Re: Descriptive design system idea

Tre wrote:
>...and when you think about it, point costs are more
>or less arbitrary anyway.   Since FT points don't really mean much
except
>for comparing two forces, I don't see any reason why a descriptive
design
>system wouldn't be adopted.
>	 [Slightly off tangent topic warning] While I'm on the subject
of
>point costs, what are everyone's feelings about them?	Points seem to
be a
>measurement of relative combat value, not necessarily an assessment of
>material worth or technological advancement.

Personally, I prefer using points cost as part of the design process.
Economy and resources can be reflected in a game that incorporates
costing.
I find this very helpful in campaigns or when reflecting different tech
levels.

>This is all well and good, but
>I've been trying to come up with campaign rules, and I don't think that
the
>point system, as it is now, accurately reflects a ship's consruction
cost,
>only how it will generally fare in battle against another ship.  Does
anyone
>have any quick and dirty ideas on this?

Using points alone to gauge a ship's combat worth would be insufficient,
but
not without merit.  A 300 build point warship could likely defeat a 50
build
point warship in one on one confrontation.  A large difference in build
points might be an indicator, but as the difference decreases, this
analysis
becomes less accurate.

With any ship design, factors to obtain its offensive or defensive
capability would greatly originate from firepower, mobility, and
protection.
I remember reading some nifty methods for determining index values for
both
offensive and defensive capability in one of my naval tactics books. 
I'll
have to dig this up sometime and find a use for it in FT.

Mike Miserendino