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

On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:04:51 +0200, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
(K.H.Ranitzsch) wrote :
> > Lets look at it another way:
> >
> > Vehicle A:
> > Size 2, Fast Tracked, Class/2 armor, HKP/2
> > Vehicle B:
> > Size 3, Fast Tracked, Class/2 armor, HKP/2, Stealth/1
> >
> > Both vehicles are equivilent in capabililty. In a points only
system, they
> > should cost the same. They have the same signature, mobility, damage
> > potential, and armor.
> > -----
> > Brian Bell
> > -----
> 
> Right, I agree that the vehicles have the same capabilities.
> However, why have you defined vehicle B as size 3 ?
> You have wasted the available space.
> If you had equipped it with more weaponry or more armor, it might
justify
> Size3, and then paying for Stealth to get the signature down to 2
makes
> sense.
> As it is, vehicle B is a quite inefficient design. And I don't think a
> points system should reward major design errors.

I don't believe that the purpose of the point system is to "award" or
"penalize" anything -- its purpose is to provide a rough sense of
balance for those 
concerned about such things.

Using  Andy Cowell's on-line DSII generator, the costs for the sample
tanks are  64 points for Vehicle A, and 138 points for Vehicle B

(Both with HKP/3 -- HKP/2 is illegal under the current rules -- basic
firecons, no ECM or special systems.)

...which illustrates the point nicely, I think.  Two vehicles with
identical performance, but one costs a little more than *twice* as much
as the other.

If I want tanks designed by the Infamous Cowards of Galaxion VI (good at
hiding, but not comfortable with big guns), then that's what I want. 
How is 
anything served by the point system giving a woefully inaccurate picture
of the capabilities of my army?

-- 
John Crimmins
johncrim@voicenet.com