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

KH Ranitzsch wrote:

>Maybe the present system is cumbersome.

Yes. And inaccurate, too :-/

>But my argument is that, to calculate a balanced points cost that
includes
>target signature, you have to take into account the vehicles' size and
>equipment.

No, you don't. It is *much* easier to calculate an accurate points
system 
if you ignore the size and equipment.

>The more equipment, the more expensive going down to a given
>signature should be.

In a purely points-based design system, the cost looks roughly like
this:

[Firepower] * [Defensive ability] * [Mobility]

which can be broken down as

[(Weapon 1)*(FCS1) + (Weapon 2)*(FCS2) + ...] * [(Armour)*(Signature + 
ECM/PDS)] * [Mobility]

The value of signature/N in comparison to the value of signature/M can
with 
the help of the esteemed Mr. F.W. Lanchester be calculated to

square root of ((average enemy hit probability vs signature/M)/(average 
enemy hit probability vs signature/N))

Choose one arbitrary signature level to be worth "1", and compare all
other 
signatures to it.

In a pure points system, this is it - you already have the signature's 
contribution to the vehicles' points values. Do corresponding
calculations 
for the other terms and factors as well, and you have your points
system.

Thing is, the value calculated for a given vehicle by the above formula
is 
also the "ideal" target value which a capacity-based design system
should 
give that same vehicle - so in order to design a capacity-based system
you 
first have to determine the points-based system anyway, and then 
successfully designs *another* system which gives the same results in a 
completely different way.

Dunno about you, but I find the latter option to be at least four times
as 
much work as the former one :-/

Darryl's idea about "real points value" and "fluff design system" is IMO
a 
very good one indeed - I wish I'd've thought of it myself! I'd very much

like DS3 to work this way - possibly with a couple different "fluff" 
systems, eg. one "official" fluff for the GZGverse and one "generic 
Gigantic Walker" one for all those Animaniacs who were outraged by DS2's

treatment of their metal darlings <g>

Alexander Williams wrote:

>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.

If the signature cost is multiplicative instead of additive, it doesn't
pay 
*proportionally* more than the unarmed vehicle to reduce its signature.
It 
pays more in *absolute* terms because its lower signature increases the 
chance that its weaponry will inflict damage on the enemy while the
lower 
signature on the unarmed vehicle doesn't have any weapons which benefit 
from the extra protection. (Example: 24 is *proportionally* just as much

larger than 20 as 6 is larger than 5 - in both cases 20%. In absolute 
terms, the difference between 24 and 20 is of course four times larger
than 
the difference between 6 and 5.)

(In the current system, the *unarmed* vehicle pays proportionally more
to 
reduce its signature than the armed one does...)

>The additional price of the weaponry, movement, and armour suffices in 
>itself; why should there be another premium on top of that which has
/no 
>effect/ on the actual effectiveness?

If a reduction of signature did indeed have "/no effect/" on the actual 
effectiveness of the vehicle, you would be correct.

However, a reduced signature *does* have an effect - it makes the
vehicle 
harder to hit (and thus harder to knock out) with direct-fire weapons,
and 
therefore makes those expensive weapons more likely to harm the enemy.
More 
likely to harm the enemy = more valuable = higher points cost *for the 
individual weapon*, if the vehicle has a lower signature.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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