RE: Merc Guild

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Atkinson [mailto:johnmatkinson@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 12:14 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: Merc Guild

> 2)WTF sort of IDIOT would insure combat equipment? 
> You'd have to be a moron, or charge the sort of rates
> that make it uneconomical.  Remember, insurers have to
> turn a profit too.  I'm sure we've got an insurance
> business profession on the list (we seem to have
> everything else) would could discuss this better than
> I do.  But the whole basis of insurance is that you
> want to be charging more than you're paying out.  This
> works if you've got 100,000 people paying $100 a month
> and paying out $1,000,000 to the 10 people who die
> that month.  But the frequency of combat losses (what
> percentage losses does the average Dirtside II game
> inflict?  Frequently in excess of 80%--often in the
> space of one or two turns) make the premiums more or
> less the equivelant of buying a couple tanks a month.

In real life terms, losses of 2-3% are acceptable, 5-7% high and 15% can
be sustained for one or two missions.  Games would play much differently
if the commanders are required to keep their losses "reasonable".  In
real life, I suspect much of the maneuvering is simply to get to the
most advantageous range (i.e. you can fire, the enemy can not) inflict
as many casualties you can before receiving any, then getting away.  Of
course Assault will be different and be much higher in cost.

Would players out there play differently if they had a loss restriction
placed on them (perhaps some sort of exponential victory point cost?
Maybe like the first vehicle x 1, the second x2, the third x4 the fourth
x8 etc.?)

--Binhan