> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Masses of size 4 armour 1 vehicles - gee, that
GMS/H, RFAC/1 (T), 6 dismounts. Sounds solidly size 3
to me. And with armor 2.
And it's USA. USAR is United States Army Reserve.
and the
> soon-to-be-purchased LAVs even
LAV: RFAC 1 (T) and what, 8 dismounts? Just a hair over size 2.
> If you answer b), you have to include a rule that
Modern scenarios include a specific background. Namely: Today, or a reasonable
facsimile thereof.
> >I never buy anything but Superior.
OK... I know I'm going to regret this, but exactally how much of a difference
does it make, firing at size 2 and 3 targets (most of my opponents don't use
many size 4 vehicles)? Statistically speaking?
> Which would have contributed more - the Stealth you
If I had 20% more points, I probably would generally not increase the size of
my maneuver elements, but add more supports. I generally build around a
reinforced company task force. But I have noticed a decided trend among my
vehicles for my stealth to make them
more survivable--because armor doesn't help much vs.
size 3-5 weapons.
> In which case your use of a more points-efficient
I generally do use only one level of stealth. And one
of my most sucesful set-ups doesn't use stealth. I
stealth everything down to d10. It just isn't
cost-effective past that. Only on the heavy tanks do
I use more stealth. Which is why an Imperial heavy grav tank cost either 474
or 499 points.
> In other words, your battles are multi-factor
Not formally.
> If not, how do you > know that the Stealth
If my opponent keeps missing, I figure I'm doing something right.
What I really credit my success to is the following sequence:
1)Decide on a background (NRE) 2)Decide on a doctrine that fits the background
(Quality vs. mass, heavy use of indirect fire support, emphasis on fighting
armored, tiers of equipment, etc) 3)Design an MTOE to fight by that doctrine
(See: webpage) 4)Design vehicles to fit into that MTOE by that doctrine (see:
Webpage), and 5)Buy minis.
Most people seem to do 5, 1, 4, and forget 2 and 3. Or do 3 based on "what do
I own?" It sets up unbalanced forces with no integrity. I started out that
way, then decided to go back and start from the
top--meaning I own more than a few minis that just
don't fit into my MTOE. So I don't use them. But then, I've always been more
of a roleplayer than a
one-off scenario player..
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think your confusion comes in focusing on Oerjan's
I hadn't noticed that being a problem. Even armor five vehicles die when hit
with size 4 or 5 guns or
GMS/Hs. Which makes sense. Armor will help you with
light weapons, but you need to be about 2-3 sizes up
to really ignore hits.
> But did it contribute in the same proportion as it
Who knows--I'd have to run the same battle with the
same tactics two dozen times to give you a scientifically valid answer. It
looked like it to me, which is why I havn't changed my vehicle designs.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> I hadn't noticed that being a problem. Even armor
Which is also why size 4 or 5 guns cost a good amount more than size 1 or 2 or
even 3.
> Who knows--I'd have to run the same battle with the
So I'm giving you an excuse to play. You're welcome *grin*
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Masses of size 4 armour 1 vehicles - gee, that
It *sounds* like size 3, sure. But put it side by side with a BMP-3 (6
or 8
dismounts, RFAC/1, GMS/H and a 100mm low-velocity cannon which has no
equivalent in vanilla DS2), and you'll notice that the Bradley is
physically much bigger (particularly taller) than the BMP - and there's
no
way in hell the BMP-3's payload can fit in a DS2 size 2 vehicle.
'Course, you could say that all Russian vehicles get one level of Stealth in
DS2
terms...
> And it's USA. USAR is United States Army Reserve.
Interesting. Armor magazine (don't remember which issue though) seemed to use
the USAR acronym to include US units deployed in Europe as well? IIRC they did
this because the acronym "USA" is often used to refer to the
United States of America - ie., what you Americans simply refer to as
"US".
> >and the soon-to-be-purchased LAVs even more so! OK, with the latest
Take another look at its physical size. If that is size 2, it has -2
levels of Stealth slapped on to make its effective signature 4.
> > If you answer b), you have to include a rule that
Your point is? Most SF scenarios also include a specific background. The
difference is that those backgrounds are fictous, so you don't know the
procurement/manufacturing costs of the various combat vehicles - and
often you also don't know the economic strength of the warring factions.
You didn't answer the question, though. Do you choose your points system to
reflect a) combat power or b) procurement/manufacturing cost?
> >>I never buy anything but Superior.
If both sides use the same weapons but different FCSs, Superior FCS scores...
Range band Vs Basic Vs Enhanced
Close +45-55% +15-20%
Medium +75-80% +25-30%
Long +133% +40%
...more hits against size 2 and 3 targets than its lower-tech siblings
(and the other sizes don't differ very much either). If the two sides use
different weapons - ie., so the range bands aren't the same - the table
becomes huge, but I can put one together if you like. It'll take a while
though.
Scoring on average X% more hits improves the combat power of your tank in a
shoot-out by the square root of (1+X), so even at close range a tank
with
Superior FCS is some 7-10% stronger than an otherwise identical tank
with
Enhanced FCS and 20-25% more powerful than an otherwise identical tank
with Basic FCS. (At longer ranges, the Superior FCS gets correspondingly
better.)
Being X% more powerful should, in a working points system, mean that the
vehicle costs X% more points - which is a bit difficult, since X in this
case varies with the range! :-/ (Why the square root? Because the enemy
shoots back given half a chance. Read F.W.Lanchester's works for a detailed
explanation.)
However, the DS2 points system doesn't even catch the differences between
the different FCSs at Close range - even with a size/5 gun the cost
difference between SUP and BAS FCS is only 20 pts... and very few tanks
with size/5 weapons cost as little as 80-100 pts total (where that 20-pt
difference would be appropriate at Close range). For John's "Basil I
Bulgaroctonus" tank, the difference in combat value between BAS and SUP FCS at
Close range is around 100 pts (the tank costs 474 pts in the DS2 points
system); for the smaller "Heraclius" design it is around 65 pts (the tank
costs 331 pts).
> >Which would have contributed more - the Stealth you used, or the
You don't get 20% more points overall; you only get another 20-30% of
the points you spent on those stealthed vehicles.
> I probably would generally
Stealth does make them more survivable, certainly. One level of Stealth
reduces the number of hits on that vehicle by 15-25% (depending on the
vehicle's size and the enemy FCS quality), which in turn improves the
combat power by 7-12% - the same square root formula as in the FCS
evaluation above applies here as well. Two levels of Stealth reduces the
number of hits by 25-40%, boosting the combat power by 10-20% (again
depending on vehicle size and enemy FCS quality).
But it costs more than it tastes. The Heraclius tank mentioned above costs 331
including 1 level of Stealth. Without the Stealth it would cost only
271 pts, so it increases its cost by 60/271 = 22% in order to boost its
combat power by a mere 12%. The Basil I B. is even worse; without its 2 levels
of Stealth it'd only cost 314 pts so it increases its cost by
160/314 = 51% by buying Stealth, but that Stealth only increases its
combat power by ~20%.
As you can see, the discrepancies between the cost of Stealth and the increase
in combat power it gives these tanks are similar in size, but opposite in
direction, to the discrepancies between the cost and power of Superior FCSs at
close range.
> I generally do use only one level of stealth. And one
As you can see above Stealth isn't cost-effective, period. If you cut
the cost of Stealth in half (to 10*Level*Size) you get it roughly correct for
Grav tanks with Superior everything, but it is still overpriced for pretty
much everything else.
> >In other words, your battles are multi-factor
Then you have no way of determining which factors did what. All you have is
your impressions, and impressions aren't very reliable - remember your
first impression of the FB2 Kra'Vak?
> >If not, how do you know that the Stealth
This is your impression. How do you *know* that it is your Stealth which
causes him to miss more often than you do, as opposed to your Superior FCSs
which causes *you* to *hit* more often than he does?
[snip design sequence which essentially says that John doesn't really
use the points system for setting up battles, but instead plays more
scenario-driven games than equal-point one-offs]
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> way in hell the BMP-3's payload can fit in a DS2
Could. I think stealth as applied to ground vehicles has a lot to do with
deliberately designing them to be small.
> >And it's USA. USAR is United States Army Reserve.
