> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
The problem with points systems is that they never really work. Balancing a
points system is a bit like balancing a wobbly table by sawing the legs
down... as you saw down one leg you create a different imbalance, so you saw
down another one and so on recursively.
The major problem here is that some of the DS2 design system is "descriptive";
balanced only with a points system and some is
"constructive" and, to a degree, self-balancing. Old Dirtside had
a purely descriptive system where you just wrote down what the vehicle stats
were (based on inspecting the miniature you already own because it looks cool)
and compute a points cost. New Dirtside has moved to where FT2 was, some
aspects are descriptive (mobility and armour in DS2, thrust in FT2) while some
require spending from a finite number of capacity points.
FT has now moved to spending capacity for thrust and this is where
DS should go. Real-world discussion of AFV design rather labours
the point that there's a trade-off between mobility, armour and
firepower. If DS forced you to spend capacity points on armour and mobility
(and stealth) rather than on just systems, there would be a very strong force
balancing some of the problems.
Why have less than the maximum armour?... because you want to put something in
the tank other than the enormous engine that generates the power to shift
around a 120 tonne GEV, and you can't just throw points at the problem.
Why have a slow vehicle rather than a fast one?... because you want to fit
enough armour for the AFV to be survivable, and you can't just throw points at
the problem.
...and so on.
The problem with a pure descriptive system is that you will
get someone saying "I've put a HEL/5, Superior FCS, Superior
ECM, and Superior PDS on each motorcycle. All are laser based, so do not need
long barrels or access points, and as such are not visible on the figure. Oh,
and by the way it also have a grav based VTOL capibility, so it can do pop up
attacks." Then begins to unload hundreds of them.
As in FT, many DS2 games are one-offs where each side brings
some figures. If there is no way to balance them beforehand, you spend all of
your playtime trying to figure out what can be fielded. SG2 is much more
scenario driven. Most of the SG2 forces (except vehicles) have much in common.
Almost all of the forces have a basic soldier with a AAR, a SAW
gunner, a GMS/P soldier, and a Comms specialist. With this
in mind, a general scenario can be cooked up indicating
that side X gets so many squads of 6-8 figures and 1 or 2
levels of command; and side Y gest so many squads (same limits). And it can be
expected to be fairly balanced.
Perhaps DS3 should use unit quality for firing and FCS either shift this up or
down one for Superior and Basic FCS?
> --- David Brewer <david@brewer.to> wrote:
> and you can't
> survivable, and you
Of course, with the caveat that you _can_ throw points
at the problem and get a very good vehicle that excells in all three areas of
AFV design (speed, armor, firepower). I call to the witness stand the
M-1A2, the Challenger 2, and the latest Merkava
(whatever they are up to by now). It's just that you won't be able to buy a
lot of them.
> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" wrote:
Hundreds? Hardly. If we get Oerjan to do the points system he'd charge more
for a small vehicle than for a large one... smaller signature see? You
probably couldn't think up a more expensive unarmoured vehicle without
slapping on extra redundant weapons... but since they're unarmoured a little
bit of arty and they're all toast.