Point Values

[umbro]

I thought so, but must confess I don't see what point you are trying to make. When talking about combat value, HQs and leaders are no examples, as they are neither combat nor transport. They fulfill a different function and have only a limited self defence capability. Neither have they transport capability (leaders IMO are overly limited because they are blind, but that is a separate issue).

I think that we seem to be in violent agreement that the VP assignment was used for multiple purposes from the first version of the game, not simply a measure of combat values.

The 251/6 example eludes me. It was not, as I recall in any original TS orbat and I cannot find it in a JTCS current OOB. But again, a special purpose HQ unit rather than a combat unit, and hardly relevant for transport.

My bad, typo. I was referring to the 251/16 which is 5VP per SP based on its assault value, which as has been discussed many times is irrelevant in the game.

You are telling me a Bren gun carrier has a similar carrying capacity to a 2 1/2 ton truck????? Perhaps if the Brits were very tiny soldiers, like mini hobbits.

I was trying to point out (particularly poorly it seems) that they are both transport units and though the truck carries more the carrier is worth more VP in your estimation.

And both mathematically and empirically, there is a fundamental difference between 1 and 0...

Quantitatively perhaps, but not significantly in game terms. The CRT requires that you achieve better than 1:3 to have any chance of causing a loss, the vast majority of defence strengths are greater than three, thus the universal carrier and truck have equivalent offensive capabilities. The only exception is when they meet each other in combat.

My point, perhaps not well made initially, is that in general, combat values in CS have held up pretty well over the years. There may well be some room for adjustment around the edges, but tripling the cost for losing a truck, or the reward for getting it off the exit objective is not adjustment, it is a fundamental realignment of values, based I believe on a perception of "rarity" rather than capability, and is wrong.

Here we agree entirely (almost). I would have added a new truck unit for use in future scenarios without affecting old ones. I do disagree with your choice of the word "rarity". I think that from the very beginning "value" was the measure of VPs, and that value was more complex than simple "combat values" in that it took into consideration supply from HQs, leadership bonuses, transport capability, mobility, etc.

umbro