Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

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

> 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...

Pardon it?  I loved it! LOL

But you bring up a good.... point..... regarding point
systems.  I am a big fan of them, when they work
properly.  I know in past discussions of point
systems, people have tried to make the historical
argument against them.	However, I think OO really
states the case for them quite succinctly, while at
the same time POINTING out exactly when they are
useful and when they are not.  Therefore, I'd like to
make this proposal regarding all future discussions of
point systems:	If you prefer playing campaign games
or historical/scenario-style games where the forces
are dictated by other dynamics and not guaranteed to
be equal, then just ignore the point system.  But that
preference does not invalidate the need for a point
system to be as balanced as possible when used by
those players who prefer one-off games between equal forces.

=====
Qui me amat, amet et canem meum.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com