DS2:modified armour\mobility suggestion (pending the good stuff from Oerjan!)

To give a reason for fitting less than maximum armour on ground vehicles (the
high prices of VTOL and aerospace mobility make the change less necessary for
these vehicles): How about giving ground vehicles one extra movement point for
being one level below maximum armour, 2 MP for being two levels below maximum,
and also one or two extra movement points for being open topped?

Extra armour could be added, perhaps costing similar numbers of MP, and say
5-10% of BVP, per facing armoured.  This would allow the construction of
smaller heavily armoured vehicles- SF Matilda Is, should anyone want
such a thing.

If this scheme was being used, I would also suggest allowing evasive movement
for any ground vehicle with a movement allowance greater than 12, as a
further, tactical incentive to choose more lightly armoured vehicles.

This would enable an increase in the _relative_ mobility of cheaper
mobility classes, and perhaps encourage the use of real light scout vehicles
and thinly armoured SP artillery and tank destroyers.

As examples, an M113-type APC could be Size 2, Armour 1 with Fast
Tracked mobility giving 13MF instead of the current 12, and capacity for
evasive maneuvring. Basic cost would be 17 points.

A Sexton or Priest SPG could be Size 3, Armour 1, open topped, with Slow
Tracked mobility giving 11MF instead of the current 8 and letting it keep up
with the tanks using a cheaper mobility class. Basic cost would be 22 points.
Under the current rules the same hull with Fast Tracked mobility would have
12MF but cost 25 points.

An M10 Tank destroyer could be Size 3, Armour 1 (Front 2), open topped, with
Fast Tracked mobility giving 14MF instead of the current 12, and capacity for
evasive maneuvring.

A Matilda MkI could be Size 2, Armour 4 (Front 4), with Slow Tracked mobility
giving 4MF instead of the current 8 and letting it keep up with the tanks
using a cheaper mobility class.

Needless to say, none of these ideas have been tested, but they do at least
appear to make a direct connection between weight of armour and mobility

> Robin Paul wrote:

> To give a reason for fitting less than maximum armour on ground

This is a step in the right direction. I've been working on a completely new
"House Rules" way of designing vehicles, it allows for different BMF's and
armor levels. Iknow Oerjan's working on something similar. His system will
undoubtedly be better, but there's always the personal flavor. I have asked
him for some help and input, he's really quite good at giving it.

> also one or two extra movement points for being open topped?

I've struggled with the open-topped issue too.  For both the lower AV
and
open-topped issue, it seems best to come up with a new capacity point
system and charge points for armor. In addition, it seems to me that the
advantage
to open-topped vehicles should be reflected in open-topped troop
carriers. they'r more vulnerable, but you might try establishing house rules
that make
loading and unloading open-topped APC's quicker than for normal, or for
allowing effective infantry fire from the back of them. I don't know about
realism, but in terms of playability it's doable and helps justify even
bothering with open-topped vehicles.