[GZG] Re: Points systems

[wscottfield@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I absolutely agree that VP doesn't always have to equal NPV, and am all for assigning different priorities for different scenarios. The only thing I don't care for is the idea of keeping VPs secret and expecting players to infer them from formation, etc. Not saying it couldn't work, mind you; but it just seems too random to me. YMMV, as always. 

Scott
"If word gets out that I'm missing, 500 girls will kill themselves and I wouldn't want them on my conscience."

Binhan wrote: 

> Mystery VP's add two factors to the game that are missing right now -
> variety of tactics (since weapons and designs are static, if you use the
> fleet books, then the tactics pretty much shake down to a few basic
> patterns) and variety of scenarios.
> 
> As John had previously said - He's going to gun for the capital ships
> every time. If this is always the case, then there is no variety in play
> - always going to use the same general tactics to achieve the same goal
> every time, kill the nearest capital ship then continue down the line.
> 
> What if the BB's are second-raters and the cruiser is an empire's newest
> creation, pride of the fleet etc.  It may be a larger blow to your
> nation's morale have your fleet's newest cruiser pounded to scrap than a
> pair of second line BB's.  This is what the VP's simulate - they add
> another factor to the value of the ships other than straight point total
> and are used to abstract those strategic values that don't normally show
> up in a one-off game.
> 
> Historical Example - Pearl Harbor.  If rated by naval thinking in the
> early 30's, the attack at Pear Harbor essentially eliminated the US
> Pacific fleet as an entity forever since many battleships were sunk or
> damaged.  True, that the US never regained the same number of
> battleships, but that class had been made obsolete by the carrier and
> played a much more minor role in naval warfare in the Pacific than
> pre-war planners would have thought. So from a historical perspective,
> the carriers were worth more to the overall war effort than the BB's,
> even though they took less time and effort to build.
> 
> Translating to VP terms, an allied fleet might have it's carriers worth
> 2-3 times what the BB's are worth for the scenario. 
> 
> Another example - if cruisers (Using the old-term for a ship with long
> range) are used to patrol your wide-spread empire, then they would be
> worth more to your navy than a short ranged Dreadnaught.  In that case
> the VP of a cruiser might be the same as a DN.
> 
> Now looking at VP from a playing point of view.
> 
> If for some reason a player decided to allocate most of his/her VP to a
> single ship (more than the victory conditions require) then they
> probably would take pains to protect or hide the ship.  By the player's
> actions, you can usually deduce what VP/point value a ship has - cheap
> VP/Cheap points will be out in front, while high VP/low point ships will
> be in back and the others will tend to fall out in the middle. Thus a
> whole new level of game play in introduced - the very formation that you
> start out in may provide information to the opponent or can be used to
> deceive the opponent (i.e. what is that lone cruiser doing way back
> there?) The point of the VP is to provide a reason for people to want to
> shoot at the 2nd or 3rd ship in line rather than always maximizing
> firepower on the nearest target.
> 
> --Binhan
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l