> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > of level 1 armor plus either an infantry fireteam or a turreted
> them to be slow because it fits *your* world view makes this a much
Yes, it is arbitrary. That is because it is a patch for the existing system. A
completely new system would be less so.
> I still fail to follow how armor values effect capacity points.
Although the M113 is a good choice, your example is faulty. For the sake of
discussion, I'll agree to call it Size 2, however, it does not have Class 2
armor. The RW armor of the M113 is resistant to
small-arms fire, but not impervious to them. This fits the SG2 view of
Class 1 armor that is generally applied to DS2. Thus, a
brand-spanking-new, fresh-out-of-the-box M113 is a Size 2 vehicle with
Class 1 armor, and the modifications of our patch are already included.
If you then want to modify the vehicle, we can talk about that. As you
suggest, you can add applique armor to bring the vehicle up to class 2 armor.
However, you have now added a significant amount of weight to the vehicle.
There are two possible results:
A) the heavier vehicle, with the same power pack, now is slightly slower,
represented by a reduction in movement rating.
B) upgrade the vehicle with a larger engine, improved suspension, etc.. This
takes up internal volume, i.e. capacity.
Now, for a better example of how the armor-movement-capacity triangle
can work, I can make up the bare bones of a new system off the top of my head.
Premise 1: Vehicle pays capacity for movement type Premise 2: Vehicle pays
capacity for power pack (and thus move rate) Premise 3: Armor value is
selected, paid for indirectly through power pack Assumption 1: Size 1 vehicle
has 20 capacity
I design a size 1 vehicle.
I need to select movement type. The capacity pays for the wheels and
suspension, or tracks, or skirts, or grav, etc.. For the sake of the example
say HiMob wheeled costs 2 cap., tracked 3, grav 4, and hover 5 (arbitrary for
now, somehow change values for larger size classes). I select HMW for 2 cap.
I need to select armor. I decide that I am making a light armored car, so I
give it armor 1 on all 6 sides.
I now pay for the power pack. For the powerpack that I am using, it costs 1
cap. per 2 movement for wheeled or tracked, 1 cap per 3 movement for hover,
and 1 cap per 4 movement for grav (again, arbitrary for now, and maybe some
relation to vehicle size). This is increased at a rate of 1 cap. per 6 points
of armor (arbitrary, changes with size class, maybe move type also). Since I
have 6 points of armor, wheeled
movement costs 1+1=2 cap per 2 movement. I want a fast vehicle, so
movement 12, and 12 cap.
Total is 2+12=14 cap, leaving 6 for things like weapons, FCS, ECM,
troops, etc.
A FCS at the Force Tech Level Quality would be 2 cap, while one at
(FTL-1) Quality might be 1.5 or 1 cap., and one at (FTL+1) Quality
might be 3 cap. This leaves enough room for a single class 1 turreted weapon,
the free APSW, and maybe something else. If I want to carry troops, CBR, or
comm gear, I probably need only minimal FCS for the free APSW, or none at all
(manual, pintle mount).
So formula is:
Mobility Type cost + Powerpack = Movement cost
and
Powerpack = Move x (Mobility Factor + ((Armor Factor Ratio) x Armor))
thus
MT + (M x (MF+((AFR) x A))) = Movement cost
J
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, J L Hilal wrote:
> If you then want to modify the vehicle, we can talk about that. As
Cool. While I didn't come up with a "forumla" per se, I did come up with a
similar idea, though I hadn't posted it yet. This is what I would have posted.
In one of the recent posts, it was stated that if you increase the engine
capaciy used based on the amount of armor on the vehicle, that you are
"adjusting for armor weight". Ok... but that seems so counter intuitive and
just... backwards to me that I had to come up with a suggestion of how a
system could be done. Note that this is for example purposes, and has not been
number crunched, play tested, or otherwise sanity tested. It's main point is
to show that you can address the armor weight to power available ratio by
doing something that does not artificially bloat the size of an engine when
someone welds armor onto a hull.
