[DS] No Capacity was: Points system (fresh)

[quoted original message omitted]

Just a quick suggestion that may help stimulate someone's thought processes in
a different direction.

Years ago I was playing Mekton, and when they design vehicles you just go
ahead and buy whatever you want, with each item adding to cost, size and
weight. If something is too big to fit, you can pay more to
reduce it by some percentage - the more you reduce it, the more it
costs. This was justified by saying the reduction actually represented a
higher technology level.

A similar approach might work here: Buy what you want for your vehicle, with
everything adding a fixed sensor value. Add them all together to find out how
easy the vehicle is to detect. If you want to improve, you can pay more
(inverse proportional scale, ceiling fixed by game master) to make it harder
to detect.

> K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:

> [quoted text omitted]

> But my argument is that, to calculate a balanced points cost that

> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:03:41AM +0200, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:

I disagree with the underlying axiom. Why should Vehicle A with X damage
dealing ability, Y armour, and Z movement, that I've already
paid the points for X, Y, and Z, be made proportionally /more/
expensive than Vehicle B, without weapon, armour, or movement, simply because
they share the same targetability? Its ludicrous. The additional price of the
weaponry, movement, and armour suffices in itself; why should there be another
premium on top of that which has
/no effect/ on the actual effectiveness?  It violates the axiomatic
rule of the suggested design system.

If you really need to see it in action, again, look at the Jovian Chronicles
construction system; Size is a consequence of the cost of the systems computed
out and buying it down increases cost, and applies equally to individual
weapon systems as well as vehicles. Its
probably the biggest wart on the system, in my mind, since it /does/
so clearly break the axiom of "it buys you nothing more but costs."

> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:03:41AM +0200, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:

I disagree with the underlying axiom. Why should Vehicle A with X damage
dealing ability, Y armour, and Z movement, that I've already
paid the points for X, Y, and Z, be made proportionally /more/
expensive than Vehicle B, without weapon, armour, or movement, simply because
they share the same targetability? Its ludicrous. The additional price of the
weaponry, movement, and armour suffices in itself; why should there be another
premium on top of that which has
/no effect/ on the actual effectiveness?  It violates the axiomatic
rule of the suggested design system.

If you really need to see it in action, again, look at the Jovian Chronicles
construction system; Size is a consequence of the cost of the systems computed
out and buying it down increases cost, and applies equally to individual
weapon systems as well as vehicles. Its
probably the biggest wart on the system, in my mind, since it /does/
so clearly break the axiom of "it buys you nothing more but costs."

Alexander Williams schrieb:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:03:41AM +0200, K.H.Ranitzsch

> /more/ expensive than Vehicle B, without weapon, armour, or

May well be we are misunderstanding each other.

Let's look at an example with some arbitrary numbers:

Assume equipment cost are balanced for vehicles with "standard" target
signatures. Vehicle A is pretty powerfully equipped. Equipment etc. points add
up to 200 points. Vehicle B is quite basic: 100 points

By the logic for points costing / effectiveness calculation described
earlier by B^? and Oerjan, if something makes a vehicle more survivable it
should multiply the vehicle's basic value.

Say making a vehicle extra-small in terms of target signature allows it
to survive on average twice as long and and leaving it extra-large
halves its survival. Then the cost should be:
extra-small = Basic Points * 2
extra-large = Basic Points / 2

So extra-small vehicles would be:
A: 400 points B: 200 points

Extra-large:
A: 100 points B: 50 points

So "Extra-small" costs you 200 points for A and 100 points for B. Note
however, that at any size, you still can buy two B types for one A type.

I hope this makes my position clear. Where is your disagreement with it?

As to size class, this was a simple example where size = points cost, which is
pretty dubious in terms or realism.

Greetings

Lets look at it another way:

Vehicle A:
Size 2, Fast Tracked, Class/2 armor, HKP/2
Vehicle B:
Size 3, Fast Tracked, Class/2 armor, HKP/2, Stealth/1

Both vehicles are equivilent in capabililty. In a points only system, they
should cost the same. They have the same signature, mobility, damage
potential, and armor.

