Re: [DS] Gently -- Capacity, Points

Bell, Brian K (Contractor) schrieb:
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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. 
> 
> [Bri] At this point CC is only used for ammo, passengers, 
> & cargo. 

But the value of ammo, passengers and cargo is higher if they survive
and move faster to where they are needed. Hence they should be
multiplied too. But capacity should have lower points than weaponry,
yes.

> 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)
> 
> [Bri] Again, we are getting into assumptions. 

Yes, but any system tactical effectiveness is based on assumptions
about the battlefield. For a discussion, it's better to state
assupmtions openly rather than to work off unstated ones.
> 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.
> 
> [Bri] 4x the area is true, 4x targets is not true; still 
> can only target 1. 

One per bound, yes. But over many bounds, it still can reach 4 times as
many targets.

> If it is set too high, you will tip the balance toward the shorter
range > weapons. 

And if you set the value of long range too low, long-range weapons will
be too cheap. 

> without having to use numbers large enough that the final costs would
be in 
> the 100s of thousands in points.

Use of low integer numbers would certainly be a virtue.

Greetings