Prev: Re: DS3 points systems and features Next: Re: [DS] Points system (fresh)

Re: [DS] Points system (fresh)

From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@w...>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 19:14:40 +1000
Subject: Re: [DS] Points system (fresh)

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>

> The combat effectiveness of a vehicle is essentially the product of
the
> damage the vehicle can inflict and how long it survives. The damage it
can
> inflict is the sum of its weapons; how long it survives is the product
of
> its likelyhood of getting hit (which is the sum of Signature and
ECM/PDS)
> and the likelyhood of surviving if it gets hit anyway (Armour rating).

Agree completely...

> ...and then you slap things like mobility on top of that :-/

...which is somewhat synergistic. You can view the unit as having a
certain
radius of effect. So there should be both a multiplicative and an
additive
effect. But that's a minor quibble, your basic philosophy is spot on.
Lanchester equations and all that.

Now for my 2 kopins worth on points values:

There are 2 ways of setting "points values", one in the strategic or
economic
sense, one in the tactical sense.

In the tactical sense, vehicles with identical capabilities should have
identical
points values. 2 vehicles each with value X should be the equal of one
vehicle
with value 2X, ie they whould "win" half the time. Naturally, under some
circumstances, one or the other side would be more valuable, and would
consistently
win. For example, a non-amphibious tank will not do well if it starts at
sea
with
no means of landing. An amphibious tank in the desert has no additional
value
compared with a non-amphibious one.

In the strategic sense, vehicles with identical capabilities could have
wildly
different values. Absolutely identical vehicles could have wildly
different
values depending upon the technical and educational level of the
possessors.

Example: I once did an analysis for a certain 3rd world nation regarding
a
planned
purchase of AFVs. They'd already made up their minds, but wanted a
second
opinion.
The comparison was between German Leopard IIs and Chinese Type 59s,
basically a
modern MBT vs a T-55 clone, and a low-tech one at that.

IIRC the economic cost (5 years spares, training) of the Leopard was on
the
order
of $2 million US. For a Type 59, it was approx $40,000. Now it could be
shown that
one Leopard II vs 50 T-59s was just about a fair fight under many
conditions(!!!!).

For the Germans, a single Leopard II *plus crew* was worth rather more
than
$2mill.
Closer to $10mill. A Type-59 would be worth $7.04 mill - 7 for the crew
(needed
less training than for a Leopard-II, but not a lot less).

For the (name elided to protect the guilty), a Leopard-II would be worth
$3
mill,
and a Type-59 $50,000, because the cost of personnel was so much less.
The
Leo-2
would have a serviceability rate maybe 1/10 of those in German service,
as
the
trained maintenance personnel were not available at any price. The
Type-59
OTOH
would have a serviceability rate well over half that of the same tank in
German
service, as it really isn't that high tech. Any half-competent
commercial
truck or car service station could service nearly all the components.

It boiled down to the fact that for the Germans to take any tank other
than
the
very, very best, with all bells and whistles would make no sense. OTOH
for
the
(name elided) to take 4 leopard-IIs instead of 200 Type-59s would make
no
sense.

Because in practice, in a battle the (name elided) would have maybe a
20%
chance
of ONE leopard-2 operational, or they could have over 100 Type-59s
available.

In game terms, you might have 2 sides, one Hi-tech, one Lo-tech.

Side A has 10,000 economic pts. Side B has 2,000.
Side A pays 1000 pts per man in addition to equipment costs.
Side B pays 10 pts per man in addition to equipment costs, BUT all
equipment
that is "Hi Tech" has only a 10% chance of working during the battle.

(BTW all I did was confirm to the customer that the decision they'd
already
made was not just the "better" option, but the only feasible one they
had.
It rather queered any chance of a sale of some Fire Control gear we had
for
Leopard-2s, but paid off in the end, as it gave us credibility.)

Prev: Re: DS3 points systems and features Next: Re: [DS] Points system (fresh)