Re: [DSII] Heresey

John Crimmins wrote:
> 
> I've been doing a good bit of DSII designing lately, and something's
been bothering me about the system.  Let me see if I can put this into
words; I've only
> just managed to put my finger on what it is.
> 
> When you look at Full Thrust, it's very possible to have two ships of
identical mass (and virtually identical point cost) that are *very*
different from each
> other, but still very competitive.  Ship X may have Pulse Torps and
screens, while Ship Y has beam weapons and armor, but neither of the two
is clearly
> superior to the other.
> 
> It seems that DSII is missing this factor; it's very easy to see (and
design) the ideal tank.  Given two grav tanks of similar size with
turreted weapons,
> designed by two different people, how different are the end results
going to be?

Well, for me, depends on the mini in question. I have quite a few
which have different types of weapons mounts (SLAMS, what appear to
me to be laser-type cannons or DFFG weapons rather than MDCs or HKPs),
and I try to design with these thoughts in mind. So some (many) of my
tank units are not "idealized". I try not to munchkin thigns too much.
Boring otherwise.

> If they are designing in a vacuum (no scenario or background
restrictions to worry about) you are likely to have a pair of almost
identical vehicles:
> assuming Size Class III, each will have an MDC(4), Superior Firecon,
class 3 armor, the best ECM available...and if points are not a problem,
two levels
> of stealth.
> 
> There are a number of minor differences that are possible -- ablative
or reactive armor, APFCs, and so on -- but nothing that's likely to have
much game
> effect.

I dunno. I mean, I do see your point, there isn't the same vast variety
of options as there are in FT ships, but I still have some variety. You
can limit this by not giving all your tanks fusion plants for engines.
That'll limit some of the weaponry you can mount automatically.

> Doing my own designs, and self-limiting myself to Enhanced Firecons
for most vehicles (Basic is for low -tech, Superior for ultra-tech),

Woohoo! Someone else who does it.  :-)

> I found that there
> was a depressing sameness to the results.  Going from a WYSIWYG
standpoint, there's not all that much that the system can do to
differentiate
> between a pair of tracked Class III tanks of similar tech level.
>
> Solution?  Beats me. 

What I mentioned above. Use different engines; that can dramatically
change your weapons load-out. For my UNSC Colonial Armed Forces I
have the majority of the tanks as NON-Grav (too far away from repair
facilities; too expensive to maintain too many of them), and only a
few have fusion engines (the Grav-mobile units, a very few others).
Most of the tanks are hydromagnetic turbine, which limits the use
of MDCs as well. So if I want a heavy-hitting gun, I am forced to
go with HKPs (my Lahavs, Haifas, and Semtacs all use HMT engines,
and use HKP guns). But they have their drawbacks/restrictions that
MDCs don't, but hey, nothing's perfect. Right?	:-)

Now, this isn't an ideal solution. But it's an option. The ESU force
that I am designing concurrent to my UNSC brigades have somewhat
better units (being a little closer to their repair/supply facilities),
and have more fusion drives and MDCs than the UNSC counterparts - but
unless it's a special vehicle or weapon, all have enhanced firecons.

> I'd like to see something like the FT building system, or even (bear
with me for a moment here) classic Car Wars.  Given $15,000
> to spend, you could end up with a ton of different vehicles, all of
them of similar combat potential.  Maybe I need more experience with the
system, but it
> seems to me that DSII can't do the same right now.
> 
> I'm sure that there are folks willing to argue the contrary, so
please: somebody prove me wrong.

Not going to prove you wrong. I understand where you are coming from.
But I think with the current system you can still get a reasonable
amount of variety - just depends on what you're willing to restrict
yourself with (such as the firecons, as you have already done).