Re: DS II: Capitulation (was point balancing)

----- Original Message -----
From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: DS II: Capitulation (was point balancing)

> There are some changes I want to make before any others: First, to
make
> armour, power packs and propulsive systems use up internal capacity
> points; and second, to tie the movement factor of a vehicle to its
> power/mass ratio rather than to its "mobility type". The first is
> pretty much a must in order to balance armour in particular, while the
> latter is merely a hot wish :-/
>
> The current points system gives no logical reason *not* to put the
> maximum armour level on any ground vehicle - eg, a Size-5 Grav tank
> pays *13* points per armour level (out of a total cost in the 3-600
> points range), which is completely out of proportion to how much its
> survivability improves for each level. If the armour costs internal
> capacity points it is easy to allow customized armour fits (strong top
> armour to protect against artillery, assault-gun style vehicles with
> really massive front armour plates but weak elsewhere, etc), and there
> is a reason not to use heavy armour on APCs, staff vehicles etc - you
> can fit more stuff (or grunts) inside if you don't!
>

In other words, make it more like the original Striker rules.  Nicely
detailed, and kind of fun to design vehicles, but only if you are into
number-crunching.  Personally, I think I'd rather stick to something a
little less complicated (like DS2--duh!).

Not that the current system is all that great in terms of realism--I
think
it could be improved, without adding too much complication, by having
armor
use up space in the design, but to do the design by the different
facings,
etc, is probably going a little too far for me.  And I like the idea of
speed being a factor of P/W ratio, but I can't off hand think of an
easy,
simple, way to do it that wouldn't f-up the current simple design
process.

Oh well.

Rob