-----
Brian Bell

What I'm seeing still using a capacity, just "hiding" it in the numbers.

If I build vehicle with X capability it will have a default signature based on
what it is carrying. You can call this whatever you want but capacity works
just as well as anything.

If you reduce its' signature you are either making it smaller or using
stealth. Same affect on game play.

I would prefer to continue to call your "behind the scenes" thing capacity
because then I can still equate it to a size class and thus my miniatures. I
also think that allowing size decreases is going to encourage munchkins, but
that is
just me.  _If_ you can munchkin proof it that would be one
way to do tech levels.

WWII level - 1 size class bigger than base, limited weapons
Modern level - Base size, add weapons
Sci-Fi level - Base size, add weapons, stealth capabilities

[quoted original message omitted]

Yes, it wastes a lot of space. But the wasted space has _NO_ effect on
its
Tactical _combat_value_.

Call it what you want...tech level...design philosophy...whatever.

So what if the Enime Empire's weapons designs take up more space? As long as
they compensate for it with thier EM-Mask (stealth), thier designs are
as effective (not efficient, effective) as the Lemerians, who build things as
small as they can? In the Tactical Game, the two tanks perform the same, so
should have the same point cost.

Now in a Campaign, the Enime vehicles have more of a problem, because they
take more space on a transport. Unless this disadvantage is off-set by
some advantage (lower maintenance cost?), the campaign points for it should be
_lower_ than the Lemerians because it is worth _less_ in a campaign.

Its not rewarding bad design errors, it is placing an accurate
_combat_value_ (or campaign value in a campaign).

-----
Brian Bell
-----

[quoted original message omitted]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:04:51 +0200, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
(K.H.Ranitzsch) wrote:
> > Lets look at it another way:

I don't believe that the purpose of the point system is to "award" or
"penalize" anything -- its purpose is to provide a rough sense of
balance for those concerned about such things.

Using  Andy Cowell's on-line DSII generator, the costs for the sample
tanks are 64 points for Vehicle A, and 138 points for Vehicle B

(Both with HKP/3 -- HKP/2 is illegal under the current rules -- basic
firecons, no ECM or special systems.)

...which illustrates the point nicely, I think. Two vehicles with identical
performance, but one costs a little more than *twice* as much as the other.

If I want tanks designed by the Infamous Cowards of Galaxion VI (good at
hiding, but not comfortable with big guns), then that's what I want. How is
anything served by the point system giving a woefully inaccurate picture of
the capabilities of my army?

> At 12:26 PM -0500 4/5/02, John Crimmins wrote:

But it does work that way.

> Using Andy Cowell's on-line DSII generator, the costs for the

And if vehicle B has an enhanced PDS, a ECM system, ADFV and additional
components filling in that space, then shouldn't it still be more than vehicle
A?

> ...which illustrates the point nicely, I think. Two vehicles with

Because the assumption is that if you build a vehicle with additional
capacity, it will be used. You're leaving this big empty box on the back of
this tank and saying it doesn't have a combat value. Thats true. But if you
stuff additional components into that tank then you've got a better tank.

Now, I would approach all of this from a different direction. I'd build a cost
system in that would allow miniaturization of types of weapons making them
take up lower amounts of capacity for a given cost. It builds on the system
and allows you to get what you are looking for.

I have a problem with the fact that you're squishing two things together and
saying they are the same when they are not. Size =! apparent signature.

[quoted original message omitted]

> KH Ranitzsch wrote:

> Maybe the present system is cumbersome.

Yes. And inaccurate, too :-/

> But my argument is that, to calculate a balanced points cost that

No, you don't. It is *much* easier to calculate an accurate points system if
you ignore the size and equipment.

> The more equipment, the more expensive going down to a given

In a purely points-based design system, the cost looks roughly like
this:

[Firepower] * [Defensive ability] * [Mobility]

which can be broken down as

[(Weapon 1)*(FCS1) + (Weapon 2)*(FCS2) + ...] * [(Armour)*(Signature +
ECM/PDS)] * [Mobility]

The value of signature/N in comparison to the value of signature/M can
with the help of the esteemed Mr.F.W. Lanchester be calculated to

square root of ((average enemy hit probability vs signature/M)/(average
enemy hit probability vs signature/N))

Choose one arbitrary signature level to be worth "1", and compare all other
signatures to it.

