RE: [DS] Points system was [DS] Hidden Units and Recon by Fire

Ryan Gill wrote:

>There has to be a cost to building a heavy vehicle vs a light one.
>Armor still comes at a price to weight given a certain technology
>level. The armor does cost weight in the building scheme. It should
>slow a vehicle down regardless of tech level. To allow for better
>tech where armor is concerned, then you need to apply tech levels to
>armor in the system as well.

your first line says a lot.  Given that this is all about how armor
works in 
DS, there is a relevance gap between game mechanics and reality.  In the

long run, it would be possible, whether desirable or not, to ALMOST[1]
(I'll 
get to that caveat in a bit) completely remove capacity from the vehicle

construction system if points are also used.  Why?  because a good point

system should reflect the combined effects of the vehicle, regardless of
the 
means used to reach that end.  Say you want a vehicle with X armor, Y
speed, 
Z other weapons systems, and n effective signature.  There are myriads
of 
ways, both within the current rules and using new rules, to reach that
end.  
Make X Armor take up capacity.	Make it take up no capacity, but cost
more 
points.  No capacity, no more points, but reduces speed - then allow an 
increase back to Y speed at cost of capacity.  Less capacity left for Z 
weapons?  Build a bigger vehicle in the first place, or allow for 
miniaturization of weapons.  A bigger vehicle is easier to hit you say? 

Allow stealth levels to lower it back to n signature.  Or
miniaturization.  
But no matter which system you use, if the points system is right, then
the 
combination of X, Y, Z, and n should cost the same number of points no 
matter HOW it isd reached.  So why not just eliminate capacity entirely
for 
motive systems, Armor, signature, and weapons, and just use a point
system?  
You can PSB any esthetic effect you want - my heavy MBT with oodles of 
stealth may have the exact same weapons, speed, and armor as your Q 
superkillerskateboard with noisy cricket and alien forcefield - that's
why 
the difference in figures used.  But if they have identical game 
performance, they should have identical game costs.

[1] The exception to all of this is, of course, when it comes to
carrying 
cargo.	For arty or ammo reloads, a points per reload cost is fine.  For

carrying other vehicles, it would be a matter of keeping capacity in the

game JUST for cargo, and giving a points cost for cargo capacity or
"slots", 
each carrying vehicle could purchase any amount of capacity, paid for in

points, and each carried vehicle would require a certain amount of
capacity 
to carry, with it's overall cost adjusted accordingly (Given the small %
of 
it's combat ability it represents, as opposed to once deployed, this 
shouldn't be too big a #).  The only rule would have to be that a
vehicle 
cannot carry more capacity than it takes up (Unless someone wants to
design 
a TARDIS to run against Beth).
;-)

3B^2

_________________________________________________________________