Re: Points, was Re: grav

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.

The LAV is a lot lighter than the Bradley and has rather less internal 
volume, but most of that reduction comes from its the lesser *width*
(the 
LAV III is only about 2.5 meters wide, compared to the 3.2+ meters of
the 
Bradley and BMP-3) rather than lesser *height* (it is nearly as high
over 
the *hull* as the BMP-3 is over the *turret roof*). (The Bradley, of 
course, is both tall *and* wide!) While narrow width is important for 
maneuverability, especially in cramped places, low height is a far more 
important dimension for not being seen by the enemy... and also for how
big 
the vehicle looks when you stand next to it :-/

 >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).

The BMP-3 is not a tank though, and the dismounts riding in its back are

not tankers - and the Russian infantry doesn't have the same height 
restrictions as their tankers do. Having climbed around in both a M2
(A3, 
IIRC) and a BMP I can't say I found the M2 to be that much roomier (also

the seats in the BMP were more comfortable, and it was *MUCH* easier to
get 
to the driver's position from the dismount compartment than it was in
the 
M2), but the roof is admittedly lower... if you have to sit inside it
for a 
long time every inch counts :-/

(At 5'11" I'm not that big compared to some of the US grunts I've seen,
but 
I'm still much too tall to be able to climb into the driver's station of
a 
T-72 :-( Yes, I've tried that too.)

 >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.

You got it in one. But on the same note intelligence isn't any more 
expensive than inefficiency - which is part of the reason why the BMP-3 
isn't vastly more expensive in real life than the Bradley is in spite of

its lower profile :-/

 >>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?

There are at least a couple available, but I haven't used any of them 
enough to be sure that they don't do strange things on me (like not 
updating the cost or capacity used every time I change some equipment 
choices :-( ).

 >>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.

Remember: About half what I write to you is toungue-in-cheek. You just
have 
to figure out which half it which :-)

 >>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.

OK.

 >>Vehicle points value = (Armour factor)*(Signature
 >>factor)*[(Weapons cost*FCS factor) + cost of rest
 >>of payload]*(Mobility factor)
 >
 >>...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?

Sorry, I don't get what you're referring to here.

Do you consider a DirtSide vehicle with a D4 signature die ("effective 
signature 5")to be stealthier than one with a D12 signature die
("effective 
signature 1")?

Or do you consider 1.5 to be less than 1?

If neither of the above, what was it you had a problem with?

 >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.

I can't really comment on that since I don't have Heavy Gear, but your 
description suggests that the Heavy Gear design system was unbalanced or

biased towards Gears - in a fashion similar to how the current DS2
design 
sequence is biased towards maximum armour, Superior FCS and no Stealth,
or 
how the FT2 design system was heavily biased towards A-batts and level-3

screens <shrug>

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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