Re: DS2 Balance and stuff.

>>From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
>
>>Why?	That's the way it works in reality.
>
>Because, last time I checked, we were discussing the impact of
the point
>system on game play, NOT how well the point system reflected
the byzantine
>world of military expenditures.

Looked to me like you were saying it was hard to swallow because
it didn't make sense that a system attached to a
low-tech/low-price gun would cost less than the same system
attached to a high-tech/high-priced gun.   Okay, now we can
agree that, while it doesn't make sense, it still happens in
reality.  What effect it does or doesn't have on the game, I
couldn't say.

>If the high-tech advancements become so
>overly expensive in points that you can't win by using them,
then no-one WILL
>use them, which will detract from the variety, and ultimately,
fun of the
>game.

>
>Did I point out that this is about a game?

I missed that, I thought _this_ was reality...Certainly some
people on this list have been getting stressed enough lately...

   Actually, not only it is just a game, it's a game I've only
played once, so I have no feel whatsoever for the balance.   My
personal preference is for a mix of  anti-grav tanks armed with
DFFG, backed up by power armor and combat walkers--but just
because it makes sense for for what we laughingly refer to as
our environment (vacuum, low grav, lots of radiation).	Oh--and
because I like the idea of grav panzers and fusion guns, and
have ever since I first ran in a Traveler campaign, nearly 20
years ago.
  It seems to me that  the advantage of a higher grade FC ought
to be susceptible to numerical analysis.  No, I'm not
volunteering, but you have a limited number of combinations of
weapons, armor, ranges, and FC's, so you should be able to plug
in a spreadsheet and see what difference does it really make..