Re: Why big ships.../modular ships

In message <961212041239_103311.1205_IHH67-4@CompuServe.COM> Brian Bell
writes:
> -------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------
> "if I take a 100 ton ship and give it one c battery, it has the same
> offensive punch as an 8 ton ship with a C-batt. so their offensive
ability
> should cost the same amount in points regardless of the fact that the
> larger ship has the potential to mount greater weaponry...
> 
> where the larger ship IS better (to account for costing more) is in
the
> ability to take damage...
> 
> better explaination?"
> -------------------- End Original Message --------------------
> If your take a 100 ton ship and give it a movement of 4,10 C batteries
and 10
> level 1 screens, it has the same offensive punch as 10 10 ton frigates
with a
> movement of 4, one C battery and 1 level screen each. The 100 ton ship
will win
> every time. A balanced system would provide a 50-50 chance for each
side.

I see no reason why a points system should necessarily be balanced
for such ludicrously extreme examples as these. Both these ship
designs are silly, and would get beaten to a pulp by real designs.

A points system is obliged to balance around a certain "normal" force, 
and as designers stray from the norm to designs optimised around
particular tactics they should be charged *above* the odds. If they 
can dictate the tactics of the battle, they will suceed... but they 
must be obliged to make this gamble.

Suckers do not deserve an even break.

When the extreme designs are not charged above the odds or can always 
dictate their prefered tactics, then the game is broken.

-- 
David Brewer