> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> Hmm. The thing I'm trying to hit here is the ability to get a large,
But if the final means of guaging is correct, then the points are all you
need.....
> If I take a given vehicle that is size 2, and armor 1 and then add
True, but you say yourself, WITHOUT CHANGING ANYTHING ELSE. If you're
willing to then pay what it takes (Money IRL sure, but more importantly points
in the game) to give it a more powerful engine, you can still get
speed.
Its the whole basic equation with armored fighting vehicles.
> Firepower vs speed vs protection.
And if Armor, firepower, and speed are all assigned values in the points
equation that accurately reflect their place in the design, you can recreate
that same dilemma in a point system without ever bringing "capacity" into the
fray.
This is something that comes up
> for
The SAME engine. Give it a bigger engine, it speeds up again, no? My point
was, whether you say that the armor gets heavier and thus the engine needed to
carry it at a given speed goes up in cost, or that the armor gets lighter and
thus stronger without a decrease in speed, but is pricier armor, the
equation that counts in the end is that X armor at Y speed should cost Z
points.
> A Merkava is armored more than an Abrams or a Leopard. It is slower.
I don't recall mentioning scrip either. Just game effect and relative point
cost.
> Remember, the original reason for this whole exercise was to provide
And my point was, if you make the point system accurate, which was the
original proposal, you don't need capacity to do it - just the right
point formula (AKA "Holy Grail").
3B^2
> At 2:00 PM -0800 4/3/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Good luck. Points systems are hard.
> If I take a given vehicle that is size 2, and armor 1 and then add
But your weight should change as well. I think it s a question of which cause
comes first. I personally think the cost factor should be the last end result.
> Its the whole basic equation with armored fighting vehicles.
And Weight. Weight needs to factor in as well as that bears in on special
situations like cargo and drop ships when trying to tie it all in with FT.
Course this is entirely ommitted from the system.
> The SAME engine. Give it a bigger engine, it speeds up again, no?
But your weight should have gone up with the increased armor and engine. If I
put a bigger engine in the thing, that should go up too should it not?
> A Merkava is armored more than an Abrams or a Leopard. It is slower.
Dollars/Shekels/Marks = pts cost does it not?
> And my point was, if you make the point system accurate, which was
But you're still tied to all tracked vehicles go slow or fast. Its lacking a
certain fuzzy nature. Heavier armored vehicles should be slower that lighter
armored vehicles unless you put a bigger engine
in it. I'm looking for the _er_ part here.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
I said it was ideal, not easy. ;-)
> But your weight should change as well. I think it s a question of
Which is the only result that matters in game terms.
> And Weight. Weight needs to factor in as well as that bears in on
Go back to my first post, you'll see that I did note that cargo carrying was
the one area in which weight/capacity would still matter (OK, and
bridges). THAT capacity should reflect both volume and mass, especially mass.
> But your weight should have gone up with the increased armor and
Yes, it should, you are correct. But if the new engine increases the power
enough to increase the speed, the desired effect is reached. That engine
should thus cost more. But if we merely eliminate the middle man and calxulate
how much the POINTS cost should be for a vehicle of given armor to
go a given speed, we have all the information we need _*in game terms*_.
> A Merkava is armored more than an Abrams or a Leopard. It is slower.
No. Dollars etc. reflect how much it costs IN REAL LIFE. Points reflects it's
effectiveness in game play. Totally separate issues.
> But you're still tied to all tracked vehicles go slow or fast.
No, you're not. If the point systems factors vehicle speed into the points
equation, you can design a vehicle of any armor/firepower, capable of
any speed, and be able to calculate how many points such a vehicle should
cost. A simplistic example:
Say the armor and weaponry for a given vehicle(called AW for the example) cost
20 points in our imaginary system. If you do somehting as simple as
multiplying this number by it's speed, you get:
A vehicle of X AW with a speed of 1 would cost 20 points. A vehicle of X AW
with a speed of 2 would cost 40 points. A vehicle of X AW with a speed of 3
would cost 60 points.
Granted, this is an example and is not my proposal for the exact points method
(Though it is on the right track). But it shows my point.
Its
> lacking a certain fuzzy nature. Heavier armored vehicles should be
Agreed, But if you reflect that heavier engine by making it cost more points,
you don't need to actually calculate how much heavier. In game
terms, for a given vehicle to have a given armor/speed combo, you can
describe it as heavier armor and a more powerful engine. You can describe
it as quantum-aligned hyperceramic armor, infused with magical essence
and blessed by all the gods of the 17 realms. As long as said vehicle costs
the same amount of points no matter which description applies, I'm happy.
