Prev: RE: figure poses and MICVs Next: RE: figure poses and MICVs

Re: David's vehicle design

From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@j...>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:06:19 EDT
Subject: Re: David's vehicle design

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:05:09 -0400  "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
<> writes:
>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 + 

Number crunching can be 'good' (finding a set of designs that meets the
nation you are planning the force to represent - Native People's Circle
are GMS/H happy for DS2, Imperial Japanese Corporation (yes, it's a
nation - Corporation) absolutely *loves* HELs, etc.  
It can be bad (min-Maxing to win those tournaments).   But that's just

>Mobility Types:
>Some of the given mobility types do not provide enough of a cost 
>savings to
>make them worth taking. IMHO, the cost difference between slow and 
>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), 
>might have to reconsider. Or if the cost difference was greater. At 
>curret values, there is very little incentive not to take fast tracked 
>wheeled or slow tracked.

Double agree - except for 'flavor' or to copy an existing design why
indeed pick either Slow tracked or slow wheeled.  Assuming your power
allows (Native People's Circle use CFE almost exclusively) why bother
with Slow GEV?

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

I would love to field some open topped NPC vehicles in DS2 but if the
point cost was lower it would feel better.  Of course those LLP (League
of Latino Peoples) SLAMs would have a field day then...

>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 
>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- VSP
>* armor level * vehicle size [not proposals, just an example]) it 
>provide a reason to have less than max armor.

Either less cost, a boost to mobility/mobility type or....

>Brian Bell

This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:

Prev: RE: figure poses and MICVs Next: RE: figure poses and MICVs