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

At 4:36 PM -0500 4/5/02, John Crimmins wrote:
>
>It should indeed, but if Vehicle A is also upgraded, and performance 
>qualities remain identical, should they not cost the same?

In an ideal world. However I don't see games as that simple.

>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.

Exceedingly fluffy. I thought we were playing DSII? Jon did design it 
around a particular fluff. Trying to shoehorn Posleen God King 
personal weapons and galtech is like trying to fit a Posleen Dodec 
sphere into FT. Its waaay off the scale.

>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.

Again, the problem is that some items use are very situational. A 
given system is useless on a given board. If I put lots of "points" 
into ECM and PDS and ADS vehicles, and my opponent doesn't bring a 
single GMS/H or GMS/L, then I've pretty much wasted those points. 
Suddenly they are worth zero. Does the capacity-less system fix that? 
Nope. Does if fix things if my Ben Rich's best tank force with 
signatures of 1 go up against a force with nothing but missiles and 
artillery? Nope.

I think dumping capacity is throwing the baby out with the bath 
water. If you want a perfectly balanced game. Take forces with 
exactly the same composition and makeup and play on a flat table. 
There are too many variables to account for.

A balanced game will be arrived at by either having things so simple 
there is nothing to confuse the issue or by being so complex with 
such a mass of combined arms that only the better player that can 
coordinate it all will be able to win.

By throwing artillery, engineers, air support and case-vac into a 
game you suddenly make the player's workload so high, the better able 
to cope player will be the one to come out on top.

>  > 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"?

Yep, Its probably more correct if I say !=.

What I mean here is that don't confuse size with the signature of a 
vehicle. They are different concepts. They are based on the same unit 
of measure, but have entirely different end results.

Further, in order to compensate for cost differences in weapon or 
system size, use a sliding scale that increases cost for smaller 
components.
-- 
--
Ryan Gill			  rmgill@mindspring.com
	|	 |
	| O--=-  |	       |	   |
	|_/|o|_\_|	       | _________ |
	/ 00DA61 \	       |/---------\| 
     _w/^=_[__]_= \w_	       // [_]  o[]\\ 
    |: O(4) ==	  O :|	      _Oo\=======/_O_
    |---\________/---|	      [__O_______W__]  
     |~|\	 /|~|	      |~|/BSV 575\|~|
     |~|=\______/=|~|	      |~|=|_____|=|~|
     |~|	  |~|	      |~|	  |~|