US troops in Europe are USAREUR--United States Army
Europe. The R is added because English-speakers have
no way to pronounce "AEU" comfortably.:)
> >LAV: RFAC 1 (T) and what, 8 dismounts? Just a hair
Depends... I use GHQ LAV miniatures as my entire
size-2 Akritai force. No one seems to think they are
outsize. As an Army guy I don't get much chance to seem 'em in real life.
> You didn't answer the question, though. Do you
Ideally, b.
> If both sides use the same weapons but different
Uhh... Not necessary. When you get going on your indepth math analysis my eyes
just glaze over.
> Being X% more powerful should, in a working points
OK... But can you produce a points system that doesn't require a science
degree to use that reflects this? I doubt it.
> root? Because the enemy
Read a summary of it and that's enough.
> > >Which would have contributed more - the Stealth
Which is most of my combat vehicles.
> Stealth does make them more survivable, certainly.
OK, so now you're saying my vehicles are pointed about right since they use
stealth and sup FCS.:P
> As you can see above Stealth isn't cost-effective,
So... do you have a good way to point this out without requiring algebra from
our prospective tank designers? I mean, I can do algebra but I won't do it for
fun.
> Then you have no way of determining which factors did
Corrected by a couple more games with 'em. I've played a couple hundred DSII
scenarios at least.
> This is your impression. How do you *know* that it is
Unlike the Germans, I refuse to tinker with a good thing. If it works, I ain't
changing it. Realistically, militaries work that way except for 3rd Reich.
As an out-of-game factor, I long ago made the call
that tank crewmen were more valuable to the NRE than coinage, and hence a
little more money spent to keep them alive was a good investment, even if it's
not quite as effective.
For the New Israelis, it's historical fact that their tank designs are
extremely concerned with survivability so when I designed their equipment for
Noam, I ignored all cost-effectiveness concerns and
threw max stealth on everything.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Who knows--I'd have to run the same battle with the
Ah, but how boring it would be to run the same scenario over and over.
Not as boring as never getting to play at all. :-/
Brian
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> John Atkinson wrote:
> way in hell the BMP-3's payload can fit in a DS2 size 2 vehicle.
'Course,
> you could say that all Russian vehicles get one level of Stealth in
I fully agree that it could represent this - but it pretty much requires
you to let go of the notion that the DS2 points value of a vehicle has
anything whatever to do with the manufacturing cost of the vehicle.
Why?
In order to fit the 100mm low-pressure gun, the BMP-3 has to be size/4
or /5
(depending on how you model said gun), which means that it needs to have
2-3 levels of stealth to get a smaller signature than the "size/3"
Bradley. Even if you design the Bradley with Superior FCS for both missile and
gun
and the BMP-3 with Basic for both in order to minimize the difference in
cost, the BMP-3 ends up costing ~260 pts if size/4 or ~430 if size/5
while
the size/3 Bradley costs just over 100 pts.
If your "points cost represents purchase cost" theory were true for today's
real-world vehicles, the above points costs would indicate that a BMP-3
costs some 2-4 times as much to build as a Bradley. It doesn't - in fact
every cost estimate I've seen for the two makes the Bradley the more
expensive of the two even when you're considering factory-new vehicles.
If the points system were doing its job of rating the combat power of the two
vehicles (which I claim that it doesn't succeed in doing), the above
points costs would suggest that a BMP-3 can take on 2-4 Bradleys with a
roughly even chance of winning. I don't have to be a US-military
chauvinist to know that that isn't true... <G>
> And it's USA. USAR is United States Army Reserve.
The article used "USAR" as a collective term for both units in the CONUS and
units in Europe, so USAREUR would have been incorrect. Ah well <shrug>
> LAV: RFAC 1 (T) and what, 8 dismounts? Just a hair
I wasn't talking about your models. I'm talking about the real-life
vehicles.
> As an Army guy I don't get much chance to
I have seen both a Bradley and several LAVs/Piranhas in real life.
They're
quite big indeed... particularly when parked beside a BMP-3 :-/
> You didn't answer the question, though. Do you choose your points
OK. How do you plan to account for the fact that appearently identical
vehicles from different factories have different per-unit manufacturing
costs? (Eg. Egyptian-assembled M1A1s vs entirely US-built ones, or
Polish-built vs Russian-built T-72s.)
