[DS2] Points

I notice the arguments on DS2 points and what a government could or
could
not afford suggests an economic basis for points. Yet OTOH I thought it
was
used to balance scenarios which suggests a game mechanics basis for
points. 

You really have to decide which it is. You could call it both, but then
you
have to accept the problems inherent in attempting to attach two
meanings
which may be different to the same stat.

What something costs (money wise) is quite often different from what its
value is in combat. So you sort of have to define which of the two you
think
points in DS2 represent. 

If economic, many of the suggestions about how expensive FCs and stealth
are
have merit - a high tech stealth tank will cost lots of $$$. And in this
case, you can't really use it to balance scenarios - but then if you are
in
a campaign, bigger nations may have enough productivity to bring balance
that way. 

OTOH, if its a game mechanics value used to balance scenarios between
disparate forces, one has to eye the point costs without saying "Well X
or Y
component would be real $$ costly". You have to strictly consider the
in-game effects and do the math as best you can to determine if the cost
justifies the benefit. 

And I think you have to balance this in such a way that a moderate
tactician
with low tech forces and a moderate tactician with high-tech are roughly
equivalent. You can't argue that high-tech requires better tactics -
otherwise there is no balance! If you need to be a wizard at combined
arms
in order to come up even with a moderately competent low-tech player,
then
their is something wrong (IMO, YMMV).

Just my 0.02. 

Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist 
Defence Systems
xwave solutions
www.xwavesolutions.com
v: (613) 831 2018 x 3008

Alea iacta et pessimo resulto factura est.
 
Ave, Caesar! Te morituiri salutimas!