RE: [DS] Gently -- Capacity, Points

Brian Bell wrote	:

>I would like to see the following in the DS2 design system:

As a basic structure for a points-only system, this is almost exactly
what 
I want as well. I don't really agree with the various actual numbers
though 
- the value of a particular die size is only very rarely directly 
proportional to the die size itself :-(

>1) Tactical Points system.
>
>TAC = Movement Points * Protection Points * Offense Points + Carring
>Capacity

The cargo you carry on the battlefield - be it infantry, artillery ammo
or 
something else - is almost always a "weapon" of some sort. The formula 
should therefore be

TAC = Movement Points * Protection Points * (Offense Points + Carrying 
Capacity)

This also avoids the somewhat embarrassing situation where a very fast, 
heavily armoured but completely unarmed infantry carrier is worth less 
(namely zero points) than a slow, unarmoured lorry with a LMG bolted
onto 
the roof - neither can kill the other, but the fast heavy vehicle is far

more likely to deliver its passengers intact and in time at their
intended 
destination :-/

>Protection Points are a combination of Armor Points * the average of
>Signature and (ECM + PDS)[round up].

ECM and PDS multiply with one another rather than add, so this formula
becomes

Protection points = Armour * (Signature + ECM * PDS)

This means that you get a non-zero value for "no PDS", since "no ECM, no

PDS" still gives you a D4 against GMSs.

>Armor points are equal to points from all sides. Armor rating and cost
are
>1:4, 2:6, 3:8, 4:10, 5:12. The points are totaled for all 6 sides of
the
>vehicle (Front, Left, Back, Right, Top, Bottom), then divided by 6
(round
>up). Reactive and ablative armor adds 2 to the point value per side it
is
>on.

KH is right about weighting the frontal armour more than the others (or
at 
least the strongest armour, since that's the side you'll attempt to
point 
towards the enemy as often as possible), but I'm not sure of exactly
what 
the weights should be.

Brian's reply about GMSs and IAVRs being roof-hitting is very true for 
real-world weapons, but DS2 currently specifies that GMSs and IAVRs both

hit the side armour facing the firer - the only roof-hitting weapons 
in  DS2 at the moment are artillery and aerospace- or VTOL-mounted
weapons 
:-/ For DS3, I'd prefer to let GMSs and IAVRs choose if they want to hit

the top of the vehicle or the side nearest to the firer... at least in
some 
settings <g>

Armour/5 isn't worth five times as much as Armour/1, though. For the DS2

chit-pull damage resolution, the relative armour factors are roughly:

5 + Armour rating (+1 more if ablative or reactive)

>Signature has the following point costs: 1:12, 2:10, 3:8, 4:6, 5:4

Better: 1:12, 2:11, 3:10, 4:9, 5:8 (ie., 13 - Signature)

>  ECM has the following point costs: Basic:6, Enh:8, Sup:10
>  PDS has the following point costs: Basic:6, Enh:8, Sup:10

A PDS die is worth more than an ECM die of the same size, since it adds
an 
extra defensive die instead of shifting an already-existing one upwards.

(Also note that these values aren't exactly "points costs", since they 
multiply both with one another and with several other factors in the
points 
system.)

These values:

ECM: None: 1, Basic:1.1, Enhanced: 1.2, Superior: 1.3
PDS: None: 1, Basic:1.2, Enhanced: 1.35, Superior: 1.5

...give the correct relations between the various (ECM * PDS)
combinations, 
but they're *not* properly scaled in comparison to the Signature values
above.

>Offensive Points are equal to the FCS value * range band points *
weapon
>strength points * Chit Validity points.

If it only were this simple... The FCS value is exactly multiplicative
with 
the rest, but I'm not at all convinced that the range and chit values
can 
be treated in this way.

>Artillery is handled differently. AP weapons are handled differently.

Both of these can be handled by straight costs, since these weapons all 
have fixed ranges and no FCSs.

