Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems
From: Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@t...>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 21:55:21 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems
Hugh Fisher wrote:
>Nobody with more than half a brain believes that a points
>system in itself prevents unscrupulous players from coming
>up with min-maxed unrealistic designs. There are too many
>cultural, economic, political, logistical, etc factors
>that affect real armed forces composition for any points
>system to handle.
Very much so. To elaborate on this:
ALL realistic designs are min-maxed - as in "designed to give the
maximum
possible amount of bang per buck spent". That's why all tanks today have
a
single more or less centrally-placed turret and a single main gun (now
that
the S-tanks have finally been scrapped, except for a few museum
exhibits),
for example: the rivalling multi-turret/sponson, multi-gun designs
simply
weren't as good a use of the money, men and industrial resources as the
single-turret, single-main gun tanks proved to be.
Thing is, real-world designs measure both "bang" and "buck" differently
than a tactical game like Full Thrust does. In Full Thrust, the only
thing
that matters is tactical combat power and the only cost that balances
the
combat power is the one-time NPV or CPV cost paid for the ship. In the
real
world OTOH strategical and operational factors like
transportability/strategic range, reliability, operational range,
maintainability given existing infrastructure etc. etc. matter at least
as
much as the tactical combat power, and the costs include development,
procurement and operational costs (all of which may include a large
amount
of pocket greasing) to name just a few. As a result, the weapons and
vehicles that give the most real-world bang per real-world buck for
nation
A might not be cost-effective at all for nation B (if they're able to
operate it at all)!
Unfortunately, the only way to reflect all these strategical and
operational factors in Full Thrust *tactical* games and thus get the
players to "voluntarily" design "realistic" weapons and vehicles is to
play
a campaign with very detailed rules for the campaign economics... or,
like
Hugh said, use army/fleet lists. 'Course, even with army lists you'll
still
get players who only field SS divisions (because there were battles with
only SS divisions involved, so the lists have to allow for forces like
that
too) :-(
[The only other comment I had to Hugh's post was the same one John A.
already made, so I don't have to :-) ]
Regards,
Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l