[DS] Points system (fresh)

G'day,

It's always dangerous to ask such questions, but just out of curiosity....

All caveats etc aside, what would you like to see in a DS points system (i.e.
it doesn't have to resemble the existing one)?

Cheers

Beth asked:
> All caveats etc aside, what would you like to see in a DS points

I'd like to see points cost based directly on dice size. For example, damage
of D4 costs, say, 4 points, damage D12 costs 12 points.

I don't mind a modifier or multiplier for each category. For example, damage
D6 costing 6 points, movement D6 costing 6 * 0.5 = 3 points and range 12"
costing 12 * 1.5 points = 18 points (or whatever).

I'd like to see Speed/Mobility, Firepower and Armour be a tradeoff,
pulling in three different directions.

I'd like to see open-topped as modifier that reduces a vehicle's cost
(perhaps by half?), and NBC sealed as a cost multiplier (perhaps times
two?).

It should be possible to create the weapon systems from Damage, Range and
Type, with a modifier for area effect or indirect.

Ideally, it would be nice if the new DS points system was compatible with SG
as well. It would also be nice for capacity to remain at one soldier = one
capacity point, as this allows a reasonable standard for converting real world
vehicles like APCs into DS.

If possible, I'd like Speed to be expressed in FMA dice range of D4 through
D12, instead of inches or MUs. This way, one can play DS by stating that
vehicles being moved by the player are in motion, the other vehicles are
stopped. This then leads to the elimination of measuring for movement at
least.

Feel free to grab anything that looks good from my site.

And a couple of other things, I had forgotten:

There should be no difference between infantry and vehicle mounted weapon
systems in points cost. The worst example in DS2 currently is APSW that's 4
points on a vehicle and 20 points, IIRC, carried by an infantry team.

A vehicle crew should be a cost like an infantry specialist team, and can be
separated from their vehicle, for example, ejected from Aerospace, or by
abandoning vehicle.

Crew should be designed into the system as points and capacity cost. For
example, a Driver allows moving the vehicle, Gunner allows firing of main
weapon, Commander allows coordination with other vehicles in the unit. Loader
or autoloader should be a points and capacity cost as well for those
weapons that require it. R/T operator should be there as well for low
tech games, allowing for coordination of the unit with other units.
Alternatively a points cost for Computers, Communications, and so on, so that
the vehicle crew can coordinate with each other, the other vehicles in the
unit, and with other units.

Also, if several weapons are mounted on the same vehicle, there should be
provision for more gunner crew, like the British tanks in WWI, which I believe
had crew for each gun.

> --- Andrew Martin <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> I'd like to see open-topped as modifier that reduces

By half? I doubt that is realistic. You've got a
pretty marginal weight/cost saving for eliminating
that portion of armor.

And NBC sealing should be assumed of any fully-armored
modern combat vehicle.

> --- Andrew Martin <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

Actually, 10.

> Also, if several weapons are mounted on the same

Sure. Mk VIIIs used to have 11 crewmen and be commanded by an LT (at least in
US service). But that's getting rather silly (WH40K, anyone?)

> Andrew Martin wrote:

> John wrote:

I'd like to be able to simulate things like half-tracks in WW2, which I
believe the Germans made open-topped to save money, which is like points
cost. As to what a suitable modifier would be, I don't know yet what it should
be.

> And NBC sealing should be assumed of any fully-armored modern combat

Again, I'm thinking of WW2 vehicles here, not just Modern or near future, or
SF.

> It's always dangerous to ask such questions, but just out of

Well, most everyone else has fallen off the point system request and just gone
into general DSII wishlist, so here's a few of mine for the record (and we can
then scoop all these up and put them
on the test list later ;-)

* More options for movement. EG, right now there is "Slow Tracked" and "Fast
Tracked"; what about "Medium Tracked"?

* More expanse to the firecon stuff. Right now we have "Basic", "Enhanced",
and "Superior". What about "Primitive"? (1d4). Or "Advanced" (1d12) (could
switch "Advanced" and "Superior", but some might confuse "Advanced" and
"Enhanced" then). I'd also like to see more games in which not every bloody
tank on the field had "Superior" firecon, but rather "Enhanced" or "Basic"
(yes, it is all relative, so you can "dumb down" firecons for certain
scenarios in which you want to introduce an even better firecon for some
units, but still, most people I know who played DS always use "Superior"
firecon if at all possible; like to see that reduced somewhat)

* Continuing firecon stuff, the ability to engage multiple targets if your
vehicle weaponry permits (say you have a tank with two independent weapons).
The second should be engaged
at a penalty to prevent over-cheesing of units, though, but
it would be a nice feature to adopt.

* Several things already mentioned, such as Stealth better quantified and
balanced, and armor costs.

That's it for now. Note, these only peripherally touch on
the point system. And don't really answer what you asked. :-/

G'day,

> I'd like to be able to simulate things like half-tracks in

A DS points system will have to reflect in game value which won't always match
build costs.

Cheers

G'day,

> Well, most everyone else has fallen off the point system request

That was my "cunning plan";)

> That's it for now. Note, these only peripherally touch on

You'd be surprised actually;)

Cheers

> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:

> G'day,

Funny. I was thinking the same thing as soon as the DSII threads
started up again.  ;-)

> > That's it for now. Note, these only peripherally touch on

Damned sneaky females...

> At 6:07 PM -0800 4/3/02, John Atkinson wrote:

Is that Merkava going to require a gunner for every MG, 60mm mortar and that
main gun plus commander and driver? I hope not.

The arrangement of the crew in the Grants and in the Early mark churchills
keeps with this, but there is a difference between a Grant and a Merkava. The
system better be flexible. Not that 2 main weapons in anything modern makes
much sense....

Ok, this is interesting, but we need to make clear something that has been
mentioned before, but is relevant again to this current discussion.

For DS, there are at least three different ways of looking at a points
system - specifically for what the points system is trying to achieve.

Is a points system:

a) to represent the relative combat strength/ability vs. other
vehicles/units, in ONE PARTICULAR battle (ie the one we're playing
*today*,
right now);

b) to represent the "real life" cost of creating that vehicle;

c) to represent the relative combat strength/ability vs. other
vehicles/units, in a CAMPAIGN, where strategic movement, supply,
maintenance, etc. are taken into account.

These are all *very different*.

As Oerjan has pointed out before, the current DS points system was designed
to try to get a balance of forces for the "a)" situation above - one
battle only.

For example (I think Oerjan's), a fast grav vehicle (skimming mode) vs. a fast
wheeled vehicle over clear terrain might have the same movement in single
battle terms (and so cost the same re movement), but if the grav
vehicle can self-deploy cross-continentally but the wheeled vehicle
needs to be shipped, then the grav vehicle would cost far more in "c)" terms.
And almost certainly cost far more in "b)" terms also.

So while we're trying to come up with suggestions and people keep making
"game play cost" vs. "financial cost" points - we should get a clearer
statement of terms.

> From looking at the replies so far, what most people are talking about

> From that point of view, whether or not a vehicle is more expensive
each other... The open topped vehicle is not going to offer as much
protection to the crew, thus will be easier to mission-kill, thus should
cost less.  Half as much?  I don't have any idea if an open-topped
vehicle
is half as survivable as a close-topped vehicle...???  Certainly it
should be a *lot* easier to mission kill an open topped vehicle with any given
weapon system. For example, if I were a really good shot, I could
mission-kill a jeep that mounts a .50 HMG using only a slingshot (take
out
the crew).  I could not achieve this at all against a light armoured-car
with a.50 in a powered cupola. Or against Mr.T's van, for that matter... Might
scuff the paint, or break a window, but that's about it...

Of course, the light armoured-car with the powered cupola, having the
same movement capability as Mr.T's van (hey, he was good with that thing), and
mounting the same weaponry and stereo equipment, should nevertheless cost FAR
more in both economic terms (dollar value) and campaign terms (long term
survivability, long term military utility, etc)...

<pause>

Well, maybe Mr.T's van is a bad example. It was clearly indestructible...

> Andrew Martin wrote:

***************************************

> Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:

IMHO the points system should be balanced for one-off battles, since
that's what most people will use the points system for. Campaign /
strategic value shouldn't come into it (although it should be possible
to build a 'campaign supplement' into the system - eg Grav mobility
costs +50% when calculating points for campaign settings).

I'm all for dumping the capacity points idea. Just have a big shopping list of
weapons, systems, armour, movement capabilities etc and select from these. The
points value of your vehicle is the sum of the parts.

Dump bits that don't matter to gameplay such as engine types. Just assume that
the right sort of engine has been fitted to the vehicle to accomodate the
weapons and systems that the vehicle has. The extra cost of a more advanced
engine type would be built into the cost of the weapin or system that uses it.

Since there's no concept of capacity any more, the idea of vehicle size
classes also goes out of the window. Signature (and stealth) should be a fixed
points value just like any other system. Troop and cargo capacity also becomes
another system to be purchased.

Remove all the artificial restrictions such as the limit on maximum number of
weapons, not allowing all walker sizes etc. I'm sure we can all come up with
examples of vehicles, fictional and real, that break these restrictions. This
is SF, anything should be possible!

Expand the troop qualities to cover the five levels in SG2. It would be great
if a formula could be found for costing this within the points system,
although I realise that would be difficult to balance.

Tony Francis schrieb:
> Since there's no concept of capacity any more, the idea
Troop and
> cargo capacity also becomes another system to be purchased.

> sure we can all come up with examples of vehicles, fictional and

Don't really agree here. Dirtside is designed as a (reasonably) "hard SF"
game. So there should be some logic to possible combinations of vehicle size,
performance and equipment. I don't want motorcycles carrying humongous
superguns.

Whether the present restrictions might need revising is a different matter.

Greetings

> KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

OK, I'll concede that one :-) DS2 isn't WH40K, for which we can all be
thankful!

Nevertheless, under the present design restrictions it's impossible to
legally design a huge number of historical or film / TV / book SF
vehicles.

> Whether the present restrictions might need revising is a different

:-)

OK (you asked for it)...

I agree with Adrian, there should be 2 point systems: Tactical and Strategic.
Tactiacl would be for individual battles. Strategic would take into
consideration required tech, time to build, cost, transport, maintenance, unit
speed, etc.

Tactiacl:

Size: Size should be kept. It provides for a base to the targeting signature
and capacity. Size itself should not have a cost.

Movement: Points based on movement. Movement does not provide any combat
advantage (until you get to 15" and can do evasive maneuvers), so it should
not have a multiplying cost. Various movement types should have a multiplier
(hand-wave example: tracks are 1.0, GEV 0.8, Wheeled 0.7, Grav 1.2,
Amphibious 1.1, VTOL 2.0, Aerospace 3.0, etc.)

Signature: Signature value should be based on the die type and include such
things as stealth. Signature should be based on size and anything that
increases the signature die should cost capacity.

Armor: Armor should have a set value. It should take capacity.

