Points, was Re: grav

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:

> Masses of size 4 armour 1 vehicles - gee, that
> sounds very much like 
> today's USAR with their Bradleys,

GMS/H, RFAC/1 (T), 6 dismounts.  Sounds solidly size 3
to me.	And with armor 2.

And it's USA.  USAR is United States Army Reserve.

 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...

LAV: RFAC 1 (T) and what, 8 dismounts?	Just a hair
over size 2.
 
> 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?

Modern scenarios include a specific background. 
Namely: Today, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

> >I never buy anything but Superior.
> 
> In other words, you deliberately exploit one of the
> biggest faults of the 
> design system :-)

OK. . . I know I'm going to regret this, but exactally
how much of a difference does it make, firing at size
2 and 3 targets (most of my opponents don't use many
size 4 vehicles)?  Statistically speaking?

> 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?

If I had 20% more points, I probably would generally
not increase the size of my maneuver elements, but add
more supports.	I generally build around a reinforced
company task force.  But I have noticed a decided
trend among my vehicles for my stealth to make them
more survivable--because armor doesn't help much vs.
size 3-5 weapons.

> 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.

I generally do use only one level of stealth.  And one
of my most sucesful set-ups doesn't use stealth.  I
stealth everything down to d10.  It just isn't
cost-effective past that.  Only on the heavy tanks do
I use more stealth.  Which is why an Imperial heavy
grav tank cost either 474 or 499 points.  

> In other words, your battles are multi-factor
> experiments. Did you keep > track of which factors
contributed with what amount?

Not formally.

> If not, how do you > know that the Stealth
contributed to your success, > rather than detracted 
> from it?

If my opponent keeps missing, I figure I'm doing
something right.

What I really credit my success to is the following
sequence:

1)Decide on a background (NRE)
2)Decide on a doctrine that fits the background
(Quality vs. mass, heavy use of indirect fire support,
emphasis on fighting armored, tiers of equipment, etc)
3)Design an MTOE to fight by that doctrine (See:
webpage)
4)Design vehicles to fit into that MTOE by that
doctrine (see: Webpage), and
5)Buy minis.

Most people seem to do 5, 1, 4, and forget 2 and 3. 
Or do 3 based on "what do I own?"  It sets up
unbalanced forces with no integrity.  I started out
that way, then decided to go back and start from the
top--meaning I own more than a few minis that just
don't fit into my MTOE.  So I don't use them.  But
then, I've always been more of a roleplayer than a
one-off scenario player..

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.