I was reading through Lightning Strike (from DP9) last night. Apart from the
"have these guys repackaged Votoms and Gundam in their own backgrounds, or
have they done it" feeling, an interesting facet I noticed:
Lightning Strike gives units two different costs. I.e. they admit that
some units are more valuable in a campaign environment than in one-off
battles, and adjust costs accordingly.
Admitting the facts is groundwork for any progress.
Perhaps this is something we could use?
> --- Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@dram.swob.dna.fi> wrote:
Yep. I'm not sure about Votoms, but there is an awful lot of Gundam in there.
Okay by me, I like the larger solar system DP9 uses, rather than the more
Earth orbit focus in Gundam.
> Lightning Strike gives units two different costs. I.e. they admit that
And for players of LS, be very careful about taking capital ships in a
one-off
game that have a higher campaign cost than their tactical value. The CEGA
battleship in the basic rules is less useful in one battle than 2 destroyers,
but possibly much more useful in a campaign. I believe that the tactical
values may even be a little low for a few of ships if you don't limit exos to
the number of bays on the ships in action (will try that next game).
> Admitting the facts is groundwork for any progress.
> Perhaps this is something we could use?
As an idea, definitely. However, the Threat Values are more of a balancing
factor than a construction cost. Cost of construction might be a bit
different.
SFB had something like this also...On the Master Ship Chart, some ships have
an "economic value" (cost to build), and a "combat value" (value in combat).
All other ships have just one value.
To me IMHO, this seemed kind of silly.
I always thought that ships should only have one value to purchase it. As to
combat values, let the systems on board each ship speak for themselves...
(IE: If this is adopted, it should be optional.)
Donald Hosford
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> I was reading through Lightning Strike (from DP9) last night. Apart
> Donald writes:
> have an "economic value" (cost to build), and a "combat value" (value
> To me IMHO, this seemed kind of silly.
> I always thought that ships should only have one value to purchase it.
I take it, then, that you are a proponent of the competetive point system?
Anyway, this is not quite the same thing. Ligthning Strike recognizes that
some ships are more valuable in a campaign environment than in
one-offs. This has nothing to do with any economic cost to build. An
extreme example would be an unarmed fleet supply freighter -- totally
dead
weight in a one-off, but worth its weight in gold in a campaign.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> (snippage)
> > I always thought that ships should only have one value to purchase
Something like having to buy freighters in a Starfire: New Empires game.
Totally useless in combat, but extreamly valuable for shiping your "Imperial
Income" around.
"Competetive point system"?
Could you discribe what this means?
In my limited/simple understanding, points are used to buy the ships I
use to try to bash my opponent's ships with.
(I am not being annoying -- I hope -- I just never understood it...)
> Donald Hosford wrote:
I'm not sure if I understand myself, but I'll take a stab at making a total
fool of myself.
There is an old adage, to the effect that novice generals talk about tactics,
while veteran generals talk about logistics.
So a "Competetive point system" is taking into account all the "hidden"
support costs of a unit?
It does sound like a nightmare...
Donald Hosford
> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> So a "Competetive point system" is taking into account all the "hidden"
Actually, I think the two of you are talking at cross-purposes here. The
logistics issue is a valid one, but I don't think it relates to what you were
originally asking. As I understand what Mikko meant by "competitive" and
"balancing" points systems, is that a "balancing" one is where the points are
strictly there to balance games, ie: as near as possible the points cost of a
unit reflects its actual capability in the game, whereas a "competitive"
points system is one that actively encourages players to try
to field the "best" units for their points budgets - ie: two units each
worth 100 points are not necessarily equal in their potential combat strengths
(though if the system is properly designed each will have pros and cons that
make it a valid choice under certain circumstances).
I'm sure if I've got this wrong then Mikko will correct me..... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> Donald Hosford
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
Thanks...Mikko kindly sent me an earlier post that explained it all nicely. I
gotta be more carefull of which messages I skip.
Donald Hosford
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> >So a "Competetive point system" is taking into account all the
The
> logistics issue is a valid one, but I don't think it relates to what