DS2 Another armour\mobility idea

A while ago, I thought of this as a simple way to provide an incentive
for
DS2 vehicles with less than maximal armour:

To give a reason for fitting less than maximum armour on ground vehicles
(the high prices of VTOL and aerospace mobility make the change less
necessary for these vehicles):
How about giving ground vehicles one extra movement point for being one
level below maximum armour, 2 MP for being two levels below maximum, and
also one or two extra movement points for being open topped?

Extra armour could be added, perhaps costing similar numbers of MP, and
say
5-10% of BVP, per facing armoured.  This would allow the construction of
smaller heavily armoured vehicles- SF Matilda Is, should anyone want
such a
thing.

If this scheme was being used, I would also suggest allowing evasive
movement for any ground vehicle with a movement allowance greater than
12,
as a further, tactical incentive to choose more lightly armoured
vehicles.

This would enable an increase in the _relative_ mobility of cheaper
mobility
classes, and perhaps encourage the use of real light scout vehicles and
thinly armoured SP artillery and tank destroyers.

As examples, an M113-type APC could be Size 2, Armour 1 with Fast
Tracked
mobility giving 13MF instead of the current 12, and capacity for evasive
maneuvring. Basic cost would be 17 points.

A Sexton or Priest SPG could be Size 3, Armour 1, open topped, with Slow
Tracked mobility giving 11MF instead of the current 8 and letting it
keep up
with the tanks using a cheaper mobility class.	Basic cost would be 22
points.  Under the current rules the same hull with Fast Tracked
mobility
would have 12MF but cost 25 points.

An M10 Tank destroyer could be Size 3, Armour 1 (Front 2), open topped,
with Fast Tracked mobility giving 14MF instead of the current 12, and
capacity for evasive maneuvring.

A Matilda MkI could be Size 2, Armour 4 (Front 4), with Slow Tracked
mobility giving 4MF instead of the current 8 and letting it keep up with
the
tanks using a cheaper mobility class.

Needless to say, none of these ideas have been tested, but they do at
least
appear to make a direct connection between weight of armour and mobility

Rob Paul