Re: Heresy Mine! was Re: (DS): Systems per Class

Thanks for weighing in, OO. What would you suggest for
capacities for gms launchers & loads?
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
<oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > >And yes, it means that the second example MICV
design on p.12 is
> > >illegal.
> >
> >No, That means (TA DA!) the rules are flawed!
> 
> That is not a contradiction, you know. Under the
rules as written (and as 
> explained by the main developer of the rules, Mike
E.) the example design 
> *is illegal* (ie., the RAW contradict themselves);
the fact that the rules 
> as written are also *flawed* (as evidenced by the
fact that designs like 
> this "illegal" IFV are in service in the real world
today) doesn't make the 
> example design any less illegal under the rules as
written.
> 
> FWIW I fully agree with BB that the rules should be
changed; but you have 
> to know what the rules actually say *now* before you
can change the rules 
> in any meaningful way :-/
> 
> ***
> Personally I don't think that the "1 weapon per size
class" is necessary at 
> all *if* you use the "elements can only fire 1
weapon per activation" rule. 
> If you allow vehicles to fire multiple weapons in a
single activation, 
> you'll most likely run into problems with small
vehicles overloaded with 
> GMS/L... but only because the GMS/L is underpriced
(especially 
> capacity-wise; IMO GMSs (and SLAMs) should use
reloads just like artillery 
> does).
> 
> ***
> >I think all SF rules with design methodologies are
poorly designed or
> >executed as are most historical and (crawls out on
limb) ALL fantasy
> >efforts.  Reality is too complex for a reasonably
simple game to try and
> >take in.  You compromise and there is where you get
dinged.
> 
> Pah. I'll bet that in at least 90% of the cases
these flaws in various 
> vehicle design systems had nothing to do with
"compromise" or "simplicity", 
> but everything to do with *ignorance* - the rules
authors simply didn't 
> know enough about what their rules were supposed to
model to come up with 
> something realistic. In the specific DS2 case, I
know for certain that the 
> rules authors' knowledge about the subject came
mostly from Hammer's 
> Slammers and similar SF novels, which although
(usually) based on 
> real-world combat experience do not give any
particularly complete picture 
> of realistic restrictions on vehicle design.
> 
> Also for the DS2 case, your point about "paper-thin
armour" misses the 
> target by roughly 180 degrees: with *today's*
*thick* armour materials, we 
> can stuff more equipment (or men) into a smaller
vehicle hull than DS2's 
> supposedly *more* advanced tech base allows us to
do. If future armour is 
> so much more volume-efficient (and future weapons
*don't* advance 
> correspondingly in penetrative power and thereby
force the vehicle 
> designers to keep the armour thickness roughly
unchanged), we ought to be 
> able to put *more* stuff (or men) into future
vehicles than we can do today 
> - not *less*.
> 
> Since DS2 is supposed to be a *generic* game, ie.
*not* tied to a specific 
> background with a specific tech base, it cannot
decide "what is the 
> baseline (or 'virtual reality' if you prefer) of the
game" - because making 
> that decision destroys its supposedly generic
nature; if it is to be 
> generic it has to leave that choice to the *player*
(or at least give him a 
> very wide array of choices). And that in turn means
that since its low-tech 
> options are supposed to cover tech similar to or
slightly ahead of what we 
> have today, it really has to to allow the players to
re-create today's 
> modern combat vehicles. At the moment DS2 doesn't.
Hopefully DS3 will.
> 
> 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
> 

=====
"In life, you must try and be the type of person that your dog thinks
you are."

- Anonymous

	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/