Re: [DS2] Points

Thomas.Barclay wrote:

[snip good stuff I agree with]

>What something costs (money wise) is quite often different from what
>its value is in combat. So you sort of have to define which of the two
>you think points in DS2 represent. 

Yes indeed. Hell, the sole reason for the tech progression we've seen
over the past few centuries is that higher-tech gadgets are generally
more cost-effective than lower-tech ones!

>If economic, many of the suggestions about how expensive FCs and
>stealth are have merit - a high tech stealth tank will cost lots of
$$$. 

But, and this is a very important point: these systems wouldn't be
deployed into combat at all unless their *combat value* was even
greater, or at least thought to be even greater at the time, than their
cash cost. 

>And in this case, you can't really use it to balance scenarios - but
then if >you are in a campaign, bigger nations may have enough
productivity to >bring balance that way. 

Exactly. And in a campaign there are other considerations as well,
which don't come into one-off scenarios - eg., "OK, your FGP-powered
grav tank is vastly more powerful than my old tracked hydro-carbon
burner, but you have a fifty-light year logistic tail while I can drive
to the local car mechanic to fix broken minor details..."

Which is why games which try to be both campaign- *and*
scenario-oriented tend to have rather complex, and often seemingly
illogical, rules for R&D of new tech gadgets <sigh>

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry