Prev: SCOUTS OUT! Next: Re: [SGII] Heavy Support Weapons

Re: [DS] No Capacity was: Points system (fresh)

From: KH.Ranitzsch@t... (K.H.Ranitzsch)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:04:51 +0200
Subject: Re: [DS] No Capacity was: Points system (fresh)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>

This looks like you don't object to my example below ?
Just that you look at it from a different point of view ?

> Lets look at it another way:
>
> Vehicle A:
> Size 2, Fast Tracked, Class/2 armor, HKP/2
> Vehicle B:
> Size 3, Fast Tracked, Class/2 armor, HKP/2, Stealth/1
>
> Both vehicles are equivilent in capabililty. In a points only system,
they
> should cost the same. They have the same signature, mobility, damage
> potential, and armor.
> -----
> Brian Bell
> -----

Right, I agree that the vehicles have the same capabilities.
However, why have you defined vehicle B as size 3 ?
You have wasted the available space.
If you had equipped it with more weaponry or more armor, it might
justify
Size3, and then paying for Stealth to get the signature down to 2 makes
sense.
As it is, vehicle B is a quite inefficient design. And I don't think a
points system should reward major design errors.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de [mailto:KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 06:14
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [DS] No Capacity was: Points system (fresh)
>
> [snip]
> May well be we are misunderstanding each other.
>
> Let's look at an example with some arbitrary numbers:
>
> Assume equipment cost are balanced for vehicles with "standard" target
> signatures.
> Vehicle A is pretty powerfully equipped. Equipment etc. points add up
> to 200 points.
> Vehicle B is quite basic: 100 points
>
> [snip]
>
> As to size class, this was a simple example where size = points cost,
> which is pretty dubious in terms or realism.
>
> Greetings


Prev: SCOUTS OUT! Next: Re: [SGII] Heavy Support Weapons