Re: [DS] Gently -- Capacity, Points

Hello 

A few remarks (though Oerjan can probably make better comments):

Bell, Brian K (Contractor) schrieb:
> I would like to see the following in the DS2 design 
> system: 
> 
> 1) Tactical Points system.
> 
> TAC = Movement Points * Protection Points * Offense 
> Points + Carring Capacity

Do you indeed mean :
 MP*PP*OP + CC
 (Multiplying the first three and THEN adding the capacity)
OR
 MP*PP* ( OP + CC )
 (Adding Offense and capacity FIRST and then multiplying)
?

Not sure which makes more sense, probably the second one, as the
capacity's value will increase with mobility and survival.

>  Protection Points are a combination of Armor Points * 
> the average of Signature and (ECM + PDS)[round up].

>  Armor points are equal to points from all sides. Armor 
> rating and cost are 1:4, 2:6, 3:8, 4:10, 5:12. The points are totaled
for all 
> 6 sides of the vehicle (Front, Left, Back, Right, Top, Bottom), then

> divided by 6 (round up). Reactive and ablative armor adds 2 to the
point 
> value per side it is on.

For tactical effectiveness points, the front armour should be weighted
more heavily, as usually it's the front that gets the enemy's
attention.

Something like
60% * Front + 40% * (Average of other 5 faces)

>  Range Band: Determine the range band by subtracting 
> Medium Range from Long Range. This should also match Medium Range -
Close 
> Range. For 1 range band weapons (i.e. GMS) Divide the maximum range
by 3 to 
> get the range band. 
> Range band points are: (upto) 4":4, 6":6, 8":8, 10":10, 
> 12":12. Subtract the Range Band from the Close range; 
> if the result is more than 1/2 the range band length, add 2 to the
Range Band 
> Points; if more than zero but less than 1/2, add 1 to the Range Band
Points. 

I must say, I don't understand the procedure, and hence, the reasons
for it.

Note that a weapon that has twice the range of another can reach
four(!) times the area, and thus hit 4 times as many targets, hence its
value should be 4 times the base value. This has to be modified by
line-of-sight and rate-of-fire considerations, but doubling the range
should still more than double the value.

> 2) Tuffleyverse-specific capacity limitations. 

I would consider these as standard for any "realistic" world.
Optionally to be dropped with agreement of both players.

> I would suggest a higher limit than is currently 
> used and do away with the maximum number of weapons 
> rules. 

Yes. Certainly to the latter point.

Greetings