RE: KV Vehicle Design Philosophy

Hull/Armor:
The "lots of hull" is not larger it is more durable.
One could model this in DS2 by 1 of 2 methods:
1) All KV AFV's are allowed to have up to an armor level = size + 1.
2) All KV AFV's take 1 additional point to kill (Size 2 vehicle takes 3
points of valid color chit damage to kill). Vehicle cost should then be
1.2
* normal total.
In either case, a boom should still be a boom.
 
Weapons:
I would agree that, KV should have a different size/cost for weapons. KV
seem to have placed all thier eggs in one basket for weapons. So:
HKP, MDC: -1 size for fit (min. 1, max. 5)
APSW: Normal
All Other weapons: +1 size for fit
PDS: +1 size for fit
ECM: x2 cost
Stealth: Normal (They just by more than most Human armies)

I would suggest that the KV would have higher stealth (hunter motif),
but
less ECM and PDS, as they tend to favor kinetic guns (MDC, HKP) instead
of
missiles (extrapolating from FT). Also, at the beginning, they would
probably not have ablative or reactive armor.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ds2/	   
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Bilderback [SMTP:bbilderback@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 12:50 AM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	Re: Vehicle Design Philosophy
> 
> I'm not sure this would really work in DS II. Remember, in DS II
there's
> no 
> such thing as "Hull" as opposed to armor. There's a size class, and
> there's 
> armor.  Basically, all you're doing is making KV Armor 1 level
stronger -
> ie 
> class 4 armor would act as class 5, etc. I'm guessing (and only
guessing 
> since I don't play FT) that if the KV don't rely on armor, they must
rely
> on 
> some sort of shielding on their ships.
> 
> Now, "Lot's of hull, not  a lot of armor" translates in DS II to 
> underarmored.  [snip]