ECM/PDS: Each of these should have a set value. Both should take
capacity.
Then ECM/PDS should be averaged with Armor to get a protection value.

Protection: The protection value should be the sum of 2 values: 1) Armor
multiplied by signature value 2) Armor mutiplied by the ECM/PDS value.

FCS: FCS should take capacity. It be a multiplier (based on the die type) with
Strength and Chit Validity.

Fire Power: FP point cost should be a sum of FCS Value * Strength Value
*
Chit Validity Value * Range Value for each of the 3 ranges (if only 1 range,
multiply the FCS Value * Strength Value * Chit Validity Value * Range Value *
3). Capacity should be based of the final value of FP. Indirect should have an
additional multiplier. Area effect should have an additional multiplier.

Strength: The basic strength of a gun (class) should have a set value.

Chit Validity: Each chit validity (or die type) should have a set value.

Range: Range should be a value based on actual range of a given range band.

Special abilities (bridge-laying, artillery designation, area air
defense, command and control, etc. should have set costs and capacity).

Capacity: In additon to the above, cargo/passenger capacity should add
to the point costs.

Strategic: Strategic value takes the Tactical point costs and applies
multipliers.

Tech: Tech levels can have a number of effects.
 - Capacity: A high tech level could provide miniaturization and
increase the maximum capacity for a given vehicle size. This should have a set
value for the GZG universe, but be variable for alien species and other
universes.
 - FP Limits: Tech level could limit FP values or kinds of weapons.
(i.e.
cannot field strength 5 double all validity 60" range weapons).
 - Movement: Example: not having Grav drives.

Carrying Capacity: This size and number of vehicles that can be carried.

Drop Capacity: (can a vehicle be dropped from)
 - Space
 - Air

Bell, Brian K (Contractor) schrieb:
> Movement: Points based on movement. Movement does not

> maneuvers), so it should not have a multiplying cost.

Don't quite see this. Movement speed does not directly affect the chance of
getting hit. But there are indirect effect. High speed makes
it easier to get into/out of range, into/out of cover etc. So shouldn't
high speed movement be more expensive than slow movement?

> Various movement types

Aren't you contradicting your self here? IIRC, there is no direct combat
effect for most mobility types, either.

Greetings

Tony Francis schrieb:
> > Whether the present restrictions might need revising is

Yes, I don't see the reason for the walker size restrictions, nor for
mounting and firing multiple weapons. Just make sure that multi-weapons
don't become overwelming, compared to simpler vehicles.

Greetings

[quoted original message omitted]

Beth Fulton

> All caveats etc aside, what would you like to see in a DS points system

A formula in which all points for offensive capability are added together,
points for defensive systems and armor are added together, both points totals
multiply each other, the whole is multiplied by a number based on

speed and mobility type, and all of that is modified (Porbably divided) by a
number based on the vehicle's effective signature.

A reasonable way to keep multiple firings down is that a crew member has to
fire the weapon. If you want to fire two, you need two dedicated gunners. You
want to fire 10, you need 10 gunners. If crew space is incorporated as a
factor, then the ability to fire multiple weapons can be bought for a price.
This does not prohibit a vehicle from mounting more systems than it can fire
in one turn.

What if you wanted to fire 2 APSW as a linked system? Then allow the
weapons to be purchased as grouped modules - i.e. these 4 APSW fire as
one system, which can only fire at one target (similar to a Maxton mount with
the 4.50 MG's)

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----

> At 2:00 PM +0100 4/4/02, Tony Francis wrote:

Which is where common sense and forethought are required in designing a
vehicle. Look at real designs and go from there.

The ontos had 6 single shot exterior loaded weapons. Far outside the scope of
the design system.

You can put a small cannon (25mm or 30mm) on something the size of a Daimler
ferret, but it tends to make it roll over if fired off to the side. This fits
in the gaming system but doesn't work in real life.

The Mekava and Churchill are out as they are similar in the respect of having
multiple types of weapons and more than their size class
would allow. Main Gun, Coax MG, Pintle MG, 60mm Mortar/2" Bomb
thrower, Additional MG, etc.

> --- Tony Francis <tony.francis@kuju.com> wrote:

> Nevertheless, under the present design restrictions

Which requirement? The only one I routinely ignore is the # of weapons not
exceeding size class.

Mostly because I'm getting rather Israeli[1] about my machine guns.

Good.

Three of the things missing from DS2 are one-shot, externally mounted,
and externally loaded weapons. Externally mounted weapons should be more
easily damaged (treat 0 chits as weapons system down?). Externally loaded
systems should have to spend a turn immobile to reload the weapon system
(treat 0
and system down chits as booms -- loader is killed, so vehicle is
mission killed). These should take less capacity and have lower cost.

Multiple weapons is something that will probably have to be readdressed
(seeing modern vehicles mounting more weapons).
 - Seperate anti-personnel weapons from heavy weapons for the
restriction limit. So a size 3 vehicle could have 3 heavy weapons and 3 AP
systems.
 - Allow a shift from heavy to AP so a size 3 vehicle could sacrifice 2
heavy weapons to have 5 AP systems.
 - Allow multiple weapons to fire in the same activation, but require
additional capacity for additional FCS. I would suggest that additional FCS be
bought at a premimum (higher than noraml cost). The big problem with having
multiple weapons fire in the same turn is that you tend toward hedgehogs
(vehicles with guns pointing out of every inch of the vehicle), especially if
you remove the capacity limit.

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

[quoted original message omitted]

> Andrew Martin wrote:

> All caveats etc aside, what would you like to see in a DS points

For the dice-using components (FCS, signature, ECM/PDS etc.), this only
works if a D12 is actually worth 3 times more than a D4. Unfortunately this
is not the case if you use the DS2 opposed-die game mechanics.

> There should be no difference between infantry and vehicle mounted

YDRC. Infantry APSWs cost 10 pts; vehicle-mounted ones cost 4 pts + 1
capacity - and that "1 capacity" isn't entirely free. The cheapest
APSW-armed vehicle possible (size/1, CFE power, LMW mobility, no
equipment except for the "free" APSW) only costs 7 points, but it is rather
easier to kill with heavy weapons than the APSW infantry element is.

> A vehicle crew should be a cost like an infantry specialist team, and

If they have no effect on the game after leaving their vehicle, they shouldn't
cost anything. (If they need to be rescued after leaving their

vehicle, they should probably bring a cost rebate instead... <g>)

> Also, if several weapons are mounted on the same vehicle, there should

Easily covered by requiring capacity usage for each FCS on the vehicle.

> Indy wrote:

> * More options for movement. EG, right now there is "Slow Tracked"

Better to disconnect the BMF completely from the mobility type IMO. Far more
flexible, and not that much more impossible to price appropriately
:-/

> * More expanse to the firecon stuff. Right now we have "Basic",

IIRC Andrew Martin uses "Brilliant" to describe the D12 FCS. Runs into a

bit of a problem at Close range though, unless you have a D14 handy somewhere.

> I'd also like to see more games in which not every bloody tank

In order to achieve this, all you have to do is to set the FCS costs
appropriately. As it is now, Superior FCS is *way* too cheap in DS2 (even
more so than Enhanced) :-/

> * Continuing firecon stuff, the ability to engage multiple

It would. Doesn't work all that well in IGO-UGO-style games though (yes,
I
know DS2 isn't a classic IGO-UGO since there aren't any distinct player
turns, but it still has the "I act with one unit, you act with one unit"

feature).

Later,

> At 1:26 PM -0500 4/4/02, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
Seems to make sense. The rockets that started appearing on Allied and German
AFVs is a good example. Do Pintle MGs fall under this category?

> Multiple weapons is something that will probably have to be readdressed

They should be half the size of what that size vehicle could carry given it's
max weapon size.

> - Allow a shift from heavy to AP so a size 3 vehicle could sacrifice

Give and example here please.

> - Allow multiple weapons to fire in the same activation, but require

MGs don't need much of a FC do they? Even a remote mount is pretty straight
forwards.

> The big problem with having multiple weapons fire in the same turn is

Well in the case of a Merkava that is fighting, I don't see all the weapons
firing at the same time. If they are working on some infantry, I see the
gunner firing the Coax and the commander and loader also working their guns at
intervals. If the commander yells for some HE, then the loader stops and
likely the commander stops with his so he can see what the gunner is doing.

Weapons of a like type may be fired together. That makes it pretty
straightforwards. All the MGs fire together. If the main gun is being
serviced, then its just the Main Gun.

> One of the other B^2's wrote:

> Size: Size should be kept. It provides for a base to the targeting

Eliminate capacity altogether (Except for cargo). Targeting signature
should be based on what you pay for it.    However, "size" *IS* a
consideration for cargo carrying ability/requirements, and for
bridge/structure transiting, and thus SHOULD cost -  X points to carry X

cargo, adjust total cost by Y based on space required to carry it and
structural integrity required to support said vehicle. in terms of using size
to determine the threat of the vehicle, that's more of an honor system thing
anyway.

> Movement: Points based on movement. Movement does not provide any

Here I have to disagree. Both speed and mobility type tie in directly to
combat efficiency - you can have the biggest gun in the world, but if it

can't move into firing position, you're screwed. faster vehicles are not only
harder to kill, they have a better chance of getting first kill chance against
other vehicles.

Various movement types should have a multiplier
> (hand-wave example: tracks are 1.0, GEV 0.8, Wheeled 0.7, Grav 1.2,

Agreed.

> Signature: Signature value should be based on the die type and include

Unless we do away with capacity. Signature should be a multiplier of other
costs. Example: Which is more useful on the field, all else being equal: A
small vehicle with miniaturized weapons, or a large vehicle with bulky

weapons that have the same range/damage as the miniaturized weapons, but
the vehicle has enough stealth to make it as hard to hit as the small vehicle?
Neither - if ability to avoid getting hit and ability to lay on the hurt
are equal, point value should be equal.

I'll skip the rest of Mr.Bell's post, this was my main point of contention.
That and one last repeat of: Get rid of capacity!

3B^2

[quoted original message omitted]

> Eliminate capacity altogether (Except for cargo). Targeting signature

> should be based on what you pay for it.

You mean my bicycle has the same signature as the whopping huge tank unless I
pay extra????

> Roger Books wrote:

> You mean my bicycle has the same signature as the whopping huge tank

Not quite. IF your bicycle carries a Noisy Cricket on it's handlebars that
does as much damage at the same ranges as said huge tank's 146 mm supercannon,
and IF the forcefield in your backpack offers the same amount of protection as
the tank's naoaligned crystalline armor, and IF the tank's superstealth
systems makes him just as hard to hit as you are on your Shimano, and IF you
can both move at the same speed over the same terrain, THEN said Bicylce and
said tank should cost the same amount of points.

3B^2

[quoted original message omitted]

> At 11:38 AM -0800 4/4/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:

How do you rate the comparative capacities and sizes of various vehicles? I've
always thought size was exceedingly useful for gauging a number of things.
Its' far easier to deal with that Tonnage and critical spaces.

How many Non size units of infantry can you carry in a given size vehicle?

> Here I have to disagree. Both speed and mobility type tie in

More accurately a faster and more mobile vehicle can reach objectives faster
and can be in a position to use it's weapons in a more expedient and efficient
manner.

> Various movement types should have a multiplier

I preferred the low vs high mobility concepts too. A cheap low mobility
wheeled truck can't go as many places as a high mobility wheels APC can.

> Unless we do away with capacity. Signature should be a multiplier

I still think that the size/capacity system is very efficient and
useful.

> From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de (K.H.Ranitzsch)

> Could you explain why some cost should simply be added up, and others

Some systems add to the offensive or defensive abilities. each should be
ADDED to the other abilities in that category (A GMS/H does not make the

DFFG deadlier, so they should not multiply each others' values, mere add to
each other).  But a well-defended vehicle, by living longer, does
multiply the abilities of it's offenses to kill, and thus they should be
multiplyed by each other. Stealth and manouverability modify both the
offensive and defensive capabilites, and thus should also be multipliers. If
you merely add together, you don't truly reflect how systems enhance each
other.

3B^2

On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:41:47 -0800, "Brian Bilderback"
<bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Some systems add to the offensive or defensive abilities. each should

I've heard it said that Global Game's "Legions Of Steel" had a point system
that worked like this, and that it was one of the best point systems on the
market. It's no longer *on* the market, but does anyone have any experience
with it?

Re: Adrian Johnson:

Excellent post.

FTR, when I talk about "points costs" without any extra qualifiers I
invariably mean single-battle points costs (your option "a"). Ryan Gill
seems to be pretty much fixated with real-world production/operation
costs
(your option "b") instead :-/

Re: Brian Bell:

> Externally mounted weapons should be more easily

One DS2 turn is 15 freakin' minutes long. Reloading an
externally-mounted
TOW or BILL2 launcher takes a minute or so, and that's if you're slow. Why
should you be forced to stay stationary during the remaining 13-14
minutes?

> (treat 0 and system down chits as booms -- loader is killed, so vehicle

Just about every design for externally-mounted guns I've seen allow
under-armour reloading of the ready magazine, which makes the "extra
vulnerability while reloading" rule look very strange IMO <shrug>

Agree on the multiple weapons point.

> Ryan Gill wrote:

> - Allow multiple weapons to fire in the same activation, but require

No. OTOH they do require one *gunner* or so each, and each gunner takes up
space - which means that the armoured volume needs to be bigger, which
increases the size, weight and cost of the vehicle. FCSs don't take up
nearly as much space as crew members do - and they don't have nearly as
stringent requirements on the *shape* of the space they take up, either
:-/

Regards,

> From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de (K.H.Ranitzsch)

> Not sure I understand you correctly here.

Lower signature should cost more than higher signature, yes. Regardless of
whether that is accomplished by being small or using stealth methods. Put a
bright pink bycicle in the middle of a freshly tilled field of brown earth.
put an M1 Abrams, well camo'd, in the woods a hundred yards to the right.
which is harder to hit using the old Mk. 1 eyeball?

> On the other hand, the more stuff you pack onto a vehicle, the larger

Except that the capacity/points combo is just too cumbersome.  It's the
end
result that matters - if taking a big vehicle and giving it enough
stealth results in the same combat effectiveness as taking a small vehicle and
miniaturizing it, then their end point cost should be the same. So why not
eliminate the size/stealth/capacity step and JUST deal with how many
points such a vehicle should cost?

3B^2

> At 1:58 PM -0800 4/4/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:

> Lower signature should cost more than higher signature, yes.

Well, a basic jeep chassis shouldn't cost more than a basic tank chassis 5
times larger. The Pink Bicycle vs the camo'd tank is spurious.

In addition to the whole signature thing is the difficulty in hiding it in the
first place. I can lay the pink bicycle down in the grass and you won't see it
50 feet away let alone across the field. That tank, isn't going to be put into
a little tuft of grass and be invisible.

Further, the tank is closer to the broad side of a barn than that bicycle is.

> Except that the capacity/points combo is just too cumbersome. It's

If I make a battle ship have the same signature as a pt boat it should cost
the same? I don't think so. That BB has far more combat capability being
carried around than that MTB.

A stealthed size 5 tank should cost far more than a size 1 personal vehicle. A
stealthed size 2 vehicle should cost a good deal more than that size 1
vehicle.

Furthermore, that size/stealth/capacity step allows for a good means
of describing the vehicle.

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> Well, a basic jeep chassis shouldn't cost more than a basic tank

That's oversimplifying and probably completely missing my point. You're

right, a basic jeep chassis shouldn't cost more than the basic tank chassis.
But we're talking about more than just the basic chassis, we're talking about
the end vehicle. If, after loading weapons, armor, FireCon, systems, and
stealth on to the two vehicles, you get two vehicles with identical
performance, firepower, armor, and both have the same chance of being hit
(signature), then the end products should cost the same amount, REGARDLESS of
what "Basic chassis" you started with.

The Pink Bicycle vs the camo'd tank is
> spurious.

Probably, but it was cute, no?

> In addition to the whole signature thing is the difficulty in hiding

Unless of course the tank has a cloaking device. or you mount a homing
beacon on the bike. ;-) The point was, what really matters is signature,
not actual size, when determining the vehicle's value.

