Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

Well, as always, the idea of a space game either being historical or
real
is delusional at best, but we've covered that before. ;->=

***
 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.
***

Which isn't to say I don't admire, and prize, his endeavors. A good
point
system IS useful, and I support everyone's trying to make it more so.

Perhaps what's important here is not their focus on the point system,
but
yours. The ships won't work differently if the points are set otherwise.
You'll still get the same number of small ships as expanding gas for the
same number of large ones. The point system will say a balance-adjusted
battle should have MORE small ships, but there's no law saying you have
to
follow the point system in any battle you set up.

My point was there tends to be certain assumptions in the point system
no
matter what. Firstly, I think it ignores any special set up other than
straight meeting engagement with enemy destruction as the only goal, no
terrain, etc.

This makes sense, as these are 99% of the game I've played. These games
are
also the reason I can't keep some folks interested over the long haul,
but
they are the games you learn on, and are the easiest to set up.

And quick and easy are what we LOVE about this game.

The_Beast

P.S. I was going to suggest a way of making it more 'historical' might
be
to check for crit hits with every weapon hit that does multiple damage
reduced by threshold, i.e. a class 3 at 12" might cause 3 without
rerolls,
adjusted  by size or shields, but it's getting a little complicated.
;->=