Prev: Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV Next: Re: [GZG-OLC] February Update

Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@h...>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:19:42 -0600
Subject: Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:09:24 +1100, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

> 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?

You make a really, really good point. If you play with a regular group
of
players who are mature enough, you don't need to fix it. In fact, such a
mature group would probably enjoy playing scenarios where the sides have
an
equal chance of winning but do not have balanced fleets.

However, there are a number of people who play "you design X points of
ships,
I'll design X points of ships, and we'll meet on Saturday for a game".
There
are also convention games. Dean G. has run the FT tournament at GenCon
for
years, and I was involved in helping him out (as well as organizing the
GenCon
GZG events for a couple of years). We had to put artificial limits on
the
fleets used in the tournament: the number of cruisers must equal or
exceed the
number of capital ships, the number of escorts must equal or exceed the
number
of cruisers, the fleets had up to 1500 points, and the ships had to be
from
the fleet books. 

With a proper point system, we could just say, "1500 corrected-points
worth of
ships from the fleet books" and leave it at that. 

We also had pre-made fleets. If we had a corrected point system that
worked
well, we could have had all cruiser fleets against a fleet of a couple
of
capital ships but no cruisers, that sort of thing. 

Is a corrected point system needed for FT to be fun and exciting? No. Is
a
corrected point system useful for a lot of people? Yes.

> 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?

Uh, no, there is no campaign system in the game. If there was, we could
maybe
explain away the point imbalances. Since there is no campaign game, or
even a
TO&E for the various fleets, we are stuck having to fix the point
values. It
seems Jon made the monetary values as multiples of the NPV simply as
"flavourtext".

Allan Goodall		     http://www.hyperbear.com

"We come into the world and take our chances
 Fate is just the weight of circumstances
 That's the way that Lady Luck dances
 Roll the bones." - N. Peart

Prev: Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV Next: Re: [GZG-OLC] February Update