>FCS value is Basic:6, Enh:8, Sup:10

Agreed. This the one system for which the die size actually *is* at
least 
roughly proportional to its value <g>

>Range Band: Determine the range band by subtracting Medium Range from
Long
>Range. This should also match Medium Range - Close Range. For 1 range
band
>weapons (i.e. GMS) Divide the maximum range by 3 to get the range band.
>Range band points are: (upto) 4":4, 6":6, 8":8, 10":10, 12":12.
Subtract the
>Range Band from the Close range; if the result is more than 1/2 the
range
>band length, add 2 to the Range Band Points; if more than zero but less
than
>1/2, add 1 to the Range Band Points.

Like KH I don't understand the reason behind this algorithm, although I
did 
manage to parse it. One problem with it is that HVC/5, HKP/3-5 and
MDC/3-5 
(with ranges varying from 40" to 60") all get a range band value of 14, 
while HELs and GMS/H are undefined (should they be 20 and 16
respectively, 
or should they be 14 as well?). None of the DS2 weapons fall in the
"Close 
Range minus Range Band is more than 0 but less than Range Band/2" group,

BTW - the result of this subtraction is either 0, 1*Range Band, or more 
than 1*Range Band for all the DS2 weapons.

KH's comments about 2x the range covering 4x the area giving the weapon
4x 
the value would be roughly correct on a featureless plain (even though
his 
"4x the targets" is not) - based on Full Thrust experience I'd call it 
closer to 3.3x the value for twice the range (due to being able to shoot

more often), but the value of range definitely an exponential function 
rather than a linear one. However, DS2 is usually *not* played on a 
featureless plain which tones the value of long-ranged weapons down 
considerably; it may well be that the value of range really is
proportional 
to range itself.

>Weapon Strength:
>points by size, 1:4, 2:6, 3:8, 4:10, 5:12.
>Chit Validity: points by validity Allx2:12, All:10, Red+Yellow:8,
All/2:8,
>Red:6, Yellow or Green:4.
>Add anti-infantry rating (by chit validity) to the Chit validity
points.

See comments avove.

Two further questions here:
- "All/2" is weaker than "Red" unless the target's armour rating is
lower 
than the number of chits drawn
- How do you account for the way chit validities vary from range band to

range band?

>Artillery has a range band points of 20.
>Artillery has a strength rating of Light:12, Medium:18, Heavy:24
[accounts 
>for 3 vehicles
>caught in blast radius due to unit coheriency].

Hm? Vehicles may be up to 3" away from the nearest other vehicle in its 
unit, so if the unit is as spread-out as possible a single artillery 
template cannot cover more than 2 of its vehicles. (In addition getting 
multiple shots is usually only worth the square root of the number of 
shots, but I'm not entirely certain that this applies to artillery - it 
could be that this is only true for direct-fire shoot-outs.)

>Movement points [change to DS2]: Divide maximum movement inches by 2
(for
>aerospace use 20 points). Then add by movement type: High Mobility
Wheeled &
>GEV:1 Tracked, Walker:2 Grav:3, VTOL:3, Aerospace:4, Amphibious:1.

I'd group Tracked and GEV together, with HMW trailing behind and LMW
being 
worth even less. Walker mobility is actually more worth than Grav given
the 
current DS2 terrain effects; a Walker with BMF X has a longer average
move 
through mixed terrain than a Grav vehicle with the same BMF.

Hm. I'm not entirely convinced that a BMF 15 Grav tank is really worth
more 
than twice as much as a BMF 10 LMW with the same armament and defences 
though :-/

Brian B2 pointed out that vehicles that are physically large and/or
heavy 
should get a (very) small points rebate, since their size can restrict
them 
from using certain bridges, and also makes them more difficult to carry 
inside other vehicles.

>2) Tuffleyverse-specific capacity limitations.

Eg., use the current DS2 *capacity requirements* (not points costs!) for

non-armour systems, but charge 1 per level of armour per side and
increase 
the total capacity of the vehicle to 10*Size. The points cost of the 
vehicle is determined as above :-/

All in all I agree with the basic concept. The relative weights of 
Signature vs ECM/PDS and how to value weapons need to be worked on more 
though :-/

***
Haven't had time to look at Adrian's long post yet. Will try to do that 
tomorrow :-/

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."