Re: grav

John Atkinson wrote:

>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,

Masses of size 4 armour 1 vehicles - gee, that sounds very much like 
today's USAR with their Bradleys, and the soon-to-be-purchased LAVs even

more so! OK, with the latest add-on armour they probably rank as size 4 
armour 2...

In a game of modern (2001 AD) combat, would you want the points values
for 
the US Bradleys and LAV 3s to reflect

a) their combat power, or

b) their purchase cost?

If you answer b), you have to include a rule that the US player always
gets 
at least 5 times as much money to spend on equipping his forces as the 
opponent, or else he'll lose all the time. In real life the US has all
that 
money, of course, but do you really think that this should be explicitly

included in the game rules?

If you instead answer a), I'm going to follow up by asking why you
choose 
b) for DirtSide - so I don't expect you to answer a) for the modern game
:-)

> >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.

In other words, you deliberately exploit one of the biggest faults of
the 
design system :-)

> >Was it the stalth that made the difference?
>
>It contributed.

Which would have contributed more - the Stealth you used, or the 20-30% 
extra vehicles you could've had if you hadn't used Stealth?

> >I'm guessing if it was a small, stealthed force, it also wielded
better 
> weapons and >FCS.
>
>Better weapons--typically.  I've had lots of opponents
>who think HELs are wonderful.	And then don't insist
>on fighting on a pool table to take advantage of it.
>Better FCS: Almost invariably.  Better tactics: Well, duh.

In which case your use of a more points-efficient FCS almost certainly 
negated your use of *less* points-efficient Stealth. If you restricted 
yourself to level-1 Stealth, your FCS advantage probably even outweighed

the Stealth deficiency all on its own - and then you put superior
armament 
and tactics on top of that.

In other words, your battles are multi-factor experiments. Did you keep 
track of which factors contributed with what amount? If not, how do you 
know that the Stealth contributed to your success, rather than detracted

from it?

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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