Prev: re: Re: (OT) 27th of March... Next: Re: [SG] Climate/Environment Aclamation (was RE: [OT] Canadians are C OLD....)

Re: Points, was Re: grav

From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@h...>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:14:54 -0800
Subject: Re: Points, was Re: grav

Let me see if I can address at least one point for Oerjan, he can
correct me 
if I'm wrong:

You wrote:

>However, this does raise another question.  By your
>program, a HMMWV with a TOW II launcher is more
>expensive than an M-113 varient with TOW II launcher
>(M901, etc).  Why?  It doesn't make sense to me that a
>truck would be more expensive than a much heavier
>armored vehicle.

Again, it comes back to the fact that the points sytem should reflect
how 
effective the unit is in a game, not how much it cost to build.  There
are 
three main components to a vehicle's effectiveness:  It's
Offensive/Mission 
Capability (For an MBT, the nastiness of it's gun.  For an AEV, the 
efficiency of it's Engineering equipment); It's Survivability (How hard
it 
is to hit, how hard it is to kill if you DO hit it); and overall
performance 
(How fast, manouverable, amphibious, etc).  In the case of a HMMWV vs.
an 
M-113 as listed above, the offensive capability is the same - a TOW II. 
As 
for overall performance, I'm not well versed enough to know how the two 
compare (I'm guessing the HMMWV is faster, I don't know about off-road 
capability).  In terms of survivability, the HMMWV, being smaller, is
harder 
to hit, while the M-113 is harder to kill once it DOES get hit, because
it's 
better armored.

Which brings us to what *I* would gather is the ONLY reason such a HMMWV

would EVER be more expensive than the M-113 IN THE GAME:  And that would
be 
if the M-113 is enough larger that it would be likely to get hit more
often 
enough that it's armor advantage is cancelled out.

That is to say, if the HMMWV is so weakly armored that it will be killed
say 
1 out of every 3 times, but is so stealthy that it is only likely to be
hit 
once per game, But the M-113, whose armor means it will be killed only 1
in 
every 5 hits, but it's so big it's likely to be hit 3 or 4 times per
game, 
it's survivability is actually less than the smaller vehicle.

I'm sure that is over-simplifying it for Oerjan, but I think it contains
the 
core of the arguement.	Oerjan is definitely arguing that stealth does
NOT 
increase survivability as much as it increases points cost under the
current 
system.

Brian

"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis
is 
of no use."

				 - S. Freud

_________________________________________________________________


Prev: re: Re: (OT) 27th of March... Next: Re: [SG] Climate/Environment Aclamation (was RE: [OT] Canadians are C OLD....)