Re: Questions

David Brewer wrote:

>>>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.
> 
>Not by as many as you think...

Very close to it, yes <g>
 
>>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 ;-)
> 
>In both cases (combined/not-combined) we're dealing with five
>possible levels of *signature* (which is *not* stealth, but is
>adjusted by stealth), 

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.
>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.

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
>"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... 

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
>>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.
> 
>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.

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
>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.

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,

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