> Being X% more powerful should, in a working points
Let's put it this way: considering your previous writings, and the points
costs you've allocated to the various DS vehicles on your NRE pages*, I
wouldn't be all that surprised if you consider the *current* GZG design
systems (FB and DS2 both) to require science degrees to use already...
:-/
* Eg., the Basil I B. variants both cost 15 pts less than your page claims
- under the standard DS2 design rules they should cost 459 and 484 pts,
respectively - while the Heraclius crams 16 capacity points of stuff
into a
size/3 vehicle (size/4 gun in turret, Enhanced PDS and APFC).
If you can handle normal multiplication and addition without a science degree,
you probably would be able to manage a working descriptive points system. It'd
look something like this:
Vehicle points value = (Armour factor)*(Signature factor)*[(Weapons
cost*FCS factor) + cost of rest of payload]*(Mobility factor)
where
Armour factor = (1 + 0.15*(Armour level)) (*1.1 if Reactive/Ablative
armour is used)
FCS factor for guns: BAS = 1, ENH = 1.2, SUP = 1.33 (this includes the longer
range bands as well as the Close one)
FCS factor for GMS: BAS = 1, ENH = 1.3, SUP = 1.5
Signature factor: D4 = 1, D6 = 1.125, D8 = 1.25, D10 = 1.375, D12 = 1.5
...etc. In such a system, the vehicle's Signature and Armour rating could be
completely independent of how much stuff it carries (ie., its nominal
"size"). PDS and ECM really should be included in the "Signature" factor
though, and of course the Mobility factors and payload/weapon costs need
to
be re-evaluated too - which is why it is taking me so long to revise the
DS
design system :-(
> Which would have contributed more - the Stealth you used, or the
But not your support vehicles like ADS, artillery etc., none of which are
exactly free.
> Stealth does make them more survivable, certainly.
*At close range*, yes. At longer ranges, your FCS advantage would be even
more pronounced against any non-HEL users while your Stealth
disadvantage would be essentially unchanged.
But I'm not just saying this *now* - if you re-read my post prior to the
> one you replied to above, you'll find that I wrote:
"In which case your use of a more points-efficient FCS almost certainly
negated your use of *less* points-efficient Stealth.. If you restricted
yourself to level-1 Stealth, your FCS advantage probably even outweighed
the Stealth deficiency all on its own - and then you put superior
armament and tactics on top of that."
- in other words, all I did in my last post was to show that the above
section wasn't just "almost certain" but an actual fact.
> As you can see above Stealth isn't cost-effective,
I don't have any good way to patch all the problem areas in the current DS2
design system, no. It is easier to create a new design system from scratch
- see eg. the sketched design system above.
Stealth is fairly easy to patch in the current system:
"Stealth increases the points value of the vehicle by (Level*10)%". Apply this
factor after adding up all other costs of the vehicle. (In a pure
direct-fire shootout it is worth somewhat more than this - (Level*12.5)%
-
but Stealth doesn't protect against GMSs and Artillery so gets a slight
rebate. Besides, 10% is easier for the mathematically challenged to use
than 12.5% ;-) )
Armour could be handled in a similar way - instead of applying the
armour points cost to the BPV, it increases the value of the vehicle by
~(Level*15)% (multiplied by the Stealth factor, not added to it). This is a
bigger change to the DS2 design system than the Stealth patch above, though.
FCSs are more difficult. For a purely gun-armed tank the FCS cost could
be
handled just like the Stealth and Armour patches above - ie., as a
multiplier to the "rest of the cost of the vehicle" - but this runs into
problems with vehicles which combine guns with other payloads (missiles,
grunts, whatever)... and it gets very difficult to apply such a patch onto
the DS2 design system without doing a complete re-write.
Modifying the current FCS costs in DS2 doesn't work very well either -
eg.,
for the NRE grav tanks the following FCS costs are roughly accurate:
Basic FCS: 2*(Size of largest weapon)
Enhanced FCS: 11-12*(Size of largest weapon)
Superior FCS: 18-20*(Size of largest weapon)
- but these FCS costs don't really work for lower-tech forces; eg. the
New
Tiblisi forces "should" only pay 7-8*(Size of largest weapon) for their
Enhanced FCSs and ~13*(Size of largest weapon) for any Superior FCSs they
manage to buy/steal from the NRE. Even so, that's quite a bit more than
what the DS2 system currently charges them!
