Re: DS2 Balance and stuff.

Oerjan observed:
>>Very true. FCSs and Stealth really should be paid for as
percentages of
>>the (rest of the) vehicle's cost much like Back-up systems
already are,
>>but it is rather tricky to do this with FCSs - most players
won't
>>accept that the Superior FCS for a HKP/5 on a cheap tank is
cheaper
>>than the Superior FCS for another HKP/5 on an expensive tank
:-/

Brian Bilderbeck grumbled:
>And I would probably agree with them - to an extent.  I WOULD
agree to a
>point system which tied FireCon cost to the weapon TYPE as well
as to it's
>size class - a Superior FireCon on an MDC 5 does have more
effect on the
>game than a Superior FireCon on a HVC 5, and as such should
cost more.  But
>having to pay even MORE for the same FireCon because it's
mounted on a Grav
>Tank instead of a Slow Tracked? Now I think you're being overly
harsh.

Why?  That's the way it works in reality.  I'll bet that anyone
who has worked in military procurement could testify to that.  I
was until very recently an employee for a company that provided
materials to the government, and I know we bought one item at
$0.16 and sold to the Marine air station for $50--that's right,
$49.84 profit out of $50; another item we bought  for $17 and I
sold the next day for just under $5000 plus air freight.  We
weren't normally thieves to quite that an extent, but everyone
knew that if you have a billion dollar boat at the dock waiting
for your part, you could sell at considerably higher margin than
you could to a civilian outfit.  The military procurement people
didn't know the materials and didn't care how much it cost, as
long as you could make delivery and promise to hit the
specification on the drawing.