3B^2
> At 2:59 PM -0800 4/3/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Granted. I've just wrestled with it when trying to figure out how much an NAC
Assault ship could carry.
> Yes, it should, you are correct. But if the new engine increases
Granted. I'm just wanting to put the cost at the end and include the weight
calculation in there as well.
> No. Dollars etc. reflect how much it costs IN REAL LIFE. Points
But easily extrapolated. You could include a tech/economy factor for
each race/nation. x.8 for NAC, x1.2 for ESU, x1 for NSL, x2 for IF,
etc.
> But you're still tied to all tracked vehicles go slow or fast.
Ahh, but this deviates significantly from the old system. I'm trying to make a
slight change without really making a new system that bears a resemblance to
the system used to make Mechs in Battletech.
> Agreed, But if you reflect that heavier engine by making it cost
Yeah, but that blessing has to cost extra.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> Go back to my first post, you'll see that I did note that cargo
Again, I suggest that each vehicle be given a number of cargo "slots" required
to carry it's mass. Then you just use this number to modify it's overall cost
(A bulky vehicle should be cheaper than one that takes up less space, at least
in any scenario that requires it's delivery via another unit).
> Yes, it should, you are correct. But if the new engine increases
If you want to, go for it. But barring transport considerations, it shouldn't
weigh in on the cost of the vehicle.
> No. Dollars etc. reflect how much it costs IN REAL LIFE. Points
Granted back atcha. conversion system may vary per setting.
> Ahh, but this deviates significantly from the old system.
IF it needs it,.....
I'm trying
> to make a slight change without really making a new system that bears
Actually a pure points system would be diametrically opposite the Battletech
system, which never got it's "Optional" points sytem down right. Everything
was all about weight/critical spaces. Thus you could have a regular
mech like the Marauder, and a clan Madcat, same weight, but the madcat, unless
piloted by Pauly Shore, will had the MAD-5 it's arse 9 out of 10. The
lack of a balanced point system was one of the reasons I fled Fasaland.
> Yeah, but that blessing has to cost extra.
Only if it'll help you extra. ;-)
3B^2
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 06:37:56PM -0500, Ryan M Gill wrote:
Maybe I have the disadvantage of having access to /too many/ systems,
but I think the philosophy behind Heavy Gear's construction system is worth
bringing up here:
In short, you pay for the end speed. You pay for the armour value. And how
much armour you have on the unit has no effect on how much buying X speed
goes. The thinking being that the speed of the vehicle
provides it with in-game benefits in and of itself, as does the
armour, but the point system is not meant as a measure of "how close
to reality" the design is, but /soley/ as a measure of how effective
the in game vehicle is. Thus, in terms of pure speed, a Merakava and
an infantry off-road 4-wheeler may very well have the same cost for
speed (assuming they're roughly the same; substitute examples as necessary to
fit), but the tank is going to be far, far more expensive once armour and
armament are paid for in points.
In my mind, this is really all I care about in terms of construction systems.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> Alexander Williams wrote:
> Maybe I have the disadvantage of having access to /too many/ systems,
> In my mind, this is really all I care about in terms of construction
This is very close to the type of system I envision, the only change being
that I believe certain issues, particularly speed, should be a point
multiplier, not merely additional points.
3B^2
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:31:12AM -0800, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Of course, if you really want this, there's a semi-simple solution:
Go out and buy the _Jovian Chronicles Companion_ from Dream Pod 9.
Therein is everything you'll ever need for constructing everything
from ankle-high robots to world-smashing death-robots, and anything in
between. Construct away. Figure out how to consistantly convert the
resulting unit description back to DS2/SG2. Voila, solution.
Of course this kind of thread pops up when I'm away from the computer for a
day or two... fortunately Brian B2 has already said most of what I would've
said :-)
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> No. Dollars etc. reflect how much it costs IN REAL LIFE. Points
No, the monetary cost is *not* easily extrapolated from the combat
effectiveness. It is in fact almost impossible to extrapolate the monetary
cost of a weapon from its combat effectiveness and vice versa.
Let's take an extremely exaggerated example: build an M1A2 Abrams, but
replace all steel with gold and/or platinum. Will the golden tank be
more expensive than a normal one? Hell yes! Will it be more effective in
combat
than the normal tank? Hell no - not with a gun that can't fire without
bursting, tracks that don't survive any wear and tear, and armour which is too
soft to stop a serious threat...
You don't need examples this extreme, of course. There are plenty examples
where two weapon systems are designed to do the same thing but one is both
cheaper and more combat effective than the other.
[snip]
> Ahh, but this deviates significantly from the old system. I'm trying
In that case, I'm afraid that you're bound to fail. The DS2 design system
has too many problem areas for a slight change to solve them - it needs
to
be re-worked from the bottom up.
Regards,
> Alexander Williams wrote:
> Of course, if you really want this, there's a semi-simple solution:
Assuming, of course, that weapons range/damage, armor capabitlity, etc.
is easily translated between systems. I'd rather actually see DS3 with a
working points only system.
3B^2
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:58:57AM -0800, Brian Bilderback wrote:
> working points only system.
Well, that's sort of my ironic point: the JC system is wonderful and
flexible and does /everything/ you want in a design system ... but the
results, by necessity, are much more detailed and complex than DS2
elements /ever/ are.
To fix DS2's construction system, one of its underlying axioms will have to
change. EITHER it'll need to give up pretense of limiting the technology
represented to a certain "sweet spot" region, which grows out of trying to
represent both utility and "monetary value" at the same time, OR it'll have to
stop billing itself as a generic SF game and tie itself more tightly to the
setting as given in the books in order to justify its element costing.
Maybe in my setting I /do/ want giant robots which can dodge incoming
fire and use massive energy swords to fight with. Maybe I want
3-wheeled motorcycles with energy shields that can deflect orbital
bombards and thirty rotary cannon. Maybe I want a tank that can carry a
Century into battle, but thanks to ECM and stealth has only a tiny targeting
signature. In order to represent such a broad spectrum of
elements, you /have/ to give up any pretense of costing based on
"monetary investment" and limits based on, well, anything, and just figure up
"utility values."
On Friday, April 05, 2002 9:15 AM, Daryl Lonnon [SMTP:dlonnon@frii.com] wrote:
> So the Fluff design system would look (it's been awhile since I've
A meaningful comment! This is worth replying to.
I think one of the strengths of the DS/SG vehicle construction is the
Capacity Point system. Just like real life, you have to make tradeoffs between
what you want and what you can actually get. The only problem at the moment,
is that the combat capabilities are undercosted in points for balancing your
forces.
For firecons, make the points cost logarithmic instead of linear, which pushes
down the cost effectiveness on the game table of Superior Firecons and other
minor tweaks like that should address some issues without a major rewrite.
***
A random though regarding armour...
If we push the capacity of vehicles to 10 x size class, and make every facing
of armour cost capacity (including top and bottom).
Eg1: Size 4 MBT Capacity = 40 Armour: 19 capacity
Front 4 / Sides 3 / Rear 3 / Top 3 / Bottom 3
Which leaves 21 capacity for weapons etc, making it very close to current.
Eg2:
Size 2 Half-track
Capacity = 20 Armour: 8 capacity
Front 2 / Sides 2 / Rear 1 / Top 0 / Bottom 1
Which leaves 12 capacity for troops spaces or medium artillery (and is an open
topped vehicle!)
***
> Brendan Robertson wrote:
> I think one of the strengths of the DS/SG vehicle construction is the
The problem is those small words "Just like real life". The tradeoffs in
the DS2 system are very firmly tied to the game background - which is
effectively David Drake's Vietnam War experience with some high-tech
gadgets slapped on. If you want to play in another background, the design
system doesn't work - which is why high-tech forces in DS2 tend get
crushed
by (far) more numerous low-tech enemies.
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again: from what I know of the
weapon and other systems under development today, DS2 is probably the best
game for armoured warfare in the 2010-2020 AD period that we have on the
market today. Trouble is, that's pretty much the *only* background the DS2
vehicle design system works for... so unless you dump the vehicle design
system, the game is not a generic SciFi ground combat game.
> A random though regarding armour...
This has a certain kind of resemblance to the ideas Brian Bilderback, Beth
and I discussed here a year or two ago ;-)
("The name of the certain kind of resemblance that it bears, is 'identity'."
Kudos to those who identify this quote <g>)
Regards,