Re: Size Class Escalation -- How high in Mass?

On 25-Jun-01 at 16:07, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
> 
> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
> ...
> > One set of points is economic points.  NPV seems
> > to work fine here.
> > 
> > Another set of points is "combat ability" points,
> > which is important in a one off.  NPV doesn't work
> > well here because bigger ships are better.
> > 
> > How about this?  Hull cost is the square of the
> > number of hull boxes?
> > 
> Ok, now I'm really confused. NPV (point cost in
> the construction system) being ok for economics
> seems to indicate that 200 mass costs X to build
> ragardless if that's 4 50 mass ships or 1 200 mass
> ship. But Hull cost as the square of the hull boxes
> seems to indicate the reverse, UNLESS you're talking
> about a sort of point cost handicap to combat value
> in organizing scenarios? "Hull cost" seems to 
> indicate construction costs though, which is kind
> of confusing.

I'm saying that we up the Combat Ability Points (CAP?)
by the square of the hull boxes as a force leveller.
It may be too much.  In our campaign we added maintenance
costs of .001 X mass raised to the 1.6 power which seemed
to work out nicely.  My BDN was the biggest ship anyone
was willing to field.