Re: Points, was Re: grav

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

>  >As an Army guy I don't get much chance to
>  >seem 'em in real life.
> 
> I have seen both a Bradley and several LAVs/Piranhas
> in real life. They're 
> quite big indeed... particularly when parked beside
> a BMP-3 :-/

OK.  I was under the impression it was a lot smaller
than a Brad.  It is considerably lighter than a Brad,
but the body is mounted higher relative to the tires
than a tracked vehicle is to the treads.

As a side note, vehicle size is affected by other
considerations than those rated in DSII.  For
instance, a Bradley has far more interior room for
it's six dismounts than the BMP-3 has for it's eight. 
Crew comfort, in otherwords.  And Russians are
notorious for designing their tanks for short
people--which they could do because in the Soviet
military tankers couldn't be taller than 5' 5" (IIRC).

In addition you could argue that inefficient design
work resulted in the Bradley having effective levels
of 'negative stealth' as you put it.  You could factor
this into vehicle design sequences, but you'd have to
put a healthy points rebate on it, which isn't
reflective of Real Life concerns--inefficiency isn't
any cheaper than intelligence.

> Let's put it this way: considering your previous
> writings, and the points  > costs you've allocated
to the various DS vehicles on > your NRE pages*, I 

Geez. . . I havn't looked at those points costs in 3
or 4 years.  Guess it's time to download a vehicle
builder.  Anyone know of a good one?

> wouldn't be all that surprised if you consider the
> *current* GZG design	> systems (FB and DS2 both) to
require science degrees > to use already... :-/

Hey, my math is sloppy.  I know this.  However, other
people of normal intelligence have no problem with it.
 I'm just math-retarded.

> respectively - while the Heraclius crams 16 capacity
> points of stuff into a 
> size/3 vehicle (size/4 gun in turret, Enhanced PDS
> and APFC).

Eh?  This has to be typo on my part.  I thought it was
Basic.
 
> Vehicle points value = (Armour factor)*(Signature
> factor)*[(Weapons > cost*FCS factor) + cost of rest
of > payload]*(Mobility factor)

> Signature factor: D4 = 1, D6 = 1.125, D8 = 1.25, D10
> = 1.375, D12 = 1.5
> 
> ...etc. In such a system, the vehicle's Signature
> and Armour rating could  > be completely independent
of how much stuff it > carries (ie., its nominal 
> "size"). 

OK, let me get this straight.

>Signature factor: D4 = 1, D6 = 1.125, D8 = 1.25, D10
>= 1.375, D12 = 1.5

Stealth makes a vehicle cheaper?

You know what this is starting to remind me of?  The
Heavy Gear design sequence.  Which is enough to make
me nervous.  Designing an all-around capable vehicle
(again: M1A2, Challenger2, Leopard 2A5, Merkava) was
too expensive to be worthwhile.  Which was fine in a
background which was designed only to support Gears,
all of which were designed by roleplayers who didn't
understand military tactics.

John

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