> If I make a battle ship have the same signature as a pt boat it

Which is completely irrelevant to my point. I said that two vehicles of

identical performance should have identical costs, and that whether this is
done through miniaturization or stealth is PSB, unneccesary to the design
proces in game terms.  To use the BB/PT example, Pretend for argument's
sake
that the BB is an old WWII BB, with it's armor, guns, and speed/range
exactly as in WWII, but someone's added a stealth "cloaking device" that

gives it the target signature of a PT. Let's go further and say the PT has no
stealth, so it has the same signature, but it has alien armor and weapons, all
of which are capable, despite their size, of delivering as much damage at the
same ranges and accuracy as, say, a WWII BB, and that the PT has the same
speed and range as, say, a WWII BB. If that were the case,

YES, they SHOULD both cost the same amount in game terms.

> A stealthed size 5 tank should cost far more than a size 1 personal

Not IF the "size 1" vehicle has an identical speed/armor/firepower due
to miniaturization, etc.

A stealthed size 2 vehicle should cost a good deal more
> than

See above.

> Furthermore, that size/stealth/capacity step allows for a good means

If you want to allow for sizes to help in identification, determining bridge
capacity, or cargo requirements, go for it. But that doesn't require a whole
construction system based on the size.

> >Furthermore, that size/stealth/capacity step allows for a good means

I'll stop lurking for a sec and ask (in case nobody has brought it up
yet):
Why not do both?

Publish a fluff design system that deals in capacity points, sizes, stealth
etc.

And a Point design system that can then be used to determine the point value
of the resulting vehicle.

So the Fluff design system would look (it's been awhile since I've designed
any DSII vehicles, so this is probably completely off): Capacity = 5 x size of
vehicle. Fixed Weapon system = weapon size. Turreted weapon system = 2 x
weapon size. Generators take up x size. Mobility takes up x size. Armor takes
up x size. Stealth takes up x size.
etc... etc.. etc...

You can further differentate powers by saying stuff like NAC are masters of
the DFFG, as such their DFFG's count as one size less. They also have superior
stealth so can place 2 levels of stealth on their vehicles. etc. etc.

While INF can only take MDC and have no stealth, no grav, etc.

Then, after determining the fluff statistics of a vehicle, you determine how
much the vehicle costs in points.

So a defense of level a costs b points. Movement of c costs d * (Defense
Modifier) points. A offense of level e costs f * (Def Mod * Move Mod) points.

Total up the three values to get the cost of the vehicle.

Just a thought,

> Daryl Lonnon wrote:

> I'll stop lurking for a sec and ask (in case nobody has brought it up

The problem with such is that a pure points system may very well allow
construction of a vehicle that is impossible using a capacity system -
because it doesn't take into account how big weapon is (You can call it any
big you want), just how it's range and damage affect the game.

3B^2

> At 2:51 PM -0800 4/4/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:

So a jeep with 2 guys in it should cost the same as a tank with the signature
of a jeep with 2 guys in it? I'm not trying to be obtuse, but that's what you
appear to be saying. That larger vehicle clearly has more combat power in it.
A stealth fighter shouldn't have a lower points cost as a DH mosquito.

> Unless of course the tank has a cloaking device. or you mount a

Then that tank should cost way far and above more than that bike should.

Why is signature the only value rated characteristic?

> Which is completely irrelevant to my point. I said that two

I'm not certain you will be able to work with such a massively sliding scale.
How would you build a points system that accounted for WWII tech and GalTech
from John Ringo's books? You can't. Not without a majorly huge spreadsheet and
a computer to go with it.

Generally when I design a DS II game. I toss points out entirely. Real battles
aren't decided by points. They are decided by chance and people making the
best of a bad situation. In most of those games, the players had a bloody good
time because the "points based phallus size posturing was completely
defenestrated".

> A stealthed size 5 tank should cost far more than a size 1 personal

So what you want to do is build a system that allows you to have a comparative
cost value for tech levels that impact the general size of a component. The
only thing is that most things haven't gotten that much smaller for a given
combat power. Only their apparent size has. In some cases, things have just
gotten bigger. Tanks are a good example of this. Aircraft are somewhat fuzzy
as a WWII fighter isn't that far off in size from a Modern fighter in size.
The weapon systems haven't gotten that much smaller either, they've just
changed. A WWII 500lb bomb is still pretty much a 500lb bomb today.

In addition to a points system. If I can have a Machinegun sized weapon that
rates as a 16 inch gun from a carrier, then yes. That Machine gun sized
superweapon is going to have to cost more than a regular MG. Its also going to
have to cost more than a 16 inch gun. How you dovetail that into a game system
where the other side still has the old tech is beyond me. Why not just play
Dirtside with Ancients.

NAC Power Armor against Romans Can anyone build a points system for rating
that? Howmany Hoplites is the same cost as one soldier in PA?

On Friday, April 05, 2002 3:18 AM, Ryan M Gill
[SMTP:rmgill@mindspring.com]
wrote:
> At 2:00 PM +0100 4/4/02, Tony Francis wrote:

But if you change the weapon restrictions to just main guns and allow up to
the size class in additional APSW type weapons, you can fit all the extras on.
I know I've already changed this locally.

[quoted original message omitted]

> Daryl Lonnon wrote:

> construction of a vehicle that is impossible using a capacity system -

> because it doesn't take into account how big weapon is (You can call

I don't see that as a problem. I believe your trying to say that you could
pick characteristics for a vehicle which you could not
shoehorn into the fluff/capacity system.  This isn't a problem, if
the fluff/capacity system says you can't build that vehicle ... it
just can't be built in that background.