First, I would suggest that when designing a vehicle, engines produce power
based on capacity used and engine type. The following chart serves as an
example.
Engine Type Power/CAP used
CFE 2 HMT 3 FGP 5
The next step would be to determine how much armor weighs. For purposes of
demonstration, I'll only assume one armor type (though I am intrigued by the
concept of
Poor/Primitive, Basic, Enchanced, and Superior armor to
allow more differentiation).
Each 2 Armor points weigh 1 Power Point. Armor will be purchased for each
facing. Any fractions are rounded up.
Now, we also have to replace the default move ratings
from DSII. Instead of the "Fast/Slow whatever", we need
to determine how many movement points are generated per power point from an
engine.
Movement Type BMF/Power
Low Mobility Wheeled 3 High Mobility Wheeled 3 Tracked 2 Hover 4 Grav 6 VTOL 8
Walker 2
Now to build a couple of examples. Oh, also note that I'm still using the 5
class sizes in DSII (Ok, so up to 7!), so the numbers would need to be
completely revamped for new
class/capacity point values.
Class I Scout Vehicle. Engine type: CFE
Since I want room for an RFAC/1, I'll use 4 CAP for my engine,
generating 8 base power points. I've decided that I want 1 armor to keep the
pesky small arms from killing my armored car, so I want 2 APs to the front,
and 1 everywhere else for a total of 7. This "rounds up" to 4 weight, and thus
reduces my avaialble power by 4. I have 4 left. My armored car is going to be
High Mobility Wheeled, and I have 4 power, so that lets me have a top speed of
3x4 = 12 BMF.
So, what if I did the same thing, but used an HMT? Well, since the HMT
provides more power (3 per CAP = 12 power for this vehicle), I can either make
this puppy really fast, or I can increase both armor and speed as follows:
Armor: 3 front, 2 each side, 1 top, 1 bottom, 1 rear. Armor total: 10 = 5
power points.
Power = 12, -5 for armor leaves 7.
7*3 = 21 BMF, so my vehicle is now better armored AND faster.
Let's look at a tank. We'll make it a size 3 and see what we can do. I'll want
a class 3 weapon in a turret, so that'll be 9 CAP of my available 15. That
leaves me 6. I don't really need any other weapons (other than my APSW), so I
can now see how much armor I want to put onto it.
Armor: 6 front, 3 for each side, 2 top, 1 rear, 1 bottom. Armor total: 16 = 8
power points. I'm going to use a CFE engine again, and have 6 CAP available.
That generates 12 power. I lose 8 for my armor, so I have 4 left. I decide
that this is a tracked MBT, so 4*2 = 8 BMF.
Again, I can upgrade to a HMT, which will generate more power, and allow me to
either incraese armor, movement, or both. If I only increase movement, and
leave the armor the same, I'll have a raw power value of 18. I use 8 for
armor, leaving me 10. This will give my MBT a BMF of 20.
If I cranked it up to a FGP, I could make it scream...
Base power is 30, -8 = 22 * 2 = a BMF of 44! Of course,
leaving this as is, I'm likely making a really fast target.
However, this does prove the point that such a system can work (though again,
my numbers are right out of my ass, so they don't really provide for NOT
having tanks tearing up the ground at absurd rates of speed. Someone with a
better mathematical and statistical background would need to work out numbers
that do the right things.
Also, for cases where the rules state things like that you have to have at
least an HMT or FGP to fire certain weapons, or to use ceratain move types,
either those limits could be preserved, or there could be a minimum amount of
power required in order to use such items. For example, if it takes 15 power
per class to fire a DFFG, you aren't likely to see many on CFE based engines.
And if you do, that's about ALL the engine will do.
Somewhat different, and for the short term, your version may be cleaner,
but it does show that with some work, we *can* come up with something more
flexible and realistic than what's in DSII now.:)
Thanks!