[DS] Points system was [DS] Hidden Units...

> Beth wrote:

> does anyone have any suggestions as

Well, PDS and APFC already do that <g>

> I don't doubt Oerjan may have more.

FCS costs need to be re-set.

Taking a close look at the various weapon types, making GMSs use ammo (adds
tracking)

> Ryan Gill wrote:

> There has to be a cost to building a heavy vehicle vs a light one.

Correct. There has to be a COST to building a heavy vehicle. That cost does
NOT have to be a movement penalty - on the contrary, in fact; in the
game, the appropriate cost is a POINTS cost.

> Armor should lower speed. Not capacity.

If you're talking about steel armour exclusively, you're right. If OTOH you
include all kinds of light-weight armour materials - which are lighter
but
considerably bulkier than steel for the same level of protection -
you're wrong.

> If you slope armor, you

If you lengthen the volume (or widen it, if you're talking about sloping the
side armour), it gets longer (wider). While the actual *volume* doesn't
change, its external dimensions *do* increase. The sloped-armour vehicle
will "look bigger" than the vertical-sided one; in DS2 terms, "looking
bigger" translates directly as "having a larger signature".

> Hmm. The thing I'm trying to hit here is the ability to get a large,

If you change the armour *in the game*, you start the *game* vehicle design
procedure from scratch.

> Points are the final means of gauging something, we're looking at

No, we aren't. Points are the *only* means of gauging combat effectiveness
IN THE GAME - which is what we are talking about here.

> If I take a given vehicle that is size 2, and armor 1 and then add

If armour and mobility both costs internal capacity, what you actually do IN
THE GAME is this:

1) You have a size/2 vehicle with armour/1, mobility X and payload Y.

2) You create a new size/2 vehicle design with payload Y and armour/2.
Since
armour/2 takes up more capacity than armour/1, this new vehicle design
doesn't have as much capacity left to spend on mobility - which means
that the "uparmoured" vehicle will be slower than the original one (unless you
spend extra points to get a higher BMF out of the same internal capacity
-
aka "up-engining").

The end result is still that your up-armoured vehicle is slower (unless
you
also up-engine it), but unlike your suggestion it also assigns the
(hopefully) appropriate points cost to the up-armoured design.

Regards,