Re: [DS] Points system (fresh)

Andrew Martin wrote:

 >> All caveats etc aside, what would you like to see in a DS points
system
 >
 >I'd like to see points cost based directly on dice size. For example,
damage
 >of D4 costs, say, 4 points, damage D12 costs 12 points.

For the dice-using components (FCS, signature, ECM/PDS etc.), this only
works if a D12 is actually worth 3 times more than a D4. Unfortunately
this
is not the case if you use the DS2 opposed-die game mechanics.

 >There should be no difference between infantry and vehicle mounted
 >weapon systems in points cost. The worst example in DS2 currently is
 >APSW that's 4 points on a vehicle and 20 points, IIRC, carried by an 
infantry
 >team.

YDRC. Infantry APSWs cost 10 pts; vehicle-mounted ones cost 4 pts + 1 
capacity - and that "1 capacity" isn't entirely free. The cheapest 
APSW-armed vehicle possible (size/1, CFE power, LMW mobility, no
equipment 
except for the "free" APSW) only costs 7 points, but it is rather easier
to 
kill with heavy weapons than the APSW infantry element is.

 >A vehicle crew should be a cost like an infantry specialist team, and
can be
 >separated from their vehicle, for example, ejected from Aerospace, or
by
 >abandoning vehicle.

If they have no effect on the game after leaving their vehicle, they 
shouldn't cost anything. (If they need to be rescued after leaving their

vehicle, they should probably bring a cost rebate instead... <g>)

 >Also, if several weapons are mounted on the same vehicle, there should
be
 >provision for more gunner crew, like the British tanks in WWI, which I
 >believe had crew for each gun.

Easily covered by requiring capacity usage for each FCS on the vehicle.

Indy wrote:

 >* More options for movement. EG, right now there is "Slow Tracked"
 >and "Fast Tracked"; what about "Medium Tracked"?

Better to disconnect the BMF completely from the mobility type IMO. Far 
more flexible, and not that much more impossible to price appropriately
:-/

 >* More expanse to the firecon stuff. Right now we have "Basic",
 >"Enhanced", and "Superior". What about "Primitive"? (1d4). Or
 >"Advanced" (1d12)

IIRC Andrew Martin uses "Brilliant" to describe the D12 FCS. Runs into a

bit of a problem at Close range though, unless you have a D14 handy
somewhere.

 >I'd also like to see more games in which not every bloody tank
 >on the field had "Superior" firecon, but rather "Enhanced"
 >or "Basic"

In order to achieve this, all you have to do is to set the FCS costs 
appropriately. As it is now, Superior FCS is *way* too cheap in DS2
(even 
more so than Enhanced) :-/

 >* Continuing firecon stuff, the ability to engage multiple
 >targets if your vehicle weaponry permits (say you have a tank
 >with two independent weapons). The second should be engaged
 >at a penalty to prevent over-cheesing of units, though, but
 >it would be a nice feature to adopt.

It would. Doesn't work all that well in IGO-UGO-style games though (yes,
I 
know DS2 isn't a classic IGO-UGO since there aren't any distinct player 
turns, but it still has the "I act with one unit, you act with one unit"

feature).

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."