In a pure points system, this is it - you already have the signature's
contribution to the vehicles' points values. Do corresponding calculations for
the other terms and factors as well, and you have your points system.

Thing is, the value calculated for a given vehicle by the above formula is
also the "ideal" target value which a capacity-based design system
should
give that same vehicle - so in order to design a capacity-based system
you
first have to determine the points-based system anyway, and then
successfully designs *another* system which gives the same results in a
completely different way.

Dunno about you, but I find the latter option to be at least four times as
much work as the former one :-/

Darryl's idea about "real points value" and "fluff design system" is IMO a
very good one indeed - I wish I'd've thought of it myself! I'd very much

like DS3 to work this way - possibly with a couple different "fluff"
systems, eg. one "official" fluff for the GZGverse and one "generic Gigantic
Walker" one for all those Animaniacs who were outraged by DS2's

treatment of their metal darlings <g>

> Alexander Williams wrote:

> I disagree with the underlying axiom. Why should Vehicle A with X

If the signature cost is multiplicative instead of additive, it doesn't pay
*proportionally* more than the unarmed vehicle to reduce its signature. It
pays more in *absolute* terms because its lower signature increases the chance
that its weaponry will inflict damage on the enemy while the lower signature
on the unarmed vehicle doesn't have any weapons which benefit from the extra
protection. (Example: 24 is *proportionally* just as much

larger than 20 as 6 is larger than 5 - in both cases 20%. In absolute
terms, the difference between 24 and 20 is of course four times larger than
the difference between 6 and 5.)

(In the current system, the *unarmed* vehicle pays proportionally more to
reduce its signature than the armed one does...)

> The additional price of the weaponry, movement, and armour suffices in

If a reduction of signature did indeed have "/no effect/" on the actual
effectiveness of the vehicle, you would be correct.

However, a reduced signature *does* have an effect - it makes the
vehicle
harder to hit (and thus harder to knock out) with direct-fire weapons,
and therefore makes those expensive weapons more likely to harm the enemy.
More likely to harm the enemy = more valuable = higher points cost *for the
individual weapon*, if the vehicle has a lower signature.

Regards,

On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:58:38 -0500, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> >

It should indeed, but if Vehicle A is also upgraded, and performance qualities
remain identical, should they not cost the same?

> >...which illustrates the point nicely, I think. Two vehicles with

Who's saying that that extra space isn't used? Maybe the Infamous
Cowards of Glaxion VI *need* that extra space -- they're claustrophobes,
you see, and can't stand being in to tight of an area.... It's a fluff thing.

But in any case, you are saying that Vehicle B should cost more because it has
the *potential* to be more heaily armed? Potential shouldn't really enter into
it, I think. Performance on the board is all that really matters.

> Now, I would approach all of this from a different direction. I'd

You lose me here -- does "=!" mean "is not equal to"?

Even assuming that, frankly, you've still lost me. Please to explain? Use
small words...it's a Friday, and I'm all giddy.

> At 1:21 PM -0500 4/5/02, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:

What you should be saying is

Vehicle A With weapon of X effect and Y movement.

Vehicle B With weapon of X effect and Y movement.

The problem is that when you tack on that extra capacity, its going to
eventually get used.

> >...which illustrates the point nicely, I think. Two vehicles with
But,
> again, that was the whole arguement for the points-only system (that

I think a points system without a capacity system is the wrong direction.
Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but how do you decide what a given vehicle's
signature is with out a common frame of reference among players. By tossing
size out the window, you're getting even more nebulous.

> I have a problem with the fact that you're squishing two things

Inches and scale have no game effect. We could just have sticks a certain
length for each type of movement rate or range. But they are
a good common unit. Size in DS/SG is a very quick thing to describe
to someone learning the game and it creates additional reference points when
describing a vehicle.

> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 05:07:24 -0500

> If you really need to see it in action, again, look at the Jovian

Size in silhouette does buy you things. Mostly by reducing the amount of bay
space required to carry the vehicle and its required crew size. But it also
increase the number of that unit you can stack in a hex.

signature however in that system is dealt with with Stealth and LSP otherwise
it is equally easy to hit any two vehicles with the same manoeuvrability
regardless of size.

Of course Large vehicles may take up multiple hexes and thus be easier to draw
LOS on.

> At 4:36 PM -0500 4/5/02, John Crimmins wrote:

In an ideal world. However I don't see games as that simple.

> Who's saying that that extra space isn't used? Maybe the Infamous

Exceedingly fluffy. I thought we were playing DSII? Jon did design it around a
particular fluff. Trying to shoehorn Posleen God King personal weapons and
galtech is like trying to fit a Posleen Dodec sphere into FT. Its waaay off
the scale.

> But in any case, you are saying that Vehicle B should cost more

Again, the problem is that some items use are very situational. A given system
is useless on a given board. If I put lots of "points" into ECM and PDS and
ADS vehicles, and my opponent doesn't bring a
single GMS/H or GMS/L, then I've pretty much wasted those points.
Suddenly they are worth zero. Does the capacity-less system fix that?
Nope. Does if fix things if my Ben Rich's best tank force with signatures of 1
go up against a force with nothing but missiles and artillery? Nope.

I think dumping capacity is throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you
want a perfectly balanced game. Take forces with exactly the same composition
and makeup and play on a flat table. There are too many variables to account
for.

A balanced game will be arrived at by either having things so simple there is
nothing to confuse the issue or by being so complex with such a mass of
combined arms that only the better player that can coordinate it all will be
able to win.

By throwing artillery, engineers, air support and case-vac into a
game you suddenly make the player's workload so high, the better able to cope
player will be the one to come out on top.

> > Now, I would approach all of this from a different direction. I'd

Yep, Its probably more correct if I say!=.

What I mean here is that don't confuse size with the signature of a vehicle.
They are different concepts. They are based on the same unit of measure, but
have entirely different end results.

Further, in order to compensate for cost differences in weapon or system size,
use a sliding scale that increases cost for smaller components.

> At 12:27 AM +0100 4/6/02, Adam Benedict Canning wrote:

Thats another thing. If someone has a massively sized tank that is in reality
a tiny model, I start to get a bit annoyed at it's difference in board
signature.

> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 06:04:51PM +0200, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:

Notable fallacy: You're assuming that we're using the current Size definition.
In this case, we're definitely not. Size, in this sense, becomes an arbitrary
value. Replace it with Signature, if you so desire, and leave the physical
description of the beast out of it (as it might be anything from a 3ft long
tracked drone to a 30ft long tank, so long as its armour and weaponry match).

In fact, for that matter, ignore Stealth alltogether; it becomes just another
bit of fluff explaining why your 30ft long tank has the same
Signature as a 2-man Jeep.

Now its no longer an issue of efficiency, instead its simply a matter
of /describing the capability of the vehicle/, which was the whole
bloody point in the first place.  We don't /care/ how physically large
the thing is, that's meaningless information. All we care about is
the game-mechanical impact and capabilities.  Gundams are bloody
enormours upright walking beheamouths, but they have relatively low
Signatures because of Minovsky particle scattering.  Pure hand-wavium,
and mechanically, we don't care. All we care is about the Signature d6 rating.

> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:26:31PM +0200, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

But here you're back to a vehicle with the same stats having a different point
value simply because at some point in the past its hull was bigger. This is an
undesirable state, and thus, to be
avoided.  Further, it just doesn't /happen/ if you drop Size as a
computed value and just select a Signature value instead.

G'day,

> In fact, for that matter, ignore Stealth alltogether; it becomes just

I obviously don't speak for everyone (and I know Oerjan doesn't think kindly
of the rate of systems down in DS2), but I enjoy the idea that you may just
knock out that wazoo tech with you rock and make those uber tech guys the
large fat sitting ducks they really look like on the table;)

But then I think Ewoks and Jar Jar are cute and so obviously don't rate as
having taste worth a damn;)

> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 07:13:41PM +1000, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:

Whole different issue than the design system, Beth. If you want that
kind of ability, then we need to consider a different /damage/
system. It should very likely hinge on what the important things on the
vehicle are, and flexibility in choosing one. If you are required to come up
with a list of "vital points" for every design, and upon taking some kind of
"special hit" you or your opponant picks one to
degrade or destroy, you're 9/10ths of the way there.

