiative is with the British. They move
first, have a clear objective. They will get reinforcements on the table on a 3-6. The Dervish tends to
not get terrain, not get troops or everything is scouted or occupied initially by the Brits.
However, the longer the game goes on as the Brits try for the objective, the less the chance of
winning as the Dervish move the scenery and their numbers of units pile up. Invariably the
objective will be about 12" from the Dervish base line so the Brits have to go 36-42" usually to get
to the objective or 12" less if they can spot it and take notes from a distance. That's a long, long
way in PITS.
Once again I reiterate a lot of scenarios are there AND back. It's hard enough getting there, let
alone surviving to get back in order to be in a position to win.
As my opponent said tonight "Its not worth the Victory Points to try and set up a heliograph for
four turns, if anywhere on the table a British base is lost that's another -2pts". Correct and lose an
Officer its another -4pts. That's the equivalent of 16 dead or routed Dervishes and that's to break
even. Yes you get a DEFINATE +4 for routing and killing Dervish units so is it really worth going for
the objective? I'm not sure.
Now, I've rambled on enough, but to summarise, maybe the 4d6 pts are too low. Maybe the -2pts
per Brit killed is too high. The best way to win would seem to be lots of Average Sudanese as you
only lose -1 per base killed. Think about it....
I know its a GAME but as its a GAME it should be at least winnable for both sides. I'm not talking
here about points or balance I don't agree necessarily with balanced games but you have to give
the old British boy a carrot every now and then. Largely it is due to random dicing as with all
RFCM rules. I haven't got a problem with that. You accept that tenet if you play any RFCM rules
they are for GAMES not simulations.