> This is your impression. How do you *know* that it is
In other words, you don't know which design factors have had what effects and
you have no intention to find out. A valid and respectable position as
long as you're playing scenarios in a pre-defined background, but it
does have certain unfortunate drawbacks when it comes to evaluating the points
system :-(
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> >As an Army guy I don't get much chance to
OK. I was under the impression it was a lot smaller than a Brad. It is
considerably lighter than a Brad, but the body is mounted higher relative to
the tires than a tracked vehicle is to the treads.
As a side note, vehicle size is affected by other considerations than those
rated in DSII. For instance, a Bradley has far more interior room for
it's six dismounts than the BMP-3 has for it's eight.
Crew comfort, in otherwords. And Russians are notorious for designing their
tanks for short
people--which they could do because in the Soviet
military tankers couldn't be taller than 5' 5" (IIRC).
In addition you could argue that inefficient design work resulted in the
Bradley having effective levels of 'negative stealth' as you put it. You could
factor this into vehicle design sequences, but you'd have to put a healthy
points rebate on it, which isn't
reflective of Real Life concerns--inefficiency isn't
any cheaper than intelligence.
> Let's put it this way: considering your previous
Geez... I havn't looked at those points costs in 3 or 4 years. Guess it's time
to download a vehicle builder. Anyone know of a good one?
> wouldn't be all that surprised if you consider the
Hey, my math is sloppy. I know this. However, other people of normal
intelligence have no problem with it.
I'm just math-retarded.
> respectively - while the Heraclius crams 16 capacity
Eh? This has to be typo on my part. I thought it was Basic.
> Vehicle points value = (Armour factor)*(Signature
> Signature factor: D4 = 1, D6 = 1.125, D8 = 1.25, D10
OK, let me get this straight.
> Signature factor: D4 = 1, D6 = 1.125, D8 = 1.25, D10
Stealth makes a vehicle cheaper?
You know what this is starting to remind me of? The Heavy Gear design
sequence. Which is enough to make
me nervous. Designing an all-around capable vehicle
(again: M1A2, Challenger2, Leopard 2A5, Merkava) was too expensive to be
worthwhile. Which was fine in a background which was designed only to support
Gears, all of which were designed by roleplayers who didn't understand
military tactics.
> John Atkinson wrote:
¨
> As an Army guy I don't get much chance to
The LAV is a lot lighter than the Bradley and has rather less internal volume,
but most of that reduction comes from its the lesser *width* (the
LAV III is only about 2.5 meters wide, compared to the 3.2+ meters of
the
Bradley and BMP-3) rather than lesser *height* (it is nearly as high
over
the *hull* as the BMP-3 is over the *turret roof*). (The Bradley, of
course, is both tall *and* wide!) While narrow width is important for
maneuverability, especially in cramped places, low height is a far more
important dimension for not being seen by the enemy... and also for how big
the vehicle looks when you stand next to it :-/
> As a side note, vehicle size is affected by other considerations than
The BMP-3 is not a tank though, and the dismounts riding in its back are
not tankers - and the Russian infantry doesn't have the same height
restrictions as their tankers do. Having climbed around in both a M2
(A3,
IIRC) and a BMP I can't say I found the M2 to be that much roomier (also
the seats in the BMP were more comfortable, and it was *MUCH* easier to get to
the driver's position from the dismount compartment than it was in the M2),
but the roof is admittedly lower... if you have to sit inside it for a
long time every inch counts :-/
(At 5'11" I'm not that big compared to some of the US grunts I've seen, but
I'm still much too tall to be able to climb into the driver's station of a
T-72 :-( Yes, I've tried that too.)
> In addition you could argue that inefficient design
You got it in one. But on the same note intelligence isn't any more
expensive than inefficiency - which is part of the reason why the BMP-3
isn't vastly more expensive in real life than the Bradley is in spite of
its lower profile :-/
> Let's put it this way: considering your previous writings, and the
There are at least a couple available, but I haven't used any of them enough
to be sure that they don't do strange things on me (like not updating the cost
or capacity used every time I change some equipment
choices :-( ).
