Re: grav

>From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
>I'm confused. . .

I think your confusion comes in focusing on Oerjan's real point, which
is 
that the cost of armor does not reflect it's effect on the abilities of
the 
vehicle.

>Yes, large vehicles will carry more armor.  It's
>called designing vehicles to fit their battlefield
>role.	It just makes more sense.  People with no
>common sense when designing vehicles should not be
>rewarded for being irrational.  If you insist that you
>should be allowed to field masses of size 4 armor 1
>vehicles, and your bitch is that under the point
>system as it stands it's not enough price savings to
>be able to buy enough vehicles to swamp the enemy
>who's using size 4 armor 4 vehicles, then I don't see
>your point.

I don't recall ever making any such "bitch".

I think the problem is you're trying to
>treat this as an abstract mathematical problem where I
>want it to make sense in concrete terms.

Unfortunately, since this is a game, and NOT real life (sad that that 
disclaimer must continue to be brought up), it becomes necessary at some

point to put mathematical values on concepts, or they can't be included
in 
the rules.

> > Was it the stalth that made the difference?
>
>It contributed.

But did it contribute in the same proportion as it cost you in points? 
I 
haven't looked at it, but Oerjan's claim (As I see it, he might
disagree)is 
that it probably didn't.  He never said stealth was REALLY useless,
merely 
that it was so overpriced as to make it PRACTICALLY nigh to useless.

>I'm > guessing if it was a small,  > stealthed force,
>it also wielded better weapons and > FCS.
>
>Better weapons--typically.  I've had lots of opponents
>who think HELs are wonderful.	And then don't insist
>on fighting on a pool table to take advantage of it.
>Better FCS: Almost invariably.  Better tactics: Well,
>duh.

All of which supports my suggestion:  That that same high tech force,
with 
less stealth, but still with superior weapons, FCS, and tactics, would 
probably STILL have trounced the larger low-tech force.

> > Silly, yes.  But if they're allowed, they should be
> > just as useful as any
> > other unit.  Otherwise, why bother incorporating
> > them into the rules?
>
>Why should they be just as useful as any other unit?

Because you bothered to put them in the game at all - see my last post.

>The answer to the second question is because some
>people have a hardon for giant robots.

Myself personally not being one of them.  I used to irritated my fellow
BT 
players by insisting on running vehicles.

Brian

_________________________________________________________________