CPV?

Ok, I've seen CPV mentioned several times, and am guessing that this is
a/the new point system for FT?

Where can I get a copy?

Thanks, Rand.

It's in the archives somewhere.

It has to do with the hull cost based on a ratio (1:1 @ 100 mass), increasing
the cost the more mass used and giving a discount on smaller ships (which go
pop after one hit).

It may have changed since it was last mentioned here, but someone on the
testing team *may* be able to post the most recent version (if it's not still
under NDA or testing).

Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies

> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.  2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail.  4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated. 5.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.

> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 12:14:24PM +1100, Robertson, Brendan wrote:

More specifically, http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200302/msg00334.html .

> Randall Joiner wrote:

> Ok, I've seen CPV mentioned several times, and am guessing that this is

> a/the new point system for FT?

"A", yes. "The"... well, that remains to be seen but it looks likely <g>

("CPV" for "Combat Points Value", to emphasise that it refers to the ship's
combat potential and *not* to how much it costs in background universe
money to build it :-/ )

> Where can I get a copy?

Here :-/

Basically what you do is replace the "Basic hull cost" of 1xTMF by
TMFxTMF/100, rounded to the nearest integer (recent minor modification:
"but never to less than 1 point", similar to the rounding rules for engine
etc. Mass ratings).

The "full" version treats carriers, freighters etc. differently, but the

above formula covers all non-carrier warships... and since the carrier
etc. bits are tied to some of the stuff playtested at ECC7 and are still
subject to change at short notice, I won't go further into those bits at the
moment.

Later,

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

So I can assume (or hope) that a TMF 200 bulk cargo freighter will no longer
have the same value as a FB battlecruiser?

One other thing (if it's already taken care of then just ig nore this);

> on 28 Jan 2004, Laserlight wrote:

"Matt [Tope] said:
> Think I will steal the Hattin outright, (well, I'll drop 2 pds and 2

I think you'll find the armor is more valuable than the extra hull."

in
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200401/msg00373.html

If he is correct (and I can see that he is), then shouldn't armor cost more
points than hull integrity, and they are currently the same?

J

> Jared Hilal wrote:

> > The "full" version treats carriers, freighters etc. differently,

Correct. It still won't be entirely free (you still have to pay for the amount
of time it'd take the enemy to destroy it), but it will go down considerably
in cost.

> One other thing (if it's already taken care of then just ig nore this);

Armour is more valuable than 4-row hull integrity if the opponents
refrain
from using armour-penetrating weapons (eg. missiles, P-torps, grasers
nowadays, K-guns of course, even normal beam batteries if Aaron Teske
rolls the dice), but if they do use such weapons it drops back down again.

In the specific Hattin example I'd be more inclined to say that the PDSs

are more valuable than the extra hull - IIRC the Hattin has 1 ADFC + 4
PDS, so if you replace 2 PDSs with hull boxes you pretty much gut the ship's
area-defence capability :-/

Regards,

Jared said:
> on 28 Jan 2004, Laserlight wrote:

> If he is correct (and I can see that he is), then shouldn't armor cost

It is (IMHO) more valuable for a Hattin -- doesn't mean it's more
valuable for everything else.