Prev: Re: DS3 points Next: Australia spurs another base for a scenario

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

From: "John Crimmins" <johncrim@v...>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:36:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [DS] No Capacity was: Points system (fresh)


On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:58:38 -0500, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote :
> >
> >Using  Andy Cowell's on-line DSII generator, the costs for the 
> >sample tanks are  64 points for Vehicle A, and 138 points for 
> >Vehicle B
> 
> And if vehicle B has an enhanced PDS, a ECM system, ADFV and 
> additional components filling in that space, then shouldn't it still 
> be more than vehicle A?

It should indeed, but if Vehicle A is also upgraded, and performance
qualities remain identical, should they not cost the same?

> >...which illustrates the point nicely, I think.  Two vehicles with 
> >identical performance, but one costs a little more than *twice* as 
> >much as the other.
> 
> Because the assumption is that if you build a vehicle with additional 
> capacity, it will be used. You're leaving this big empty box on the 
> back of this tank and saying it doesn't have a combat value. Thats 
> true. But if you stuff additional components into that tank then 
> you've got a better tank.

Who's saying that that extra space isn't used?	Maybe the Infamous
Cowards of Glaxion VI *need* that extra space -- they're claustrophobes,
you see, 
and can't stand being in to tight of an area....  It's a fluff thing.

But in any case, you are saying that Vehicle B should cost more because
it has the *potential* to be more heaily armed?  Potential shouldn't
really enter 
into it, I think.  Performance on the board is all that really matters.

> Now, I would approach all of this from a different direction. I'd 
> build a cost system in that would allow miniaturization of types of 
> weapons making them take up lower amounts of capacity for a given 
> cost. It builds on the system and allows you to get what you are 
> looking for.
> 
> I have a problem with the fact that you're squishing two things 
> together and saying they are the same when they are not. Size =! 
> apparent signature.

You lose me here -- does "=!" mean "is not equal to"?

Even assuming that, frankly, you've still lost me.  Please to explain? 
Use small words...it's a Friday, and I'm all giddy.

-- 
John Crimmins
johncrim@voicenet.com


Prev: Re: DS3 points Next: Australia spurs another base for a scenario