[MISC] Points systems

> At 07:10 PM 9/24/98 +0100, you wrote:

One other comment in case you do decide to go with the point system option; in
my opinion, the only good points system is one that reflects the "historical"
cost and availability of a unit and thereby allows you create a realistic
force for the environment you are playing in. It doesn't have to reflect any
kind of game balance concept, but rather the limits on availability of
resources.

This type of points value is especially useful in a campaign setting where
points (whether they are MegaCredits in Starfire or Prestige points in Panzer
General) are won or lost through play. Starfleet Battles, IIRC, even had a
distinction between combat point values and economic point values.

If you are not comfortable trying to create a scale of combat effectiveness
point values, then you may wish to provide a point system that reflects the
"real world" cost to a major power in your universe to equip and field a force
of size X with equipment kit Y. Presumably, the better equipment will be a lot
more expensive which gives you a whole world of quality vs. quantity matchups
to explore. For example, you might have the
"high-tech-low-tonnage" mobile force invading the
"low-tech-high-manpower"
planetary defense force. (oh, and conversion rates and interface info for FT,
please? <g>)

To my mind, this is more in keeping with your idea (and mine) of how the world
works. No one could every realistically calculate a point value for evaluating
the relative combat effectiveness of a U.S. armored division versus that of an
armored division from the former Soviet Union, but we can find data on the
number of such divisions which were based in a given theatre of operations,
the real world cost of outfitting and maintaining these units, relative levels
of availability, and so forth. A good points system won't necessarily produce
perfectly balanced scenarios; but then, that's realistic too. And as long as
everyone knows up front the yardstick being used, it should also be "fair."