RE: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

The problem with point systems is that they are too abstracted.

For instance, how does range factor into a game? Are short ranged
weapons as effective as long ranged weapons?
Damage vs. shielded or non-shielded targets?
If the weapon system is affected by ECM or simple counter-measures?
Is there a potential defense that completely negates the weapon system?
Situtations where a particular weapon system is unstoppable (guaranteed
a kill)?

You could have approximately 50 point weapon system(s)that are roughly
equal in points but each would have a totally different tactical values,
some examples are:
1 squadron of heavy anti-ship fighters
1 super beam (class-5or 6?)
a set of torpedo launchers
a massive minefield
a kamikaze jump-boat
a set of SMR's
a cluster of Kra'Vak scatter guns

In some cases it's like comparing oranges and grapefruits - there are
some similarities, but many differences, and to the individual, its
those differences that matter.	Just calling oranges, grapefruits and
limes, "citrus fruits" and saying a pound of one is the same as a pound
of another misses the point.  I'm sure that Orange Pie would not have
the same taste as Key Lime Pie.

Points only go so far for balance - campaigns are better since they tend
to be evolution in action and very dynamic - poor tactics or weapon
choices can lead to the elimination of your forces, but your weapon
choices won't be static either as new tactics or weapon/defensive
combinations appear.  In a campaign, factors other than straight combat
power also come into effect; leading to financial, logistical or
political choices that help shape your armnament decisions.

Even a campaign system using the current ideas is not very good. The
problem with the current system is that the players know too much.  The
technology is limited to what is in the rulebooks, so a player with a
6000 point fleet is going to know roughly what any other 6000 point
fleet is going to do, there is no uncertainty that someone else has
developed the 1000 point Fleet Entrapment Web or a 500 point Supernova
Mine or improved their engines so that their ships/fighters move 10%
faster with less construction costs or developed level 3 or 4 shields
that are impervious to anything less than a class 3 beam or torpedo. A
more realistic system would allow for different levels and costs for
"technologies" such as propulsion, beam weapons, hull integrity,
shielding, FTL propulsion, as well as supply of raw resources and
logistics to the fleets. 

For instance, you may have developed an FTL drive that jumps 5 times
further than any other drive, but it consumes a rare element in the
process and you have only one source of that element - do you still
install the super-FTL into all your ships?

my 3.14159... cents worth

--Binhan

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Flak Magnet
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 1:23 PM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

David Rodemaker wrote:
> Who cares?

Pretty much everybody in my gaming group and multiple people on this
list.

> Never mistake a points system for a campaign system as a method to
balance
> out a game.

IMO, an effort should be made for a points system to be able to balance
campaigns as well as one-off build-n-bring games.

--Tim