Re: [DS] Points system (fresh)

Ok, this is interesting, but we need to make clear something that has
been
mentioned before, but is relevant again to this current discussion.

For DS, there are at least three different ways of looking at a points
system - specifically for what the points system is trying to achieve.

Is a points system:

a) to represent the relative combat strength/ability vs. other
vehicles/units, in ONE PARTICULAR battle (ie the one we're playing
*today*,
right now);

b) to represent the "real life" cost of creating that vehicle;

c) to represent the relative combat strength/ability vs. other
vehicles/units, in a CAMPAIGN, where strategic movement, supply,
maintenance, etc. are taken into account.

These are all *very different*.

As Oerjan has pointed out before, the current DS points system was
designed
to try to get a balance of forces for the "a)" situation above - one
battle
only.

For example (I think Oerjan's), a fast grav vehicle (skimming mode) vs.
a
fast wheeled vehicle over clear terrain might have the same movement in
single battle terms (and so cost the same re movement), but if the grav
vehicle can self-deploy cross-continentally but the wheeled vehicle
needs
to be shipped, then the grav vehicle would cost far more in "c)" terms.
And almost certainly cost far more in "b)" terms also.

So while we're trying to come up with suggestions and people keep making
"game play cost" vs. "financial cost" points - we should get a clearer
statement of terms.

>From looking at the replies so far, what most people are talking about
are
type "a)" discussion points generally.

>From that point of view, whether or not a vehicle is more expensive
(dollar
terms) for having a top or being open-topped is really irrelevant.  The
*only* thing that is relevant is how do they perform in a single battle
vs.
each other...  The open topped vehicle is not going to offer as much
protection to the crew, thus will be easier to mission-kill, thus should
cost less.  Half as much?  I don't have any idea if an open-topped
vehicle
is half as survivable as a close-topped vehicle...???  Certainly it
should
be a *lot* easier to mission kill an open topped vehicle with any given
weapon system.	For example, if I were a really good shot, I could
mission-kill a jeep that mounts a .50 HMG using only a slingshot (take
out
the crew).  I could not achieve this at all against a light armoured-car
with a .50 in a powered cupola.  Or against Mr. T's van, for that
matter...
 Might scuff the paint, or break a window, but that's about it...

Of course, the light armoured-car with the powered cupola, having the
same
movement capability as Mr. T's van (hey, he was good with that thing),
and
mounting the same weaponry and stereo equipment, should nevertheless
cost
FAR more in both economic terms (dollar value) and campaign terms (long
term survivability, long term military utility, etc)...  

<pause>

Well, maybe Mr. T's van is a bad example.  It was clearly
indestructible...

>Andrew Martin wrote:
>> > I'd like to see open-topped as modifier that reduces a vehicle's
cost
>(perhaps by half?), and NBC sealed as a cost multiplier (perhaps times
>two?).
>
>John wrote:
>> By half?  I doubt that is realistic.  You've got a pretty marginal
>weight/cost saving for eliminating that portion of armor.
>

***************************************

Adrian Johnson
adrian@stargrunt.ca
http://www.stargrunt.ca