Re: [DS] No Capacity was: Points system (fresh)

Alexander Williams schrieb:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:03:41AM +0200, K.H.Ranitzsch 
> wrote: 
> > equipment. The more equipment, the more expensive going 
> > down to a given signature should be. So something roughly similar
to 
> > the present capacity calculation is needed - perhaps in a
simplified 
> > fashion. I see no way around including such a calculation. Or do
you ?
> 
> I disagree with the underlying axiom.  Why should Vehicle 
> A with X damage dealing ability, Y armour, and Z movement, that 
> I've already paid the points for X, Y, and Z, be made proportionally

> /more/ expensive than Vehicle B, without weapon, armour, or 
> movement, simply because they share the same targetability?  Its 
> ludicrous.  

May well be we are misunderstanding each other.

Let's look at an example with some arbitrary numbers:

Assume equipment cost are balanced for vehicles with "standard" target
signatures.
Vehicle A is pretty powerfully equipped. Equipment etc. points add up
to 200 points.
Vehicle B is quite basic: 100 points

By the logic for points costing / effectiveness calculation described
earlier by B^? and Oerjan, if something makes a vehicle more survivable
it should multiply the vehicle's basic value.

Say making a vehicle extra-small in terms of target signature allows it
to survive on average twice as long and and leaving it extra-large
halves its survival. Then the cost should be:
extra-small = Basic Points * 2
extra-large = Basic Points / 2
 
So extra-small vehicles would be:
A: 400 points
B: 200 points 

Extra-large:
A: 100 points
B: 50 points

So "Extra-small" costs you 200 points for A and 100 points for B. Note
however, that at any size, you still can buy two B types for one A
type.

I hope this makes my position clear.
Where is your disagreement with it ?

As to size class, this was a simple example where size = points cost,
which is pretty dubious in terms or realism.

Greetings