RE: [DS] Points system

Ryan M Gill wrote:

>Hmm. The thing I'm trying to hit here is the ability to get a large,
>heavy, slow vehicle that is now slower because it has more armor on
>it than it did at the start of the design phase. Points are the final
>means of gauging something, we're looking at things before that.

But if the final means of guaging is correct, then the points are all
you 
need.....

>If I take a given vehicle that is size 2, and armor 1 and then add
>more armor to it without changing anything else, it ought to go
>slower.

True, but you say yourself, WITHOUT CHANGING ANYTHING ELSE.   If you're 
willing to then pay what it takes (Money IRL sure, but more importantly 
points in the game) to give it a more powerful engine, you can still get

speed.

Its the whole basic equation with armored fighting vehicles.
>Firepower vs speed vs protection.

And if Armor, firepower, and speed are all assigned values in the points

equation that accurately reflect their place in the design, you can
recreate 
that same dilemma in a point system without ever bringing "capacity"
into 
the fray.

This is something that comes up
>for
>people like me (and designers, etc) who are comparing the various
>facets of their ferret vs someone else's ferret with the same engine
>and vs a WWII version of a very similar vehicle. The Mk1 ferret was
>called the field mouse and was considered the sports cars of the
>Armoured corps, the same isn't said about the Mk 4 Ferret with more
>armor and the same Rolls Royce B60 engine.

The SAME engine.  Give it a bigger engine, it speeds up again, no?  My
point 
was, whether you say that the armor gets heavier and thus the engine
needed 
to carry it at a given speed goes up in cost, or that the armor gets
lighter 
and thus stronger without a decrease in speed, but is pricier armor, the

equation that counts in the end is that X armor at Y speed should cost Z

points.

>A Merkava is armored more than an Abrams or a Leopard. It is slower.
>It has a different emphasis. I'm not looking at Marks or Dollers
>here, just vehicle stats.

I don't recall mentioning scrip either.  Just game effect and relative
point 
cost.

>Remember, the original reason for this whole exercise was to provide
>an additional cost to armor on a given vehicle and push players to
>not have everything with max armor protection. If I can make a small
>recce vehicle with 1 armor and 2 size and still have a good amount of
>mobility, then the system should support that. If I make it a size 2
>and 2 armor, then I pay a tiny bit more per unit (3 points). Big
>deal. Everything is max armor. But, if that recce vehicle is now
>slower, and I have to use more capacity to speed it back up (or use
>capacity to make it go even faster at the original configuration)
>then I've added an additional dimension to vehicles that wasn't there
>before. It also cost more.

And my point was, if you make the point system accurate, which was the 
original proposal, you don't need capacity to do it - just the right
point 
formula (AKA "Holy Grail").

3B^2

_________________________________________________________________