Re: DESK points and game balancing

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:17:06PM -0700, Michael Llaneza wrote:
> Anyone designing a game system has to take into account beth's 
> situation. The game is her main reference for armored warfare
concepts. 
> This goes double for anyone coming from a PW background. So a design 
> system has to (should) take into account both what standard doctrine
is, 
> but allow for enough variation to allow for some of the dead-end
design 
> concepts.

The solution to Beth's problem is sufficient examples and a discussion
extended in the setting description.  Mainly because if my setting is
based on a neo-WWII technological fallback with a few "magical" beam
weapons, its going to have a /vastly/ different set of expectations of
a tank than if I'm modelling Renegade Legion grav tanks.  

The rules shouldn't say anything about doctrine, insofar as it goes to
"what's expected of designs," because that's not their job.  It
shouldn't tell me how large to make a unit of elements, just tell me
how to use them.  Settings are too diverse to be shoehorned thus.

-- 
Alexander Williams (thantos@telocity.com)   |	 http://www.chancel.org 
  |
========================================================================
====
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the  |
same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is|
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide|