[DS] Capacity, Points - Trying to put it all together.

> Adrian Johnson wrote:

You can solve both of these issues by adding Size and/or Weight back
into a tactical point system. As they are described above they would be a
modifier on the Mobility Value of a vehicle. There's no inherent reason that
they'd be linked to the Signature of the
vehicle (except possibly by a fluff/capacity/background system).

I could build a flying basketball/drone of death.  It might have a Size
of 1 (capable of fitting down small streets), a Signature of 1, and a Surface
Weight of 10,000kg (made of Neutronium). It hovers on little super jets of air
(which will tear up the concrete of streets
as it hovers down them :-).  Bridges could be rated by the Weight
they could support and the Size that could cross (same for dropships).
Streets just by the Size they can take.  Both Size/Weight are Mobility
concerns (and minor ones at that), and Signature remains a Defensive concern.
The WYSIWYG is addressed since Size is once more a factor in the vehicle
construction (just not in the same way as before).

The next two questions are: o Do we need BOTH Size and Weight... could we get
by with one value (ie just Size)?

Probably. You would lose some descriptiveness. But this is the current way the
DS2 works (so you're not losing descriptiveness that you once had).

o Can we get by with no additional values (ie is the complexity added worth
it)?

Really, this is a question about the amount of complexity we want to
add to the tactical point system.  Size/Weight do have some tactical
concerns associated with them... but do they have enough that they should be
represented?

DarylL

p.s. Yes, there is nothing stopping you from having a Size 1 vehicle
with a 5 Signature (picture a "small" orb of energy/light whisking about

> At 10:01 AM -0600 4/9/02, Daryl Lonnon wrote:
I'm liking the middle ground approach that has been arrived at with the combat
value points system and the use of the existing capacity. But, one thing I'm
wondering about is the inherent change in how "signature" works.

> p.s. Yes, there is nothing stopping you from having a Size 1 vehicle

In the old system signature is hard linked to your size with a modification
for active stealth systems that helped you appear either smaller or more
realistically harder to hit (ie countermeasures that detect fire control
systems lasing or ranging and attempt to fudge with that to a greater or
lesser degree.).

When your stealth system are damaged you are suddenly more vulnerable to
incoming fire. More so if you are a large obvious target. Stealth systems were
covered under the rules for target systems down results.

Now, under this new system, that no longer seems the case. Especially if you
are rationalizing a small object that suddenly becomes larger and more obvious
if it's stealth systems are damaged in some respect.

> At 10:01 AM -0600 4/9/02, Daryl Lonnon wrote:

[snip]

> Really, this is a question about the amount of complexity we want to

I'd actually like to see it. I know its one more thing to keep track of, but
it does seem to bear in in some instances. The best example
is when trying to figure what is Air-portable or even Surface to
space portable in a given transporter. A group of size 3 trucks loaded with
ammo and POL aren't nearly as heavy as an equivalent number of combat ready
MBTs that are size 3. The additional armor and weapons weight bear in I think
on how much a given aircraft can carry.

Granted, this was hand-waved away, not without some trepidation. Its
just one thing I've wondered about.