Of course, they have to be constructable to cover kinds of platforms you
didn't consider in writing. The things you can destroy on a grav tank are
wholly different than those on an ATV, or even infantryman.

> Alexander Williams wrote:

> >If the signature cost is multiplicative instead of additive, it

What are you talking about?

You're the one who's saying that "its hull was bigger". I was talking about an
unarmed and unarmoured vehicle compared to an armed and armoured one
-
no mention of what size the two are.

> Further, it just doesn't /happen/ if you drop Size as a

I quote my above post: "If the signature cost is multiplicative instead of
additive,..." Please note the term "signature cost". The only way you can
possibly have a specific "signature cost" at all is if you select a Signature
value independent of the size of the vehicle.

In other words, you're first arguing that my way of doing it doesn't
work -
and then you suggest doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING that I was doing which

you just claimed doesn't work... make up your mind, OK?

Regards,

On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:55:20 -0500, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> At 4:36 PM -0500 4/5/02, John Crimmins wrote:

DSII *is* billed as a "Generic" SF game, and in fact it does include at least
a
few design concepts that don't fit into the default background at all --

Walkers and Modular vehicles.

As for the fluffiness, I'm "justifying" someone's else's off-the-cuff
example; don't expect Shakespeare....

It's just as easy to end the discussion, though, by pointing out that yes:
there *are* circumstances in which the actual size of the vehicle matters.
Maybe there's a rickety bridge that can only be crossed by vehicles of Size
Class Two or smaller. Or one side is deploying their tanks from dropships, and
more of the physically smaller tanks can be carried than the larger.

Of course, in both those cases the smaller vehicle is *more* valubled than the
bigger, making the point disparity even more silly.

> >But in any case, you are saying that Vehicle B should cost more

Nothing short of telepathy will fix that, and this is true of all miniatures
games.

Frankly, I think that I'm losing track of my point here...always a hazzard
with these discussions, no?

My feeling is this: the design system should be as open-ended as
possible, allowing the player to build whatever he likes...while forcing him
to pay enough points for that elaborate design to *roughly* balance his army
against a more convential force.

Is it going to perfect? Is anything? No...but by dumping capacity points,
along with the arbitary restrictions, the designer will have a lot more
options. If somebody wants to run basketball sized drones with the offensive
capabilities of an MBT, that's cool with me. Fits quite well into a lot of
backgrounds, too.

Actually, I think that the best option would be to make capacity, well,
optional. Offer a list of choices as to how much a given size of vehicle could
carry at different tech levels, provide a common basis for those who find such
things important.

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

Other questions on the size vs. signature debate:

Bridges and their MLC. Let's say I've got a crappy little wooden bridge, and a
highway bridge on the same table. Let's say that the wooden bridge is rated to
handle a 3 ton load, and the highway bridge is MLC 100. Let's say that I'm
defending this river. I've got basically 4 threats.

1)Air Assault.

2)Assault Boats.

3)Wooden Bridge.

4)Highway Bridge.

Now, with conventional forces, I know that the first three methods can only
use light forces. Any tanks have to roll over the highway bridge. So the
problem then becomes, can the defender project enough force over the river to
secure the crossing to push his tanks over?

If your Uberbicycles with the firepower of an MBT are in the equation, then
all of a sudden I have to worry about a blackhawk full of MBTs landing all
over the place, or driving across this rickety bridge, or troops putting their
Uberbikes on assault boats. Bad news, and if I don't know that he's got that
capability, then ALL the points balance in the world won't save me, especially
since with a scenario like that he's going to outpoint me considerably (unless
he is stupid).

Oh, and that does bring up the issue of air assault. How do you balance the
fact that a small, light vehicle is MUCH easier to stuff onto a
helicopter/VTOL/Shuttle and land in the wrong place?
Are you going to arbitrarily limit VTOL capacity by points? And how does that
interact with a vehicle that's really dirt cheap but big?

