Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

 There seem to be two different views of the points system
 at work here. Overstating and oversimplifying, Allan and
 Oerjan would like it to be more precise:

Allan Goodall wrote:
>That makes sense, but the purpose of a point system is to say that X of
these
>ships equals Y of those ships if the points are the same. The point
adjustment
>idea is to give you a proper total of the number of small ships you'd
need in
>order to defeat a bigger ship.

Oerjan wrote:
>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.

 while on the other hand there are people who don't think it
 matters as much and who express themselves better than I:

The_Beast wrote:
>However, they're nice to get ball-park balanced games. I just don't
take
>them as 'biblical', no matter how many numbers Oerjan crunches.

Geoffery Rogers wrote:
>The main point of having a point system to to give structure to the
game
>being played. It also allows a quick starting point for a game between
>opponents and a rough guide to those unfamilier or lacking detailed
>knowledge of rule system. As well as allowing quick scaling up or down
of
>each side for say a veteran vs new player and giving a semi consistant,
>measurable result.

Derk wrote:
>	  The above can only apply to balanced fleets. If players
>are using fairly specialist fleets, there is no way in which a point
>system can compensate for this (e.g. a fleet with NO fighter defence
>against an 'all' fighter fleet). It is the players responsibility to
>create a USEFUL combination within the points system determined frame.

 OK. So, I'll rephrase my question:

 If there is an imbalance in the points system, is it necessary
 to bring in a new calculation formula and value for every ship
 in every fleet because of this?

 Full Thrust is remarkably simple and playable. If it isn't
 badly broken (as yes I now see the fighter stacks are) why try
 to fix it?

 And I've just noticed that the ships in Fleet Book 1 have a
 monetary cost/value which is a multiple of the NPV. Maybe this
 imbalance is meant to be there?

	Hugh