Re: Questions

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?
> 
>Stealth is the general dampners, camo etc. To stop people
>firing at them in the first place.

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
>rather than a simulation of reality. Balance is hence far more
>important than the question of it being perfectly acurate to
>reality and technology.

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
>choice.
>Since either make the stealth+ECM cost high and it becomes too
>expensive it to be used, and hence all shots effectively are
>against a poorly/undefended target.
>Or you make the stealth+ECM cost low and everyone has it
>meaning that their is now no point having direct fire weapons
>and GMS is the cheaper alternative.

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
>ECM,which means infantry turn into dog food since they now
>have no long ranged anti-tank weaponry.

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
>easier since rather than having to balance two independant
>weapon/defence combos you add to the number of combinations.

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,
>>de-coupled from weapon types used etc?
>
>I have a regular opponent who uses nothing but hi-mob wheeled in his
>army. The problem with your question is that decoupled from weapons
>hi-mob wheeled should be free (or close to it). 

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
>weapons counteract its short-commings. Gary (my opponent) uses
>GMS/H and HEL's all of which have a long range without any
>range detremental brackets. Basically long range stuff.

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
>between .25 and 4 times as many vehicles as the opponent gevs.
>Depending on terrain and equipment
 
OK. A more useful answer than Brian's <g>

>I think you can do a meaningful analysis if you use a base movement
>system as your reference point and have a look at how much better the
>other systems are compared to it.
 
>ie. using lo-mob wheeled as base point.
>hi-mob wheeled. 
>added: +2 inches move
> 
>Grav
>added: +7 inches move

+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
>	+terrain in normal

>Then just add a sensible points factor to each event.
>eg. each 1 inche increase is worth 5% or each terrain added to
>the normal group adds 10%

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

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 :-/

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry