RE: [DS] Points system (fresh)

At 11:38 AM -0800 4/4/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
>One of the other B^2's wrote:
>
>>Size: Size should be kept. It provides for a base to the targeting
signature
>>and capacity. Size itself should not have a cost.
>
>Eliminate capacity altogether (Except for cargo).  Targeting 
>signature should be based on what you pay for it.    However, "size" 
>*IS* a consideration for cargo carrying ability/requirements, and 
>for bridge/structure transiting, and thus SHOULD cost -  X points to 
>carry X cargo, adjust total cost by Y based on space required to 
>carry it and structural integrity required to support said vehicle. 
>in terms of using size to determine the threat of the vehicle, 
>that's more of an honor system thing anyway.

How do you rate the comparative capacities and sizes of various 
vehicles? I've always thought size was exceedingly useful for gauging 
a number of things. Its' far easier to deal with that Tonnage and 
critical spaces.

How many Non size units of infantry can you carry in a given size
vehicle?

>Here I have to disagree.  Both speed and mobility type tie in 
>directly to combat efficiency - you can have the biggest gun in the 
>world, but if it can't move into firing position, you're screwed. 
>faster vehicles are not only harder to kill, they have a better 
>chance of getting first kill chance against other vehicles.

More accurately a faster and more mobile vehicle can reach objectives 
faster and can be in a position to use it's weapons in a more 
expedient and efficient manner.

>Various movement types should have a multiplier
>>(hand-wave example: tracks are 1.0, GEV 0.8, Wheeled 0.7, Grav 1.2,
>>Amphibious 1.1, VTOL 2.0, Aerospace 3.0, etc.)
>
>Agreed.

I preferred the low vs high mobility concepts too. A cheap low 
mobility wheeled truck can't go as many places as a high mobility 
wheels APC can.

>Unless we do away with capacity.  Signature should be a multiplier 
>of other costs.  Example:  Which is more useful on the field, all 
>else being equal:  A small vehicle with miniaturized weapons, or a 
>large vehicle with bulky weapons that have the same range/damage as 
>the miniaturized weapons, but the vehicle has enough stealth to make 
>it as hard to hit as the small vehicle?  Neither - if ability to 
>avoid getting hit and ability to lay on the hurt are equal, point 
>value should be equal.
>

I still think that the size/capacity system is very efficient and
useful.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill			     '01 Honda Insight -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 			    '85 CB700S -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 '76 Chevy Monte Carlo -
- www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       '72 Honda CB750 -
-				      '60 Daimler FV701H Mk2/3 -
-				   '42 Daimler Scout Car Mk II -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-    Smart ID cards in the US, Smart ID cards in Hong Kong,    -
-		      what is the difference?		       - 
----------------------------------------------------------------
-  C&R-FFL  /  Protect your electronic rights!	  \ EFF-ACLU   -
- SAF & NRA/  Join the EFF!  http://www.eff.org/   \ DoD #0780 -