[FT] Campaign vs Scenario Game Balance (Long) Pt1

> > A "point of view" might be helpful here. We play

<<Rest Snipped>>

Bear with me if you're a SFB grognard, but IIRC there are a number of posters
who aren't...

I've noticed that in many of the technical discussions that come up on the
list much of what ends up getting discussed seems (to me at least <g>) to boil
down into the campaign play vs. scenario play model of gaming.

Many things that balance out in a scenario don't even come close to balancing
out in a campaign (and the other way around also...)

<grimace> I stopped playing SFB a couple of years before I started playing FT
mostly because it was way, way to complicated for (IMHO) more than very
simple scenarios (generally no more than 2-3 ships on a side) and for
campaign play you went right up to Federation and Empire which while a
fantastic game also was highly complex.

One of the things that SFB did (IIRC) was give all it's ships an BPV (Battle
Point Value) and an EPV (Economic Point Value) which were generally close but
not always. The BPV is what we would generally call the Point Cost in FT. We
have no comparative value for EPV.

Also, FT only uses the grossest of metrics to differentiate between the cost
of a big ship vs a small ship. (basically the Point Cost/BPV) Apart from
the mystery "EPV" there would be differences in building times, slip size,
crewing requirement, etc. that FT just doesn't take into account.

Cont. in Part 2