John just found another reason why I like the capacity system in DS2 pretty
much as is.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> Oh, and that does bring up the issue of air assault.

> At 10:24 AM -0500 4/6/02, Brian Bell wrote:

So do this. Modify the existing system such that if a vehicle has X unused
capacity points, you don't count it in the cost of the stealth system.
However, thats going to make it hard for you to have the size 1 HEL 5 isn't
it. How do you build the Posleen God King's personal Saucer that can take out
an M1 Abrams in the current system? You
can't. The scale/scope of the weapons design system doesn't go that
high.

Rather, than making the weapons variable in size. You need to make new weapons
that are uber generic and are smaller. But much costlier based on their size.

HVM - High Velocity Missile Launcher
Capacity 1, weapons effect size 4, cost 100 pts.

Bouncing Barbie Scatterable Mine -
draw 5 chits for mine detonation. Cost 200 per load.

Plasma bolt launcher Capacity 1, weapons size effect size 4, cost 120 pts.
> Inches and scale have no game effect. We could just have sticks a

The point I'm making here is that scale (size is a scale thingy) are useful
but have little effect on a game. Specifically when compared to weapon effects
and such. But it is still very useful to provide a base line for comparing
things.

I think you could arrive at the same place if you apply stealth to weapons in
and of themselves. That'd do the miniaturization that you are looking for.

> John Atkinson wrote:

Couldn't it be possible to pay for size the same way as everything else?
 A
larger size would have a negative cost or somesuch like that; such a size
class would be used only for the loadbearing/transport situations above.

G'day,

> Whole different issue than the design system, Beth.

Why? If you're trying to hide a soddingly huge tank with some device (that may
well go belly up mid battle if hit with an exceptional shot) why shouldn't
that be part of the design system?

> If you want that kind of ability, then we need to consider a different

The current damage system does a good job of representing it, though I do
think the frequency could be dropped a bit and the backup systems procedure
tweaked a bit.

> Of course, they have to be constructable to cover kinds of platforms

Assuming you have to go to that level of detail and its not just covered in a
more abstract way by "systems down" etc effects.

I like the idea that sometimes tech will unintentionally work against you
(e.g. the odd systems down). On the other hand when commanding that many
tanks/men etc I don't want to have to worry about whether it was the
left or right rear blinker that just fell off the 23rd tank from the rear on
the left flank;)

Cheers

> On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Michael Llaneza wrote:

> John just found another reason why I like the capacity system in DS2

Ya know, I find it interesting, Full Thrust uses what is essentially a
capacity (Mass) and points system to design starships, yet no one's
bitching about that.  ;-)  It's not perfect but it works pretty well.

As for capacity, you can miniaturize as much as you want, but at some point
you're just going to run out of room. So I feel the capacity (call it "Mass"
if you want) should remain in the design considerations. As for
miniaturization, that should come later, after a base has been determined for
various items, and probably be a reflection of tech levels (the same thing has
been discussed
periodically wrt Full Thrust weaponry - but boy, not to the extent
this thread has taken it! :-). But saying that's just beating a
defunct horse.

Anyway, it's been an interesting thread. Thanks. :-)  Gave me
some things to think about (and confirmed some other things
I've been doing :-).

Mk

> John Atkinson wrote:

Yeah, the DS2 system needs some work, but so much that it needs to be scrapped
altogether.

Some of the real world examples depend on assumptions. One big one is the
Ontos, with its six recoiless rifles. That's way too many to fit on a small
vehicle. Looked at another way, the Ontos has just one weapon system and maybe
giving it a single SLAM is more accurate (my copy of DS2 is hiding right now
or I'd run out the stats). The SLAM is much closer to how the Ontos was
actually used, so it is more accurate to rate it that way.

Any other vehicles that DS2 can't build?

> Brian Bell wrote:

> We don't complain about the mass and points system in FT because there

We don't complain about the mass and points system in FT because there are no
real life examples of combat starships (at least none that those of us without
clearance ratings are told about), so we can't complain that "the
NASA Space BB Can mount 10 Class-2 Beams in a mass 30 craft, but we
can't do that in FT".

