Questions

> Beth wrote:

I treat a SD result as no firing until repaired. It's far easier and quicker
than recalculating or trying to remember that stealth isn't working so
signature goes up.

> graeme.bradbury@btinternet.com wrote:

> But anyway, what are you doing firing a DFFG at long. :-P

Trying to figure out some of the features of Mikko's damage tables,
that's all :-)

> Can someone explain the difference between Stealth and ECM to >>me?
Not the effects in game terms, I'm well aware of those, but in the
> PSB?

But why doesn't it stop GMSs to fire in the first place, when it stops all
other weapons? Why can the GMS launch pads always detect and lock the missiles
onto targets when they want to, when an AFV fire control system can't?

> I think the point you need to keep in mind is that DS2 is a game

In other words you are saying "Go for it!" <G> At least that's what your
*words* mean; if that's your *intent* seems somewhat dubious given what you
follow it up with:

> If you combine stealth and ECM you turn GMS into the weapon of

You don't think I might perhaps be planning to review the cost of GMS
systems while re-vamping all the rest of the design system, do you...?
<g>

> Or you turn GMS into a direct fire weapon that is also affected by

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're saying here.

GMS are *already* affected by ECM, and Superior ECM is much, *much*, *MUCH*
more common among the DSII designs I've seen (both IRL and on
the web) than level-3 Stealth is. Level-3 Stealth degrades direct fire
against Size-4+ targets (you can't get a smaller signature than 1) by
very nearly the same factor as Superior ECM degrades GMS fire against any
target.

Since Superior ECM is common and Level-3 Stealth isn't and they both
have the same effects against their respective "target" weapons, you seem to
be saying that infantry is dog food in the *current* rules
since they don't have any long-ranged anti-tank weaponry... or?

> And anyway adding stealth + ECM makes calculating points harder not

This last bit is completely false.

First, combining Stealth and ECM into one system (with 4 or 5 levels,
including "None" and maybe "Brilliant") *reduces* the number of combinations
compared to the current situation. In the published rules ECM has 4 levels and
Stealth has as many levels as the vehicle's class,
and these can be combined any way you like - eg., for a Size-5 vehicle
there are 20 possible combinations of ECM and Stealth. Last time I
checked 4 and 5 were both somewhat smaller than 20 ;-)

Second and more importantly, if a defensive system improves the survivability
of your vehicle by the same amount against all weapon types it is very easy to
calculate how much it is worth, because its multiplicative value is the same
regardless of what designs the enemy use. If it is properly against one
design, it is properly balanced against all other designs as well.

If instead the defensive system only works against some enemy designs but not
at all against others, it is rather difficult to set a "fair"
for it - because it will be worth its weight in gold at some times but
completely useless at others. It is impossible to balance it properly against
all foes; you have to choose between taking a rather arbitrary "average" value
or balancing it against the few systems it can counter
- which makes it horribly overpriced if the enemy doesn't bring those
particular systems to the battle.

At the moment, ECM and Stealth fall into the latter category - they are
sometimes worth massive amounts, and sometimes nothing at all. Baking them
together into one system puts them into the first category (or as
near to it as you can come in a non-ideal world), making the combined
system worth the same amount of points against all types of foes - OK,
except DFO and artillery strikes <g>

The advantage of baking the two together into one "Stealth/ECM" system
is that it makes it easier - *much* easier - for me to determine its
real value. The downside is that it cuts down on the player's design
choices... though considering the large number of players who put
Superior ECM on *everything*, the _effective_ reduction probably isn't
that big <g>

> Do you have any feelings for how much high mobility is worth in DSII,

My own impression is that hi-mob wheeled should only be slightly less
free than *lo*-mob wheeled even when coupled to weapons, but I know
what you mean :-/

> But certain

Interesting. Given his relatively low mobility, is he able to hold the range
open for long enough?

> So as far as i can answer your question. The wheeled needs

OK. A more useful answer than Brian's <g>

> I think you can do a meaningful analysis if you use a base movement

> ie. using lo-mob wheeled as base point.

+5, at least if you mean Movement Factors rather than inches (slow
tracked and transport walkers have MF8, lo-mob wheeled have MF10). But
yes, I agree with the system.

> +terrain in easy

> Then just add a sensible points factor to each event.

> ps. Oerjan, this ain't FT you can't look at the components in

Guess why I so emphatically insisted on multiplicative points values rather
than additive ones in the earlier posts? Addition only works if you can look
at one piece at a time <g>

However, as any experimental scientist knows the only way to analyse a complex
system is to hold as many variables as possible constant and
vary as few as you possibly can in each experiment - otherwise you
don't really know what you measure. Thus the comments about identical
equipment but different armament... and also the comment about this
being a very artificial set-up :-)

FWIW you can't look at the components in isolation in FT either, but FT has
far fewer components to look at and far less variation for each
individual component :-/

In message <200005122158.XAA17355@d1o960.telia.com> "Oerjan Ohlson" writes:
> graeme.bradbury@btinternet.com wrote:

Not by as many as you think...

