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

On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:55:20 -0500, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote :

> At 4:36 PM -0500 4/5/02, John Crimmins wrote:
> >
> >It should indeed, but if Vehicle A is also upgraded, and performance 
> >qualities remain identical, should they not cost the same?
> 
> In an ideal world. However I don't see games as that simple.
> 
> >Who's saying that that extra space isn't used?  Maybe the Infamous 
> >Cowards of Glaxion VI *need* that extra space -- they're 
> >claustrophobes, you see,
> >and can't stand being in to tight of an area....  It's a fluff thing.
> 
> Exceedingly fluffy. I thought we were playing DSII? Jon did design it 
> around a particular fluff. Trying to shoehorn Posleen God King 
> personal weapons and galtech is like trying to fit a Posleen Dodec 
> sphere into FT. Its waaay off the scale.

DSII *is* billed as a "Generic" SF game, and in fact it does include at
least a 
few design concepts that don't fit into the default background at all --

Walkers and Modular vehicles.

As for the fluffiness, I'm "justifying" someone's else's off-the-cuff
example; 
don't expect Shakespeare....

It's just as easy to end the discussion, though, by pointing out that
yes: 
there *are* circumstances in which the actual size of the vehicle
matters.  
Maybe there's a rickety bridge that can only be crossed by vehicles of
Size 
Class Two or smaller.  Or one side is deploying their tanks from
dropships, and 
more of the physically smaller tanks can be carried than the larger.

Of course, in both those cases the smaller vehicle is *more* valubled
than the 
bigger, making the point disparity even more silly.

> 
> >But in any case, you are saying that Vehicle B should cost more 
> >because it has the *potential* to be more heaily armed?  Potential 
> >shouldn't really enter
> >into it, I think.  Performance on the board is all that really
matters.
> 
> Again, the problem is that some items use are very situational. A 
> given system is useless on a given board. If I put lots of "points" 
> into ECM and PDS and ADS vehicles, and my opponent doesn't bring a 
> single GMS/H or GMS/L, then I've pretty much wasted those points. 
> Suddenly they are worth zero. Does the capacity-less system fix that? 
> Nope. Does if fix things if my Ben Rich's best tank force with 
> signatures of 1 go up against a force with nothing but missiles and 
> artillery? Nope.

Nothing short of telepathy will fix that, and this is true of all
miniatures 
games.

Frankly, I think that I'm losing track of my point here...always a
hazzard with 
these discussions, no?

My feeling is this: the design system should be as open-ended as
possible, 
allowing the player to build whatever he likes...while forcing him to
pay 
enough points for that elaborate design to *roughly* balance his army
against a 
more convential force.

Is it going to perfect?  Is anything?  No...but by dumping capacity
points, 
along with the arbitary restrictions, the designer will have a lot more 
options.  If somebody wants to run basketball sized drones with the
offensive 
capabilities of an MBT, that's cool with me.  Fits quite well into a lot
of 
backgrounds, too.

Actually, I think that the best option would be to make capacity, well, 
optional.  Offer a list of choices as to how much a given size of
vehicle could 
carry at different tech levels, provide a common basis for those who
find such 
things important.

-- 
John Crimmins
johncrim@voicenet.com