Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

Hugh Fisher wrote:

> >IME, this goes a long way to solving the Large/Small ship imbalance,
> >allowing a few more ships in a small-unit-only force going up against
a
> >contingent of BCs.
>
>  Unlike the massed fighter issue, is this large/small ship
>  imbalance something that needs to be solved?

Yes.

>If a well-handled dreadnaught always beats the same points
>value of well-handled cruisers or destroyers, isn't that
>what ought to happen?

The points values are intended to be a tool for generating forces of 
roughly equal strength in one-off tactical battles.

This means that if you choose two forces with the same points value and
pit 
them against one another, each of them should therefore win roughly half
of 
the battles.

If one of these forces always beats the other (barring extreme
differences 
in luck and/or player skill), then the two forces obviously do not win 
roughly half of the battles each and the points values equally obviously
do 
not do what they're intended to do; and that in turn means that they
need 
to be fixed.

>In history

In historical battles, no-one used points values to try to ensure that
both 
sides of a battle had an equal chance of winning.

This means that trying to argue how a points value system should or
should 
not work based on historical examples is, pardon the pun, completely 
pointless...

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry