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

At 10:24 AM -0500 4/6/02, Brian Bell wrote:
>
>[Bri] WHEN you add equipment you add the points equal to the increased
>tactical value, not before you add it. Using the converse of this (with
a
>capacity system costing for what you could mount regardless of it you
do
>mount it or not), all vehicles of the same capacity would have the same
>points (as you _could_ use the capacity for the same equipment). This
could
>be a valid way to balance units, _if_ all equipment of a given capacity
were
>equally effective. Otherwise, you must only charge points for the
>effectiveness of equipment added to the vehicle.

So do this. Modify the existing system such that if a vehicle has X 
unused capacity points, you don't count it in the cost of the stealth 
system. However, thats going to make it hard for you to have the size 
1 HEL 5 isn't it. How do you build the Posleen God King's personal 
Saucer that can take out an M1 Abrams in the current system? You 
can't. The scale/scope of the weapons design system doesn't go that 
high.

Rather, than making the weapons variable in size. You need to make 
new weapons that are uber generic and are smaller. But much costlier 
based on their size.

HVM - High Velocity Missile Launcher
Capacity 1, weapons effect size 4, cost 100 pts.

Bouncing Barbie Scatterable Mine -
draw 5 chits for mine detonation. Cost 200 per load.

Plasma bolt launcher
Capacity 1, weapons size effect size 4, cost 120 pts.
>
>
>Inches and scale have no game effect. We could just have sticks a
>certain length for each type of movement rate or range. But they are
>a good common unit. Size in DS/SG is a very quick thing to describe
>to someone learning the game and it creates additional reference
>points when describing a vehicle.
>
>[Bri] I don't understand your point. You don't get charged points for
inches
>(except when they pertain to weapons effectiveness or movement). My
point
>was that you do not charge points for anything that does not have a
game
>effect. You cannot charge for _potential_ effectiveness, only
_actualized_
>effectiveness.

The point I'm making here is that scale (size is a scale thingy) are 
useful but have little effect on a game. Specifically when compared 
to weapon effects and such. But it is still very useful to provide a 
base line for comparing things.

I think you could arrive at the same place if you apply stealth to 
weapons in and of themselves. That'd do the miniaturization that you 
are looking for.
-- 
--
Ryan Gill			  rmgill@mindspring.com
	|	 |	       |	   |		
	| O--=-  |	       |	   |
	|_/|o|_\_|	       | _________ |
	/ 00DA61 \	       |/---------\| 
     _w/^=_[__]_= \w_	       // [_]  o[]\\ 
    |: O(4) ==	  O :|	      _Oo\=======/_O_
    |---\________/---|	      [_(3)______W__]  
     |~|\	 /|~|	      |~|/BSV 575\|~|
     |~|=\______/=|~|	      |~|=|_____|=|~|
     |~|	  |~|	      |~|	  |~|