In DS2, we cannot build some of the vehicles in use today due to the capacity
system. This is a scifi game, so we should assume that systems would be
smaller, so should be able to fit more equipment not less.

-Bri

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

> Michael Llaneza wrote:

> Yeah, the DS2 system needs some work, but so much that it needs to be

Yep :-/

> Some of the real world examples depend on assumptions. One big one is

Some examples:

- Merkava
- CV90120
- Any vehicle which is protected against rifle fire all around but
doesn't have heavier protection to its front
- Any gun/mortar system

In fact pretty much no existing tank can be realistically represented using
the DS2 design system thanks to their armour distributions. Where DS2 gives
a size/3 vehicle armour 3/2/2 for front/sides/top, real-world tanks have

something more like 8/2/1 :-/

'Course, if we go into the SciFi realm we have stuff like the Posleen
vehicles, Renegade Legion's aerospace-capable grav tanks, mid-sized
mechs... <g>

Later,

I think that capacity points are good. I like the way they seem to fit at the
moment. I can simulate most modern vehicles with capacity points reasonably
well.

Andrew Martin
ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/
-><-

[quoted original message omitted]

> Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:37:25 -0800 (PST)

Or skim straight over the river with those big Soviet Hovercraft and roll the
tanks straight off.

> If your Uberbicycles with the firepower of an MBT are

Which is why the first rule in the Silhoette VCS is vehicle stats should be
limited by common sense as to what is approriate for the setting.

Thus no tanks with contiuous fire laser weapons in HG and all the tanks in
Gear Krieg having Large sensor profile and ineffiecient controls.

Does cause some problems with the munchkin tendancy.

> Oh, and that does bring up the issue of air assault.

Silhouette does it by having a default size based on what the vehicles
carrying and making you pay [if your paying money rather than points value
points] to reduce its size. Thus a tank the size of a heavy motorbike will
cost 7 or 8 times what the tank would at normal size.
[Actually silhouette says you can't shrink a vehicle to that degree.
one fifth the size [which works out at one tenth the weight is the
limit.]]

> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:35:29AM +0100, Adam Benedict Canning wrote:

Actually, Actually, that limit only applies to the Heavy Gear universe; Jovian
Chronicles has a different set of "setting norms," and Silhouette, the engine,
itself, doesn't care one tiny fig.

THAT, at core, I think, is at the heart of much of this needed overhaul. The
mechanics don't care about setting, just describing effect. Settings are
better handled through "social means;" essentially setting limits and
enforcing them by saying, "Hey, that's
beyond the pale and it doesn't even have the excuse of being a one-off
prototype vehicle!"  Those only work on a per-setting basis, because
anything else codes expectations into the mechanics, which limits expression.
Like cutting the word "orange" out of language, you remove expressiveness.

If I want to put a group of medium and small mecha up against X's
deathcannon-armed jeeps, and the effectiveness /in general/ is equal,
the points should be (roughly) equal as well. Yes, if the terrain is all rough
I'll have the advantage, and if its all concrete, he will, but those are
things mechanics cannot (and, in my opinion, by
extension, /should not/) address in terms of points.

for those that are intrested and havnt seen it before the HG construction
system is available on line at

http://www.dp9.com/Funhouse/Aids_HG.htm

Worth a look but is fairly involved. Also not sure what version it is, there

--- Adam Benedict Canning
> <dahak@dahak.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> > over the river to secure the crossing to push his

Or fly over it with grav tanks--in which case I can
still plan for it because it's part of the setting.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> >Or skim straight over the river with those big

So why are you worrying about ûber-bikes crossing the wooden bridge? If

they're not part of the setting, you don't have to worry about them either...

...and if you and your opponent haven't agreed on any specific setting
beforehand, he might well take grav tanks to a battle where you only expected
to meet tracked and wheeled vehicles, causing you even more
problems than the ûber-bikes would.

