Re: Campaign costs

Thanks...Mikko kindly sent me an earlier post that explained it all
nicely.
I gotta be more carefull of which messages I skip.

Donald Hosford

Ground Zero Games wrote:

> >So a "Competetive point system" is taking into account all the
"hidden"
> >support
> >costs of a unit?
> >
> >It does sound like a nightmare...
>
> Actually, I think the two of you are talking at cross-purposes here.
The
> logistics issue is a valid one, but I don't think it relates to what
you
> were originally asking. As I understand what Mikko meant by
"competitive"
> and "balancing" points systems, is that a "balancing" one is where the
> points are strictly there to balance games, ie: as near as possible
the
> points cost of a unit reflects its actual capability in the game,
whereas a
> "competitive" points system is one that actively encourages players to
try
> to field the "best" units for their points budgets - ie: two units
each
> worth 100 points are not necessarily equal in their potential combat
> strengths (though if the system is properly designed each will have
pros
> and cons that make it a valid choice under certain circumstances).
>
> I'm sure if I've got this wrong then Mikko will correct me..... ;-)
>
> Jon (GZG)