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

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Crimmins" <johncrim@voicenet.com>
> 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.

A heavy discussion on this whole topic. I still think that defining the
size/capacity class of a vehicle does make sense. It certainly makes it
easier to design vehicles sensibly. John has mentioned several points
where
it could have an effect on game play.

Size also makes a good base for defining the target signature of a
vehicle.
Any special measures to reduce (or increase, if you want) the signature
of a
vehicle would be on top of that.

On the other hand, I see the argument that only the final signature
should
enter into the combat effectiveness points (CEP) calculation.

Two possible solutions:

1) Calculate CEP and size separately. This will likely lead to size
being
ignored completely.

2) As big size is a drawback, make the size points cost factor inversely
related to size. E.g.for size classes 1-5:
Size cost = ( 1.3  - Size Class/10)
Result: Class 1 vehicles multiply basic costs by 1.2, class 3 by 1.0
(stay
the same), class 5 by 0.8
Stealth increases the costs accordingly:
Signature cost = Size cost + Stealth level/10

Thus, a basically 100 points class 3 vehicle stealthed down to 2 would
cost
90 points just as class 2 vehicle with equal equipment.

Somewhat counter-intuitive, but using the right numbers (Hi Oerjan!),
should
balance size and stealth properly

Greetings
Karl Heinz