Amour and Walkers was [Re: grav ]

John Atkinson wrote:
> 
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > >Yeah.  But in Real Life, the only reason not to
> > have
> > >as much armor as is practical revolves around
> > shipping
> > >issues.
> >
> > Which in no way refutes Oerjan's comment.
> 
> I'm confused. . .
> 
> Yes, large vehicles will carry more armor.  It's
> called designing vehicles to fit their battlefield
> role.  It just makes more sense.  People with no
> common sense when designing vehicles should not be
> rewarded for being irrational.  If you insist that you
> should be allowed to field masses of size 4 armor 1
> vehicles, and your bitch is that under the point
> system as it stands it's not enough price savings to
> be able to buy enough vehicles to swamp the enemy
> who's using size 4 armor 4 vehicles, then I don't see
> your point.  I think the problem is you're trying to
> treat this as an abstract mathematical problem where I
> want it to make sense in concrete terms.

It's only abstract if you don't use the point system. The issue here is
that the point system is slightly broken. If you don't bother with the
point system then it really doesn't matter, but it's lacking in
distingushing between a class 4 armour 1 and a class 4 armour 4 in a
significant enough way.
 
> > I never buy anything but Superior, unless the
> > vehicle's main mission is as
> > an APC or it's main target is infantry, since FCS
> > has no effect on main
> > weapons vs. infantry.
> 
> I never buy anything but Superior.

Same thing here. The point difference between Basic, Enh, and Sup FC is
not enough to actually show the game term change in power.

When designing forces I look at FC as the levels that units would be
contructed with. State of the art killing platforms are Sup, regular
units are Enh, and cheap units and obsolete ones are basic.
 
> > Silly, yes.  But if they're allowed, they should be
> > just as useful as any
> > other unit.  Otherwise, why bother incorporating
> > them into the rules?
> 
> Why should they be just as useful as any other unit?
> The answer to the second question is because some
> people have a hardon for giant robots.

They should be just as usefull for the points you spend on them. A tank
should be better in certain cercomstances then a walker and a walker
should be better in others, urban combat for example.