DS II Personal Walkers

Jon, The Single (Size 1) Combat walkers have a movement rate equal to that of
Powered armor which is less than that of their full sized bretheren. Yet, the
single Combat walker has to pay the construction cost of their larger
bretheren... Shouldn't these costs be altered to match?
        Phil

> Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:

They also get the benefits of being treated as a vehicle in arty barrages and
the ability to carry vehicular weaponry. This is
/important/, actually; enough so that the speed seems to work out.
Since they're really extremely-heavy infy and tend to travel /with/
infy, they get advantageous balance.

> On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Alexander Williams wrote:

> They also get the benefits of being treated as a vehicle in arty

So do all other size class 1 vehicles, I recall.

I think Phil's point was not their cost compared to infantry but to other
vehicles, especially combat walkers.

What do Infantry Walkers get compared to other vehicles that offsets the

fact that they pay the same points for less speed?

> On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> What do Infantry Walkers get compared to other vehicles that offsets

If you want to get rules-lawyersly, the same thing all vehicles not VTOL
get for not being VTOL; the ability to do different terrain for some
lesser cost, or /different/ cost, or no cost if you play absent points.

> On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Alexander Williams wrote:

> If you want to get rules-lawyersly, the same thing all vehicles not

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow your thoughts here.

If one doesn't play with points, arguing the point costs of this and that is
pretty pointless, IMHO.

If one does, one would probably like the point cost to reflect some real

game parameters instead of e.g. which figures the manufacturer would like to
sell.

Different vehicle types have different capabilities for different costs.

Whether tracked or wheeled is priced "right" can be analysed, but somewhat
hard due to the difference in capabilities, e.g. is 2" extra speed in open
terrain worth getting always stuck in woods?

BUT: In this particular case, infantry walkers and their larger brethen have
*almost* identical capabilities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their

only difference seems to be that infantry walkers get lesser speed for the
same price.

Such a case is much easier to analyse.

True, infantry walkers have smaller target signature. But so do all small
vehicles compared to their respective larger cousins, and IIRC, none of those
others get extra penalties for having smaller wheels.

You *could* say it's compensation for the extra-large target signature
combat walkers have to deal with. Size 6 signature is much more of a problem
than size 2. Any other explanations (obviously, I'm not with my books)?

One could also compare infantry walkers with other size 1 vehicles, e.g.

is switching them for armed dune buggies a good idea?

But comparing them to infantry is very hard, because they're totally
different. PBI is PBI and infantry walkers are not -- they're vehicles
with legs. They use different rules for almost everything. A very hard case
for cost effectiveness analysis.

> On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Alexander Williams wrote:
WAIT A MINUTE! We are talking about build points for a vehicle here!! This is
by no means a gauge of the effectiveness of that vehicle. The "build points"
are used to portray what you could realistically put on a vehicle of a certain
size class. Certain things take up a certain amount of space. You couldn't put
a 120 mm smoothbore cannon on a Jeep! Boy wouldn't that be interesting? Recoil
alone would destroy the damn thing! Anyway, somewhere along the line the idea
of points got skewed. Anyone else? Am I wrong?

In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970619122658.1252A-100000@swob.dna.fi>, Mikko
Kurki-S
> uonio writes:

> the same price.

Yeah, but they've got shorter legs!

Actually, I love Infantry Walkers. They are just right, small little power
armored infantry vehicles. If you want to cost yours less, no problem by me
(although, tiny little missle carriers probably ought to be costed back up).

> Yeah, but they've got shorter legs!

I tend to agree.

The capabilites of the "micro warkers" is close enough to equal for it's cost.

CMC

Hello, I still think that the movement cost for a personal walker should be
proportional to the movement cost for the vehicle, just as it is for the
different costs for the combat and transport walkers. I just wih Jon would let
us know if this was an intended result or just something overlooked... Phil P.

> Hello,

OK, here goes:

I assume you mean (above) that the movement COST should be proportional to
the movement ABILITY. Yes, this was overlooked :) - this is the first
time anyone has asked us about it! A couple of ideas to try out:

i) Make the Infantry Walker mobility cost equal to a lower % of BVP -
maybe 50%? OR
ii) increase the Infantry Walker base mobility (say to 8 or 10?) - so
that the little buggers can run around like crazy (very Anime...).

As with everything, depends on how you want to play them..;)

All the best,

> On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Gerald McVicker wrote:

> WAIT A MINUTE! We are talking about build points for a vehicle here!!

Well, that has even LESS to do with comparison with *infantry*.

> This is by no means a gauge of the effectiveness of that vehicle. The

No, that's what the space system is for. E.g. class 1 vehicles have 5 spaces.
That limits the *size* of the equipment you can mount. Points cost, however,
limits the *cost* of said equipment. This is the
difference between getting a dirt cheap RFAC-1 instead of a DFFG-1 or
HEL-1.

And specifically, movement systems don't take up any space anyway.

As for the "short legs" argument:

Yes, it's a good *in-game* reason to limit I-walker top speed.
It is NOT a *metagame* reason to charge the same for less ability.

If you do that, the message you're passing is more like: "This is obsolete
technology in the author's mind. If you insist on using it, you

won't get your points' worth of effectiveness."