Re: [GZG] John's Shipbuilding

[Brian B <brianbinor@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/16/06, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 1/15/06, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Tom Barclay wrote:
> >
> > ...an excellent post to which I agree 100%. The main purpose with this
> > reply is to emphasise that the FT points system - at least in its later
> > iterations - is intended precisely as a *tactical* points system, with no
> > attempts to "campaignize" it.
>
> Yup--and a campaign "points cost" system needs to take into account a
> wide variety of factors.  The ones I can come up with off the top of
> my head:
>
> Construction time
> Availability of construction facilities for larger ships.
> Crew manning requirements (the campaign balancing factor for fighters)
> logistical/resupply issues (which is a whole tree of issues to itself)
> Maintinence
> Actual cost of ship
> Production bottlenecks--I'm thinking of the production of the large
> main guns for capital ships early 20th/late 19th century.  Highly
> specialized production requirements which cost bundles of money, went
> slow, and was a cap on how fast your ship construction program could
> be.
>
> I'm sure there are a lot more--and for second tier powers the
> situation is worse if they are not capable of producing indigenous
> electronics suites or other high tech components.

Yupo, I'm in agreement with John, Magic, Tom, and Oerjan on this one.

I would, however, add one caveat:

A good tactical point system can be generic because it is designed to
reflect the comparative merits of any vehicle/ship/weapons system in a
one-off battle.  But a strategic/campaign system is going to be less
generic and far more colsely tied to a specific background or
historical period, because many of the factors it must take into
account are going to be background specific.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l