Re: DS3 points systems and features

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> >The hell it doesn't.  The DSII construction system
> is
> >a damn sight more flexible than any other one I've
> >seen.
> 
> As Alex said, in that case you don't seem to have
> seen very many other 
> vehicle design systems...

The main ones mentioned have been Striker/Striker II
(which doesn't pretend to have a balanced point
system) and Heavy Gear's system.  Which is designed
for anime-style silliness with walkers and which
doesn't react well to trying to simulate modern
military equipment either.  The main problem I have
comes with the exponential cost of "perks", where a
military vehicle with the features I expect in a tank
(you know, NBC system, etc) become astronomically
expensive.  In fact, the primary Southern MBT is not
NBC sealed and doesn't have a machine gun (although
there is a feature to mount one in a pintle mount). 
Still costs 1.5 mil, BTW.

Oh, and it hits your pet peeve by pretending that it's
simulating the economic cost of the vehicles rather
than the battlefield effects.

> On an open field, the Romans are mowed down. Close
> the terrain down 
> however, and don't force the Romans to stick in
> formation but allow them to 
> use their ingenuity and tech skills... how much do
> Terminators like being 
> crushed under rock slides etc? (Shades of RotJ Ewoks
> here <G>)

Hrm. . . So what you're saying is that any pretence at
point balance is inherently flawed and depends on
scenario design and usage?
 
John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax