Re: Points, was Re: grav

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

> way in hell the BMP-3's payload can fit in a DS2
> size 2 vehicle. 'Course, 
> you could say that all Russian vehicles get one
> level of Stealth in DS2 
> terms...

Could.	I think stealth as applied to ground vehicles
has a lot to do with deliberately designing them to be
small.

> >And it's USA.  USAR is United States Army Reserve.
> 
> Interesting. Armor magazine (don't remember which
> issue though) seemed to 
> use the  USAR acronym to include US units deployed
> in Europe as well? IIRC 
> they did this because the acronym "USA" is often
> used to refer to the 
> United States of America - ie., what you Americans
> simply refer to as "US".

US troops in Europe are USAREUR--United States Army
Europe.  The R is added because English-speakers have
no way to pronounce "AEU" comfortably.	:)
 
> >LAV: RFAC 1 (T) and what, 8 dismounts?  Just a hair
> over size 2.
> 
> Take another look at its physical size. If that is
> size 2, it has -2 levels 
> of Stealth slapped on to make its effective
> signature 4.

Depends. . . I use GHQ LAV miniatures as my entire
size-2 Akritai force.  No one seems to think they are
outsize.  As an Army guy I don't get much chance to
seem 'em in real life.

> You didn't answer the question, though. Do you
> choose your points system to 
> reflect a) combat power or b)
> procurement/manufacturing cost?

Ideally, b.

> If both sides use the same weapons but different
> FCSs, Superior FCS scores...
> 
> Range band	  Vs Basic	  Vs Enhanced
> Close 	  +45-55%	  +15-20%
> Medium	  +75-80%	  +25-30%
> Long		  +133% 	  +40%
>
> ...more hits against size 2 and 3 targets than its
> lower-tech siblings (and > the other sizes don't
differ very much either). If> the two sides use 
> different weapons - ie., so the range bands aren't
> the same - the table > becomes huge, but I can put
one together if you > like. It'll take a while 
> though.

Uhh. . . Not necessary.  When you get going on your
indepth math analysis my eyes just glaze over.
 
> Being X% more powerful should, in a working points
> system, mean that the 
> vehicle costs X% more points - which is a bit
> difficult, since X in this 
> case varies with the range! :-/ (Why the square

OK. . . But can you produce a points system that
doesn't require a science degree to use that reflects
this?  I doubt it.

> root? Because the enemy 
> shoots back given half a chance. Read
> F.W.Lanchester's works for a detailed 
> explanation.)

Read a summary of it and that's enough.
 
> > >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,
> 
> You don't get 20% more points overall; you only get
> another 20-30% of the 
> points you spent on those stealthed vehicles.

Which is most of my combat vehicles.
 
> Stealth does make them more survivable, certainly.
>opposite in direction, to the discrepancies between
>the cost and power of Superior FCSs at close range.

OK, so	now you're saying my vehicles are pointed
about right since they use stealth and sup FCS.  :P

>As you can see above Stealth isn't cost-effective,
>period. If you cut the cost of Stealth in half (to
>10*Level*Size) you get it roughly correct for 
>Grav tanks with Superior everything, but it is still
>overpriced for pretty much everything else.

So. . . do you have a good way to point this out
without requiring algebra from our prospective tank
designers?  I mean, I can do algebra but I won't do it
for fun.

>Then you have no way of determining which factors did
>what. All you have is your impressions, and
>impressions aren't very reliable - remember your 
>first impression of the FB2 Kra'Vak?

Corrected by a couple more games with 'em.  I've
played a couple hundred DSII scenarios at least.

>This is your impression. How do you *know* that it is
>your Stealth which causes him to miss more often than
>you do, as opposed to your Superior FCSs which causes
>*you* to *hit* more often than he does?

Unlike the Germans, I refuse to tinker with a good
thing. If it works, I ain't changing it. 
Realistically, militaries work that way except for 3rd
Reich.

As an out-of-game factor, I long ago made the call
that tank crewmen were more valuable to the NRE than
coinage, and hence a little more money spent to keep
them alive was a good investment, even if it's not
quite as effective.

For the New Israelis, it's historical fact that their
tank designs are extremely concerned with
survivability so when I designed their equipment for
Noam, I ignored all cost-effectiveness concerns and
threw max stealth on everything.

John

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