Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

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

I think you answered your question below by admitting that fighter
stacks are broken and need a rules change.

>  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?

"Badly broken" is, to a degree, a subjective qualifier. To me, if the
point system allows combat power optimization along one specific route
to the marked detriment of other, perhaps more "realistic" fleet
compositions, it is broken.

Most people agree that a fleet of large ships does have an advantage
over an equal points value fleet composed of small ships. AFAIK, this
applies even within the points value range of fleet book designs -
without even looking at mega-ships outside that range.
 
>  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?

I would not think so. Certainly Oerjan was one of the persons behind
the original points system.

If the new formula is simple enough, people can recalculate the fleet
book vessels themselves. But I would expect a new rule book would
include a table of revised values for the ships published in the Fleet
Books.

Of course, the alternative to point value changes would be rules
changes that restore the balance to fit the point value. Such ideas
have been discussed here, too.

Greetings
Karl Heinz