DS3 points systems and features

1) Adrian, well said. But one thing wrong: Mr. T's van was not
indestructable. It was regenerating. I know I saw 
it break after serveral jump landings, but next frame it was driving.
Fast regeneration.  ;)

2) DS2 should be one-off battle points balansive. Not campaign or
economic. Why? Both of these are intimately tied to your world view and
PSB. In some world views, grav is expensive (complex). In other views, a
simple effective system but only manufacturable by high tech, etc. In
some worlds, grav is improved GEV (no ground pressure) and in others,
more like VTOL (big campaign game difference). So both campaign costs
and economic costs are assumption dependent. 

This issue is meat for an ENTIRE extra suppliment, and Jon isn't the
kind of guy who likes to hard-pin his GZG universe to anything. So I
don't forsee him wanting to go this route with some sort of "official"
rules. Rather, he might eventually release a DS2 campaign/economic
suppliment that was generic and said things like "with this assumption,
you get these effects on cost" and let people mix and match to make up
their own universe. 

3) In the context of things like open-top, how much does it affect
survivability is a _weapons_generation_dependant_ quantity. When all we
had was molotovs, hand grenades, rifles and an MG or two, then the open
top was a bit of a risk versus close in infantry, but that's about its
only risk. OTOH, if we have every gruntie with an airburst GL and any
GMS has autoselect top-attack, then suddenly it is LETHALLY BAD to have
an open-top. So again we're into "assumptionland". Or in this case "tech
level land".

4) I don't want car wars. Love the game, love building cars. Not many
people do, so I don't get to play it. Let's NOT go that route for DS2.
Adrian just about hit it on the head. I like a system that let's me
match my minis (yay stargrunt, mostly!). If my tank has 3 main guns on
the mini, let me buy three main guns and damn the size class or
whatever. If I want them to be HEL/5s, who cares? As long as my opponent
won't throttle me, and the point system makes me pay through the nose,
then who cares if I argue miniaturization or the TARDIS like ability to
cram stuff in? Assumptions about miniaturization, tech level, etc go
away when you stop talking about "capacity" and rather just deal in
terms of "capability". I have a weapon that shoots like an HVC (range
bands/damage) of class X. Is it an HVC? Whooooo caaaaares! If I want it
to be, yes! If not, it could be a crappy low-tech laser. Or it could be
a first-gen burst flux capacitor engagement system.... does it matter?
What matters is game effects. 

I want to be able to look at any miniature and say "This tank has
tracks, a long barrelled big gun, a coax small gun, and some sort of
cluster missile rack on the roof, and it is a fair size" --- so, we call
it tracked mobility (and buy X" of movement... fast/slow classes of
mobility suck!), we buy it a weapon that performs like an MDC of size Y,
we buy it a coaxial weapon that performs like an RFAC of size Z, and we
buy it a small SLAM system. And since it is big, we rate it as signature
D10 or something. End of story. 

Differentiation of two tanks that look the same does not NEED to be
factored into choices about how big an engine is, how heavy armour is,
etc. If you want that, seek out Striker II. Their construction will let
you do all that and more more more. Or BTRC's Vehicle Design Guide. But
DS2 is not really a game about building vehicles IMO. It is about
representing minis (what Jon wants to sell) and letting you build a
vehicle with as few assumptions about how you want to game it as are
feasible. If you want to differentiate a T-90 and an M-1, then you do it
by armour, by speed, by how the weapons behave and how many there are,
by ECM signature, etc. The differentiation should (to let the majority
of people do what THEY want) be up to the player and the equalization
should all come from the points system. 

Instead of trying to balance points per capacity, capacity per effect,
points per effect.... all togther, simplify the equation: Balance points
per effect period. Do away with capacity. Let people build things as
stupidly overarmed as they want, just have them pay pay pay for the
priveledge. Right now, if we get a points costing wrong, it can be wrong
by capacity or wrong by effect or wrong by capacity per effect. Ow ow
ow! Let's simplify, while yet making the game more generic and opening
up more options for the players and designers. To add a new system then
only involves points balance versus other systems, not a mass/capacity
balance and a points balance.