Re: DS2 Balance and stuff.

OO said:

>The alternative is to set the price of those fancy gadgets to what
>they're actually worth in combat. Takes more work, though :-/

This is a very common problem with Microarmour games. I think the worst
example
was the Challenger 2000 rules, where an all-options M1A2 cost about as
three
times as much as the most basic T-54, and was at least 50x as effective
under
all possible circumstances. (vs $5mill as opposed to $20thou)

In one game I had, playing a low-tech army vs a very hi-tech army, I
didn't
get to detect the enemy, nor have any troops remaining on the table when
it
got around to my 2nd turn (the first turn was "move on to the table"
with no
direct LOS to any enemy). Now in some cirumstances this would be
relatively
realistic, but when the terrain was very close, full of woods, hills
etc. as
this was, it isn't. The execution was caused entirely by an unrealistic
model
of indetectable observation helos connected by unrealistically timely
communications
to batteries of unrealistically effective artillery with unrealistically
accurate
fire control.

But I digress.

In the Hi-tech vs Lo-tech balance question, the points values should
reflect
their combat effectiveness (what else are points values for?), but this
CE will
vary with circumstances. As it should. The points is to make the lo-tech
have
its CE higher than its PV would indicate under some circumstances, the
hi-tech
ditto. The tactical problem then becomes one of, given your army's tech
level,
maximising your effectiveness while minimising your weaknesses.  

A PV system can be said to be broken irrepairably iff the CV is
disproportionate
to the PV under all circumstances, and broken badly if it's
disproportionate
under most circumstances that are under the players' control.

The question is, what circumstances will make Hi-tech better than
lo-tech and
vice versa? And more to the point, which of these are reasonably within
the
player's control? So, forex, a war in flat desert will tend to favour
Hi-tech,
with long engagement ranges the norm. But this is usually part of the
ref's
set-up, not under player control. A war in bad visibility will also
favour Hi-tech,
with NV devices etc being worth far more than their dollar amounts would
indicate.
But a war in really bad visibility - during a sandstorm or blizzard -
would
favour low-tech. Are these circumstances under player control? Well, the
time
of day/night of an attack is, but although you can lay smoke on demand,
you
can't conjure up snowstorms the same way. Or dissipate them.

What's worse is the concept of a "force multiplier". As OO has pointed
out,
adding cheap FC equipment to a lo-tech vehicle makes it far more
effective.
So in order to get CV proportional to PV, the PV effects should be
multiplicative
as well as additive, just as the CV effects are.

Do I have some magic solution? No, just trying to point out what the
goals should
be. IMHO.