Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

From: Hugh Fisher laranzu@ozemail.com.au

>I never claimed that points systems were intended to achieve
 an equal chance of winning. I'm arguing that if you rated
 historical warships by a points system similar to Full Thrust
 then their combat effectiveness, in particular that of big
 ships vs small ships, would work out roughly the way it does
 in Full Thrust.

Well, yes, but that's just saying that "the point system measures things
the same way that the point system measures them."

   If we have a points system at all, its purpose ought to be that
players
can judge the relative strength of Fleet A and Fleet B.  It need not be
exact (no one is going to claim that a 2501pt squadron is significantly
stronger than a 2498 squadron) but it should be as accurate as we can
make
it--while still being easy to work with.  
   Those who are finicky can then use it, while those who don't care
about
points systems can ignore it, or round to the nearest 100, or whatever.

Obviously there will be occasions when one 2500pt fleet will crush
another
(eg the "soapbubble" fleet vs a fleet with low PDS).  However, in the
"historical" situation you're arguing from, both sides will have some
idea
of what the other side's ships are like.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .