Prev: Re: David's vehicle design Next: RE: Long Overdue Kudos for ship design

RE: David's vehicle design

From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@d...>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:05:09 -0400
Subject: RE: David's vehicle design

Size 3 vehicle: 15 capacity points
1st weapon in turret size x 3
additional weaons in turret size x 2
APSWs take 1 capacity point <total as they are pentile mounted and

Turreted: #1, 6 (2x3), each additional is 4 (2x2). So 6+4+4 = 14. My
3 MDC/2s in a size 3 vehicle + 2 APSWs.


7 size-1 weapon in a size-3 vehicle.
Turreted: #1, 3 (1x3), each additional is 2 (1x2). So 3+2+2+2+2+2+2 +

Mobility Types:
Some of the given mobility types do not provide enough of a cost savings
make them worth taking. IMHO, the cost difference between slow and fast
tracked or fast tracked and wheeled, is not enough to have me take
slow tracked or wheeled. If fast tracked took more space (in and of
or through having to use a better power plant that took extra space), I
might have to reconsider. Or if the cost difference was greater. At the
curret values, there is very little incentive not to take fast tracked
wheeled or slow tracked.

I agree about top armor, except that there should be a point cost
to reflect the lowered game value.

Since armor cost is linear, there is no reason not to take max armor.
now VSP cost about 1/10-1/20 (eyball estimate) the cost of the vehicle.
Armor cost 20% of that per level, so is a VERY small fraction of the
cost. If it had a greater cost per level (such as VSP * armor level -or-
* armor level * vehicle size [not proposals, just an example]) it would
provide a reason to have less than max armor.

Brian Bell

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn M Wilson []
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:29 AM
> To:
> Subject:	Re: David's vehicle design
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:07:25 -0400  "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <> writes:
> >Whoohooo!!!
> >
> >So I can get a Size 3 vehicle with 5 MDC/2s (14cap) and 2 APSWs 
> >(1cap)?
> Wait a minute, 
> Running totals -
> Turret: #1, 6 (3x2); #2 10, (6+(2x2)); #3 14 (10+(2x2); plus 2 APSW's
> - 5 MDC/2's in a single turret on a size 3 vehicle costs 22 capacity. 
> Fixed: #1 (4 (2x2); #2 8 (4 + 2x2); #3 12 (8 + 2x2); #4 16 (12 + (2 x
> ...

> Different mobility options 
> >are not
> >balanced [some take more advanced power plants, but this fails to 
> >balance
> >the mobility types], 
> How so?  I would like to hear specific examples or thoughts, please. 
> What do you mean by  "...balance the mobility types..."?
> Armor takes no capacity, so there if VERY little 
> >reason
> >to take less than max armor, Open Top has NO advantages (not even 
> >cost), 
> Well, based on how you view armor, this first is true, perhaps, and
> perhaps, in game terms there should be a benefit to open tops, but
> 'real world' advantage is there to open top vehicles?  Why are there
> apparently so few of them?  But then why do real troops prefer
> to ride on top of the APC?  I would like to see some cost or (maybe)
> speed  advantage for taking less then max armor myself but how to
> it in game terms?
> >takes too little capacity for the damage they inflict, etc.). 
> Sorry, I don't think so, in fact I think they are less effective.  But
> that is as  it should be perhaps, for game balance?

> Gracias,
> Glenn/Triphibious
> This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.

Prev: Re: David's vehicle design Next: RE: Long Overdue Kudos for ship design