The key is, that there is nothing stopping me from making up my own
fluff/capacity system that represents the background I wish to
play in, or just chucking them completely to go with just the pure point
system.

You pick up a truly generic set of rules, that also come with a series of
rules that map it to a particular background. The best of both worlds.

Don't forget ECM/PDS. GMS ignores signature.

I suggest averaging signature and the ECM/PDS rating and multiplying it
times armor to get a protection rating.

Something like (values are hand waves):
Signature      Points
1              5
2              4
3              3
4              2
5              1
ECM
Superior       4
Enhanced       3
Basic 2 PDS
Superior       4
Enhanced       3
Basic 2 Armor
1              1
2              2
3              3
4              4
5              5

Protection Point Cost = (((ECM+PDS)*Signature Points)/2)*Armor

So a signature 3 vehicle with basic ECM and PDS and level 3 armor would
have a protection point cost of (((2+2)*3)/2)*3 = 18

This would probably have to be multiplied times the offensive value of the
vehicle.

[quoted original message omitted]

> On 4-Apr-02 at 21:31, Ryan Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com) wrote:

That brings up a question, What the heck are those weapons
on the AV-9 gunship?  I'm guessing a SLAM and a ???
Can you even make a legal design that fits the mini?

> KH Ranitzsch wrote:

> > [Bri] I did not indicate _no_ cost, only that it should not be a

Things that have synergies with one another multiply, things that don't add
together.

The combat effectiveness of a vehicle is essentially the product of the damage
the vehicle can inflict and how long it survives. The damage it can inflict is
the sum of its weapons; how long it survives is the product of its likelyhood
of getting hit (which is the sum of Signature and
ECM/PDS)
and the likelyhood of surviving if it gets hit anyway (Armour rating).

...and then you slap things like mobility on top of that :-/

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

One pintel MG is of course free, takes no capacity and doesn't count as one of
the vehicle's weapons.

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>

> The combat effectiveness of a vehicle is essentially the product of

Agree completely...

> ...and then you slap things like mobility on top of that :-/

...which is somewhat synergistic. You can view the unit as having a certain
radius of effect. So there should be both a multiplicative and an additive
effect. But that's a minor quibble, your basic philosophy is spot on.
Lanchester equations and all that.

Now for my 2 kopins worth on points values:

There are 2 ways of setting "points values", one in the strategic or economic
sense, one in the tactical sense.

In the tactical sense, vehicles with identical capabilities should have
identical points values. 2 vehicles each with value X should be the equal of
one vehicle with value 2X, ie they whould "win" half the time. Naturally,
under some circumstances, one or the other side would be more valuable, and
would consistently
win. For example, a non-amphibious tank will not do well if it starts at
sea with no means of landing. An amphibious tank in the desert has no
additional value
compared with a non-amphibious one.

In the strategic sense, vehicles with identical capabilities could have wildly
different values. Absolutely identical vehicles could have wildly different
values depending upon the technical and educational level of the possessors.

Example: I once did an analysis for a certain 3rd world nation regarding a
planned purchase of AFVs. They'd already made up their minds, but wanted a
second opinion. The comparison was between German Leopard IIs and Chinese Type
59s, basically a
modern MBT vs a T-55 clone, and a low-tech one at that.

IIRC the economic cost (5 years spares, training) of the Leopard was on the
order of $2 million US. For a Type 59, it was approx $40,000. Now it could be
shown that
one Leopard II vs 50 T-59s was just about a fair fight under many
conditions(!!!!).

For the Germans, a single Leopard II *plus crew* was worth rather more than
$2mill.
Closer to $10mill. A Type-59 would be worth $7.04 mill - 7 for the crew
(needed
less training than for a Leopard-II, but not a lot less).

For the (name elided to protect the guilty), a Leopard-II would be worth
$3
mill,
and a Type-59 $50,000, because the cost of personnel was so much less.
The
Leo-2
would have a serviceability rate maybe 1/10 of those in German service,
as the trained maintenance personnel were not available at any price. The
Type-59
OTOH would have a serviceability rate well over half that of the same tank in
German
service, as it really isn't that high tech. Any half-competent
commercial truck or car service station could service nearly all the
components.

It boiled down to the fact that for the Germans to take any tank other than
the very, very best, with all bells and whistles would make no sense. OTOH for
the
(name elided) to take 4 leopard-IIs instead of 200 Type-59s would make
no sense.

Because in practice, in a battle the (name elided) would have maybe a 20%
chance
of ONE leopard-2 operational, or they could have over 100 Type-59s
available.

In game terms, you might have 2 sides, one Hi-tech, one Lo-tech.

Side A has 10,000 economic pts. Side B has 2,000. Side A pays 1000 pts per man
in addition to equipment costs. Side B pays 10 pts per man in addition to
equipment costs, BUT all equipment that is "Hi Tech" has only a 10% chance of
working during the battle.

(BTW all I did was confirm to the customer that the decision they'd already
made was not just the "better" option, but the only feasible one they had. It
rather queered any chance of a sale of some Fire Control gear we had for
Leopard-2s, but paid off in the end, as it gave us credibility.)

> John Atkinson wrote:

That's the main one - but there are others, such as :

1) Walkers can only be size 1, 4 or 5 - what happened to classes 2 and 3
?

2) SLAMs are size 3 and above only. Size 1 and 2 would make good VTOL or
aircraft armament (equivalent to UG rocket pods).

Both of these can be safely ignored without breaking the game as it stands.

I'm sure there were others that bugged me, but my rules are at home and I'm
not!

> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" wrote:

This might be a level of abstraction too far for DS2. A vehicle with a
mixed under-armour / external weapon load would require two different
chits to determine which systems are down.

Tony Francis schrieb:
> > Which requirement? The only one I routinely ignore is

Agree to both

Greetings

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> You're right, a basic jeep chassis shouldn't cost more than the basic

Ryan, did you even READ the text Brian posted?

> I'm not trying to be obtuse,

...but you're doing a pretty good imitation of it :-(

> That larger vehicle clearly has more combat power in it. A stealth

What Brian said was this:

IF THE JEEP HAS THE SAME PERFORMANCE AS THE TANK, then the two should cost
exactly the same amount of *game* points, in spite of the fact that the jeep
is smaller.

From your reply it is very obvious that you completely, utterly and
totally ignored the bit I put in capitals above - otherwise you would
have known your statement "because the larger vehicle clearly has more combat

power in it" is completely non-sensical.

No, in this specific comparison the larger vehicle clearly does NOT have

more combat power in it, because that was the f*cking basic premise of the
entire f*cking comparison!

Unless of course the tank has a cloaking device. or you mount a homing
beacon on the bike. ;-) The point was, what really matters is signature,

not actual size, when determining the vehicle's value.

> Then that tank should cost way far and above more than that bike

That's nice. It means that I can take lots of super-tech über-bikes for

each one of your tanks, and since *each* of my super-tech über-bikes
have exactly the same performance as one of your tanks I win. Fun, eh?

> Why is signature the only value rated characteristic?

Signature is NOT the only value rated characteristic in the entire points
system. It merely happens to be the one characteristic discussed in this

particular example, since all other characteristics where assumed to be equal
for the two vehicles under comparison.

> Alan Brain wrote:

> > ...and then you slap things like mobility on top of that :-/

I didn't say that it wasn't, you know...

> But that's a minor quibble, your basic philosophy is spot on.

Bingo :-)

> Now for my 2 kopins worth on points values:

Correct. This is exactly what Adrian Johnson wrote yesterday.

Unless I explicitly say something else, I *always* talk about tactical points
values.

The economic/strategic/"realistic" costs depend completely on the
background you're gaming in - and the economic/ strategic value of a
single vehicle design would be different in every one of them... and unless
you

have all details for that particular background - in game terms, you
have
the complete campaign rules - there's no way to calculate this value.
The tactical value, or at least a reasonable estimate of it, *can* be
calculated - because we do have the complete tactical rules.

Regards,

> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:32:58 -0500

> I'm not certain you will be able to work with such a massively

Silhouette [HG/Gear Krieg/Jovian Chronicles] manages it with Panzer
III's coming in with a points cost of the same magnitude[51 for an AUS F] cost
to one round of ATM in HG [40 pts not counting cost of Launcher or FC
upgrades].

Now the ATM will vapourise the Panzer 3 on anything but the most marginal hit,
but there is several hundred to thousand other points involved in the typical
carrying vehicle.

Give it two Tech levels of upgrade and you are talking about 4000pts of
missile and roughly Galtech levels. Oh and your LMG rounds cost 51 pts each at
that tech level.

Not that the Panzer II has much chance of hitting an average HG Tech
+2 vehicle FC-2 verses Manuever +2 isn't encouraging and  dam x8 isn't
going to do anything to an armoured vehicle on MOS 1

> Daryl Lonnon wrote:

> Then, after determining the fluff statistics of a vehicle, you
that's good. It reminds me of a game system for space combat (not FT, ahem,
sorry) that is easy to use and fun and results in incredibly balanced ship
designs.

http://www.mj12games.com/starmada

Basically, you have Hull size, weapons cost based on power, and defensive
things cost a percentage of hull (ECM takes up less space than

a Decoy)

> So a defense of level a costs b points.
movement should add to both defense and offense

> A offense of level e costs f * (Def Mod * Move Mod) points.
you pose the starmada system ina nutshell
basically, you have sqrt(offense + defense)

which provides great balance and prevents cheesiness

> At 12:10 5/04/02 -0500, you wrote:

This is what I have used.

AV-92A Gunship Mk 3                Attack VTOL (472 points)

MEDIUM vehicle (Class 3), VTOL mobility, FGP power, Armour 2. 1 x MDC/3
fixed with SUPERIOR guidance, 2 x GMS/H with SUPERIOR guidance, 1 x
ASPW.
Other systems: SUPERIOR ECM, STEALTH - 2. Basic Signature 3/ Effective
Signature 3(D12)

Cheers

> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 02:55:53AM -0500, Adrian Johnson wrote:

I want all three. Three separate points systems, quite possibly: rate
each vehicle for "pick-up game" points, "short campaign" points and
"long campaign" points (your a, c and b in that order). Then use whichever
points are relevant when setting up a particular game.

I'm already doing something similar with Oerjan's proposed cost changes
for FT ships - use the book value when playing an extended set of
scenarios, in which it's the construction costs that really matter, and the
adjusted value (making bigger ships much more expensive) for a
one-off game.

> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 07:19:56AM +0200, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> damage the vehicle can inflict and how long it survives. The damage it

White Dwarf once published something very like a "points system" for D&D
monsters, called the Monstermark; it was, in essence, what you suggest, but
written as "the typical amount of damage this monster will do before
it's killed by a generic first-level fighter". In practice, this was
(mean damage per round) x (mean number of rounds surviving), which (while
being essentially the same as your suggestion) is easier to calculate... the
only problem is in defining the DS equivalent of a
generic first-level fighter.

And, of course, mobility. :-)