> wouldn't be all that surprised if you consider the *current* GZG
Remember: About half what I write to you is toungue-in-cheek. You just
have
to figure out which half it which :-)
> respectively - while the Heraclius crams 16 capacity points of stuff
OK.
> Vehicle points value = (Armour factor)*(Signature
Sorry, I don't get what you're referring to here.
Do you consider a DirtSide vehicle with a D4 signature die ("effective
signature 5")to be stealthier than one with a D12 signature die ("effective
signature 1")?
Or do you consider 1.5 to be less than 1?
If neither of the above, what was it you had a problem with?
> You know what this is starting to remind me of? The
I can't really comment on that since I don't have Heavy Gear, but your
description suggests that the Heavy Gear design system was unbalanced or
biased towards Gears - in a fashion similar to how the current DS2
design sequence is biased towards maximum armour, Superior FCS and no Stealth,
or
how the FT2 design system was heavily biased towards A-batts and level-3
screens <shrug>
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> M2), but the roof is admittedly lower... if you have
Now, I don't know the internal layout of the BMP-3.
Is it more likely to roll into combat with the troop hatch (ie: the one in the
roof, if it is so provided) open or closed? In a Bradley, the troop hatch is
closed unless reloading the TOW launcher. This means
you have to have more headroom. An M-113, it's not so
important because most of the time you're rolling around, the hatch is open
and most of your guys are hanging out.
> You got it in one. But on the same note intelligence
So the ramifications on a point system is...
> Remember: About half what I write to you is
Where have I heard this one before?
> >>Signature factor: D4 = 1, D6 = 1.125, D8 = 1.25,
Oh, I mixed up your signature factors and size classes. I'm backwards.
However, this does raise another question. By your program, a HMMWV with a TOW
II launcher is more
expensive than an M-113 varient with TOW II launcher
(M901, etc). Why? It doesn't make sense to me that a truck would be more
expensive than a much heavier armored vehicle.
> I can't really comment on that since I don't have
It was balanced towards marginally capable vehicles
and/or vehicles with glaring design flaws. And most
of the published vehicles couldn't have won a competition run by any nation
I'm familliar with.
Let me see if I can address at least one point for Oerjan, he can correct me
if I'm wrong:
> You wrote:
> However, this does raise another question. By your
Again, it comes back to the fact that the points sytem should reflect how
effective the unit is in a game, not how much it cost to build. There are
three main components to a vehicle's effectiveness: It's
Offensive/Mission
Capability (For an MBT, the nastiness of it's gun. For an AEV, the efficiency
of it's Engineering equipment); It's Survivability (How hard it is to hit, how
hard it is to kill if you DO hit it); and overall performance (How fast,
manouverable, amphibious, etc). In the case of a HMMWV vs. an
M-113 as listed above, the offensive capability is the same - a TOW II.
As for overall performance, I'm not well versed enough to know how the two
compare (I'm guessing the HMMWV is faster, I don't know about off-road
capability). In terms of survivability, the HMMWV, being smaller, is harder
to hit, while the M-113 is harder to kill once it DOES get hit, because
it's better armored.
Which brings us to what *I* would gather is the ONLY reason such a HMMWV
would EVER be more expensive than the M-113 IN THE GAME: And that would
be
if the M-113 is enough larger that it would be likely to get hit more
often enough that it's armor advantage is cancelled out.
That is to say, if the HMMWV is so weakly armored that it will be killed say 1
out of every 3 times, but is so stealthy that it is only likely to be hit
once per game, But the M-113, whose armor means it will be killed only 1
in every 5 hits, but it's so big it's likely to be hit 3 or 4 times per game,
it's survivability is actually less than the smaller vehicle.
I'm sure that is over-simplifying it for Oerjan, but I think it contains
the core of the arguement. Oerjan is definitely arguing that stealth does NOT
increase survivability as much as it increases points cost under the current
system.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> M2), but the roof is admittedly lower... if you have
The roof hatches are pretty big, but I wasn't allowed to open them when I
had my look-around :-( Whether they'd be open or closed depends on the
current situation - if it is pouring down rain/snow/HE artillery/NBC
agents/whatever they'd most likely be closed :-/
> You got it in one. But on the same note intelligence
...that the points system has nothing whatsoever to do with the
real-life
manufacturing cost of the vehicle; instead it is only concerned with the
vehicle's battlefield performance. Which I've said about two dozen times in
this thread already.
> Remember: About half what I write to you is
Thought you might recognize it. Do unto others, and all that :-)
> Signature factor: D4 = 1, D6 = 1.125, D8 = 1.25,
OK.
> I'm backwards.
I've noticed <g>
> However, this does raise another question. By your
If the *only* difference between them is the signature, then yes - the
HMMWV would, and should, cost more POINTS since it is harder to hit (and
thus harder to kill, and therefore more useful in combat). As it should be,
since the points cost attempts to measure the combat effectiveness of the
vehicle.
But the signature *isn't* the only difference. The M-901 has heavier
armour (it doesn't have much armour, but the Humvee doesn't have *any*), which
increases its points cost compared to the Humvee - if you look at the
sketched points system in my earlier post, 1 level of armour costs more
points than reducing the signature by 1 step would. The M-901 probably
has superior overall mobility as well (inferior on roads, superior
cross-country), which also increases the points cost of the M-901
compared to the Humvee.
> Why? It doesn't make sense to me that a
The only reason it doesn't make sense to you, is that you still seem to
believe that I design points systems to reflect some sort of
"real-world"
manufacturing cost.
Tell you what (and I'm fully aware that you might be surprised and even
shocked by this revelation): I don't.
I design my points systems as tools for balancing scenarios, which means
that they attempt to measure how useful a vehicle is on the gaming table. A
vehicle which has a smaller signature than an otherwise identical vehicle
(same armament, same mobility, same armour etc.) is more useful on the gaming
table than that other vehicle, because the smaller signature means that the
enemy has a harder time hitting it so it survives correspondingly longer. More
useful on the gaming table means a higher points cost.
> I can't really comment on that since I don't have
Such as? Well, "any walker" to begin with, but apart from that?
> And most of the published vehicles couldn't have won a
Unless of course their *real-world manufacturing or procurement cost*
was so much lower than that of their rivals that the rivals simply couldn't
compete :-) Like, eg., Sweden's purchase of several hundred ex-DDR
BMP-1s
and MT-LBs...
Regards,
> >
I have been inside a BMP3 there is no head room, and I'm only 5'9". In
particular this vehicle has had too much
asked of it the thing has a tank gun/missile launcher on it.
If your wondering where I encountered this thing, the Kuwaiti 10th armored
brigade is made up of BMP3s and T72s. Very thoughtful when you consider that
this brigade went over to the Iraqis it was nice of them to keep a similar
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> I design my points systems as tools for balancing
A > vehicle which has a smaller signature than an
> otherwise identical vehicle > (same armament, same
> longer. More useful on the gaming table means a
Is that necessarily true? Under DSII rules, a vehicle's signature has no
effect vs. artillery, which is what I generally use to kill off swarms of
annoying Size 1 vehicles with GMS. On a simillar note, ablative armor is
tremedously useful in fighting
HEL-using factions, but extra useless weight when
fighting troops armed with HKPs. GMSs are incredibly
effective weapons--until you have to try to fight it
out with infantry. My point in saying this is to say that any points cost is
necessarily going to be unbalanced in certain situations. Too many variables
to keep track of. If you restrict your analysis to "how is it affected by
direct fire weapons" then you could come up with a 100% accurate solution, but
once you introduce combined arms into the equation, you no longer have
anything but rough guidelines. Is a
300-point grav tank going to be equal in value on the
battlefield to 300 points of infantry? The answer is simply "Depends on what
you want to do."
> >It was balanced towards marginally capable
I really don't want to get into specifics without the design system in front
of me. I think Don has a
copy--I'll get back to you on this.
> Unless of course their *real-world manufacturing or
You only make that sort of purchase because you don't actually intend to fight
a war.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
The Heavy Gear design system is this amazing thing that has to be seen to be
believed.
Between version 1 and version 2 of the rules it got moved from the core rule
book to a supplement of its own. Between publishing the core rules of version
2 and the vehicle design supplement (when there were no official design rules
in print) Dream Pod 9 were giving away a PDF file of the design rules. Since I
have this PDF file, anybody who want a copy can ask me for one and I'll send
it.