Later,

> Michael Llaneza wrote:

Lots of real vehicles have too many MGs to be legal (I'm assuming the
'free' APSW is a pintle mounted weapon only, so the co-ax has to be paid
for). I can offer the following perfect example off the top of my head (mostly
WW2 since my knowledge of that is better than more recent vehicles):

Soviet T35 tank (1 76mm gun, 2 45mm, 5-6 MGs)

Others which are a bit subjective, depending on your view of size classes:

Panzer I (two MGs on a class-1 vehicle)
Any very small (ie class-1) tank with a main gun and co-ax MG
British A9 cruiser (2-pdr, co-ax MG, two independent turreted MG -
probably a class-3 vehicle)
M3 Lee (37mm, 75mm, co-ax MG, turreted MG, bow MG - probably class-3
possibly -4)
M8 Greyhound (37mm, co-ax MG, AA HMG - class-1 maybe -2)
etc.

and the following from popular SF:

AT-ST 'Chicken Walker' from RotJ (at least 3 separate weapons systems on
a class-1 walker)

There are others that would be illegal on the 'no weapons system greater
than vehicle size+1' rule, depending on how you rate vehicle sizes (IMHO
the Ontos would only be a class-1, but a SLAM has a minimum size class
of 3). A few examples (my opinion only, of course):

PzI with 15cm sIG33 Infantry gun (heavy artillery (class-6 weapon) on a
class-1 vehicle !)
Several other small German SPGs which mounted the 15cm sIG or 15cm sFH weapons
Any vehicle smaller than class-5 mounting a heavy artillery piece (eg
M-12 or M-40)

Tony Francis schrieb:
> > Any other vehicles that DS2 can't build ?

I don't think is stated explicitly in the rules. I always assumed it could be
any type of MG.

> I can offer the following perfect example off the

I don't think this saw operational use, did it?

But yes, something along those lines should be made legal. Certainly, limits
on small weapons should be less stringent than on large ones.

> There are others that would be illegal on the 'no weapons

As others said, the SLAM lower limt is not too convincing, either.

> A few examples (my opinion only, of course) :

Yes, Apart from the question whether it should not perahps be a class 5 weapon
or smaller. There were eaven heavier guns.

> Several other small German SPGs which mounted the 15cm

Generally thought of as unbalanced, underpowered, and prone to breakdowns.
Something like that should have serious penalties to its mobility.
Or define it as a "stealthed" class 5 vehicle ;-)

> Any vehicle smaller than class-5 mounting a heavy

Or even the various (mostly modern) artillery pieces with an auxiliary engine.

Greetings

> At 8:17 PM -0800 4/6/02, Michael Llaneza wrote:

The trick with the ontos is that the game doesn't represent single shot
weapons too well. The Ontos had 6 106mm Recoiless Rifles. All are single shot
and you had to dismount from the vehicle to reload. Combat tactics were to
move to a firing position, fire as much as you had, back up to defilade and
reload then do it all again. The trick here is that you can fire one or all 6
in rapid succession. I think the loading cycle for the Ontos was about a
minute or 3 depending on the crew.

> At 1:03 PM +0200 4/8/02, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

So when it's stealth systems go down, does it pop out to normal size?

> > Any vehicle smaller than class-5 mounting a heavy

these work as artillery due to the fact that the couldn't carry hardly any
ready use rounds onboard. The US 203mm SPG was a tracked chassis with a gun.
Ammo was carried in another vehicle. Most of the gun crew was as well. These
guys should work as a limited Class 4
vehicle by not having a single fire-missions ammo on board.

> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
...
> > Soviet T35 tank (1 76mm gun, 2 45mm, 5-6 MGs)

Both this monster and the T28 saw limited operational
use in the initial German offensive.   I have read
accounts of the Germans finding abandoned T-35 and
T-28 tanks that had broken down.   Combat usage?

On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 11:01:24 +0100 Tony Francis <tony.francis@kuju.com>
writes: <snip>
> Lots of real vehicles have too many MGs to be legal (I'm assuming the

I thought DS2 referred to it as turreted, will check...

<snip>
> There are others that would be illegal on the 'no weapons system

Which is a *recommended* rule, not mandatory, even if 'highly recommended'...

Gracias,

Yes it does. Another difference between DS2 and Stargrunt.

[quoted original message omitted]