> In the published rules

In both cases (combined/not-combined) we're dealing with five
possible levels of *signature* (which is *not* stealth, but is adjusted by
stealth), and four (or five) levels of ECM.

With five levels of signature, and four of ECM, there are 20
valid combos if Stealth/ECM are seperate and 14 valid combos if
they are combined. (With "Brilliant" ECM, it is 25 and 15 respectively.)

What gets complex is that, if combined, the relative value of "superior" ECM
to a very small vehicle is less than for a large vehicle, because a very small
vehicle already has the best possible signature... so whatever multiplier is
derived for
combined stealth/ECM must vary not only by the ECM value, but by
the size of the vehicle. This sounds awkward to me... you may find it as easy
to leave them seperate.

[...]
> If instead the defensive system only works against some enemy designs

This will always be the case. If I buy a v. small vehicle a
superior combined stealth/ECM and you have no GMS systems, I've
been burned just as much as if I had bought uncombined superior ECM. In both
cases my vehicle is as easy to shoot at with basic guns.

This is much like buying point defence in Full Thrust... if the
enemy didn't bring fighters/missiles(/whatever) you got burned.
I'd say that this sort of scissors-paper-stone problem will crop
up in all points systems for all non-trivial games... we must
always assume an element of gambling.

> David Brewer wrote:

> And anyway adding stealth + ECM makes calculating points harder

Very close to it, yes <g>

> In the published rules

As long as the signature isn't reduced to less than 1, each level of stealth
reduces the number of enemy hits against it by very nearly (ie., "too small a
difference to show up even in extensive playtesting") the same percentage,
independent of the size of the vehicle.

> and four (or five) levels of ECM.

Technically, you are correct. However, due to the way the mechanics work (and
thus the way the numbers turn out) there are are only four
*effective* cases (five with Brilliant ECM/Stealth, but ignoring
Oversized vehicles) with the combined system:

* Size > ECM/Stealth level. Vehicle gets full benefit of both.
* Size = ECM/Stealth level. Vehicle is robbed of 1 Stealth level.
* Size = ECM/Stealth level -1. Vehicle is robbed of 2 Stealth levels.
* Size = ECM/Stealth level -2. Vehicle is robbed of 3 Stealth levels.
(* Size = ECM/Stealth level -3. Vehicle is robbed of 4 Stealth levels.)

There are some variations within each case, but again they are too small to be
noticable even in intensive playtesting. For example, a
Size-4 vehicle with Brilliant ECM/Stealth will be overpriced by very
nearly the same fraction as a Size-2 vehicle with Enhanced ECM/Stealth
- both fall in the "Vehicle is robbed of 1 Stealth level" case.

Out of the 20 (or 25) cases in the current system I'll get the balance right
for 14 (or 15) and make 6 (or 10) more or less overpriced. However, almost all
of the overpriced cases will be considerably less overpriced than they already
are in the current system, and the
possible exception is a size-1 vehicle (dune buggy, jeep or side-car
motorbike) with Brilliant Stealth/ECM :-/

> What gets complex is that, if combined, the relative value of

See above. I'm aware of this problem, and a baked-together ECM/Stealth
system with a cost multiplier won't solve it completely. It will cut it way
back, however... and and to this the fact that it'll allow me to
get the ECM/Stealth points values *right* for the vast majority of the
vehicles, instead of changing them from one big gamble to another slightly
smaller gamble, and you can see why I, when trying to balance
the system, find a combined Stealth/ECM system so attractive <g>

> If instead the defensive system only works against some enemy

Certainly. But since virtually no-one (that I've seen) uses even
Enhanced ECM on Size-1 vehicles, I'm not too worried about this <g>

> This is much like buying point defence in Full Thrust... if the

Sure. There are so many other elements of gambling in DSII however -
far more than in FT - that I'd prefer to cut them back a bit to get at
least some semblance of a balanced points system <g>

Later,

In message <200005131516.RAA01412@d1o902.telia.com> "Oerjan Ohlson" writes:
> David Brewer wrote:

You've not sold me.

> >>In the published rules

Forgive me, but it seems like you're planning to rate vehicles like this:

(Other stuff) * (size) * (combo-stealth/ECM)

as opposed to:

(Other stuff) * (signature) * (ECM)

and I'm at a loss to see how this simplifies anything. There
remains four cases of ECM-or-ECM/Stealth and five cases of size-
or-signature. The numbers are the same, except that you've added
some unnecessary restrictions to what combinations you may have.

If you're really set on a course of "fixing" the design system, rather than
the points system then of course I can't stop you, but I think that it would a
shame to do so much good work and then set up barriers to stop other people
from using your work without accepting your house rules. Done well, this could
form the basis
for a Tank-fleetbook One.

Best of luck anyway,