(1.3MB)
Heavy Gear is mostly a role-playing game, and the design system
reflects this. Design is mostly descriptive, a vehicle doesn't so much have
"systems" as it has "stats", "perks" and "flaws" much like a GURPS character
would. Since the game seems (from the very little contact I had with it) to
mostly revolve around tactical
combat that's arrived at in a mecha-pilot roleplaying game, the
whole points system (and implications thereof) seems entirely moot. Probably
the most attractive element of the game is the
outstanding artist that does all the mecha/manga illustration.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Is that necessarily true? Under DSII rules, a
Which is why a force with a considerable number of size 1 vehicles would do
well to be backed up by it's OWN arty with CBR. Theire's a fine line betweeen
points being unbalanced and tactics being unsound.
> On a simillar note,
Which is why you don't equip your vehicles with it if you know you're not
facing HEL's -- but if you are, the cost of Ablative is justified. If
you're not, and you use Ablative, that's not a case of the points sytem being
unbalanced, it's a case of being a poor tactician.
GMSs are incredibly
> effective weapons--until you have to try to fight it
Which is why you equip your GMS vehicles with APFC's, APSW's, and even their
OWN infantry.
> My point in saying this is to say
Only if the points are SPENT in an unbalanced manner.
Too many variables
> to keep track of. If you restrict your analysis to
If that was the only basis of analysis for an entire force, or even an entire
vehicle, true. But each component system should be valued on a different set
of criteria, and the vehicle as a whole should be based on how well it
combines those criteria. That's why a unit with both armor AND
stealth is obviously more survivable than either a high stealth/low
armor OR
High armor/low stealth design. As for the force as a whole, how balanced
or unbalanced the points are towards a certain set of circumstances is
entirely
dependent on the quality of the player/commander who assembles the
force.
> but once
Actually, a well-balanced combined arms force should lend itself better
to a
well-balanced points system. If I know my opponent will spend all his
points on the same type of vehicle, with a fixed set of strengths and
weaknesses, I will design a force that will avoid his strengths, exploit his
weaknesses, and slaughter him every time. Again, this is not because the
point system is unbalanced in favor of the weapons *I* chose - it's
because my opponent falls short in the military thinking category.
Your own point about a 300-point grav tank and 300 points of infantry is
a
perfect example - if your whole force consisted of 300-point grav tanks,
or all infantry, then certainly it would be easy to assume that the points
were unbalanced. But if spent wisely on a good mixed force, it's going to be a
little more even a fight. This has everything to do with the player, not the
points system.
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> David Brewer wrote:
> Between version 1 and version 2 of the rules it got moved from the
Yes please :-)
'Course, without the rules it still won't tell me very much about why it is
inaccurate, but half an answer is better than none <g>
Later,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> More useful on the gaming table means a
Which takes longer to kill: a vehicle against which you have to use
artillery because your direct-fire weapons have difficulties hitting it,
or
a vehicle against which you can use both artillery *and* direct-fire
weapons effectively?
> My point in saying this is to say
...
> If you restrict your analysis to
Sure, I'm fully aware of this. In fact, that's exactly why I *don't* restrict
my analyses to merely "how it is affected by direct fire weapons".
Adding to Brian's comments:
Which points system do you consider to be better: the one which is exact in
some cases and gives rough guidelines in most others, or the one which gives
rough guidelines in a few lucky cases and is outright misleading in the rest?
I very much prefer the former. If the points system is to give even rough
guidelines for scenario balance, it has to measure the combat performance of
the various units in some way. If you just give them arbitrary points
costs - and any "real-world manufacturing cost" in a SciFi setting are
just
that, arbitrary - you'll need massive luck not to end up with a points
system which is completely misleading... yet that's exactly what you (John)
are asking for.
> Unless of course their *real-world manufacturing or
No, you make that sort of purchase because BMP-1s and MT-LBs are far
better
protected against shrapnel than the WW2-vintage soft-skin trucks you had
before, and because 800+ BMPs and MT-LBs move far more people than the
<50
CV9040 you could've bought for the same money :-)
Regards,