Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

--- Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>  I never claimed that points systems were intended
> to achieve
>  an equal chance of winning. 

No, But Oerjan did.  That's the whole point of his
argument.

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. 

Would it?  By what criteria would you rate them?  By
tonnage?  Weapons? armor? speed?  Points systems need
to rate overall effectiveness of the ship - this means
both the ability to do what it's designed to do, and
the ability to stay alive long enough to do it.  So in
a historical context, IF you could do it, the points
system you use should be such that if you take, say, 1
BB nd stack it up against X number of DD, then in a
series of games played under different conditions
(something FT doesn't need to worry about as much)
such as weather, tide, ocean depth, etc., on the
average, if X number of destroyers (no matter how many
or few) defeat the battleship about half the time, and
lose about half, then you should be able to take the
point value of said BB, divide it by the number of
destroyers, and get a result that's roughly equal to
the point value of one destroyer.

Before using historical arguments to show how this
never happened or never would, see OO's original post
as well as my comments below.

Since we have no practical
> experience with
>  space warships, just about every science fiction
> book, movie,
>  or TV show tends to be based (consciously or
> unconsciously)
>  on historical models. The Tuffleyverse obviously
> uses naval
>  terminology and the rules have a naval 'feel'
> rather than say
>  modern air combat.

All of which is true but irrelevant.

>  So if the points system produces historical
> results, I'd say
>  it doesn't hurt and may even be beneficial.

The problem is that points alone CAN'T result in
historical results, because, as OO said, no real life
commander in his right mind would voluntarily engage a
force he believed roughly equal to his own.  He would
wait until he had amassed a superior force, or had the
element of surprise, or weather and sea conditions
favored his ships.  Or a commander will fight if
cornered and without any other option.	Two equal
forces would probably only engage each other if they
blundered on each other.

The only way to recreate these dynamics in the game is
through campaign or operational games, or by imposing
artificial limits pr cpnditions on the given scenario
(whether voluntarily or by scenario fiat).  However,
if you do so, one side or the other will be playing
with either situational disadvantages, fewer points,
or both.  THAT is the way to recreate historical
settings - by HOW you use the point system.  If you
give even points to both sides, see OO's post for what
the outcome should be.

3B^2

=====
Qui me amat, amet et canem meum.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com