RE: (DS): Systems per Class

Doug Evans wrote:

>At the risk of angering Brian again by bringing up RL, I will point out

>that, at
>various times, classes, whether in ships or armored vehicles, has been
a
>valid concept. The realities that brought these about were many, from
>mission-driven, to certain non-linear, non-continuous variables, and
not
>necessarily easy to recreate without class structures.

But the only of these "classes" which had any impact on the *size* of
the 
design were pure paper constructions - treaty limits which the signatory

powers were supposed to follow. Most of these treaty limits were broken 
very quickly, showing that they had were in no way whatsoever derived
from 
missions or "non-linear, non-continuous variables".

When you look at the *mission-related* and *tech-related* classes, you
very 
quickly find "oddities" like cruisers that were physically bigger than 
contemporary battleships. If you look at non-contemporary units, I'm
pretty 
certain that you'll find late-WW2 "medium tanks" bigger and heavier than

pre-war "heavy tanks", showing that the concept "heavy tank" is *not*
tied 
to a specific size or mass range. These classes are classifications of
the 
unit's *performance*, not of its *size* - and as such they are
completely 
different from DS2's or FT2's "size classes", which are purely concerned

with the unit's size (just like the old treaty limits) and have nothing
to 
do with its performance or mission.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry