Re: DS2 Another armour\mobility idea

"K.H.Ranitzsch" wrote:
> 
> Hello everybody
> 
> Altogether, following this discussion about speed and armour, my
impression
> is that most of the suggested complication isn't really warranted.
> 
> Why not just have armour classes and final mobility classes ? Just pay
for
> the final result (making speed price dependent on total "weight" of
the
> vehicle). You can always argue that an uparmoured variant of a vehicle
also
> received an engine upgrade to allow the same top speed. No need to
directly
> model performance degradation due to armour. The important point is to
get
> the balance right, not to model the perforamnce characteristics of a
grav
> vehicle.

Agreed.

There are two distinct requirements appearing from our discussions over
the last few days (which unfortunately I've had to dip out of 'cos I'm a
bit busy at the moment !).

The first relates to a points system which accurately (as far as
possible) rates the 'combat value' of a vehicle based on its
capabilities - whether those capabilities are historical, converted from
another game system, the designer's whim, whatever. The current
consensus seems to be that this should be a 'one-off battle' rating.

The second requirement concerns a detailed design system that creates
vehicles within a defined set of parameters and limitations (ie 'real'
vehicles in the GZGverse) involving mass, capacity, engine thrust,
motive system etc. This results in a vehicle with capabilities that can
still be rated by the above mentioned points system.

These aren't mutually exculsive. The points system could rate vehicles
regardless of their origin and produce compatible results. Those who
wish to game 'hard' SF, putting limitations in place to avoid 'cheese'
vehicles (Uberbikes with class/5 MDC etc) would design their vehicles
using the design system, feed the results into the points system and get
their 'combat value' out. Those who are less concerned with the detailed
design process would just write down what they want the capabilities of
their vehicle to be (or convert from a different system), feed this into
the points system and - hey presto - get a 'combat value' which is fully
compatible with the 'properly' designed vehicle, just derived in a
different way.

DS3 keeps it's generic tag since the design system becomes an optional
extra for the GZGverse background. Non-canon universes (Star Wars,
Battletech, Hammers Slammers, Epic 40K etc) could all happily be played
out with the game and cross-genre battles would be possible since the
points values are compatible. New weapons systems could be introduced to
the points system, but kept out of the design system if they aren't
compatible with the PSB of the GZG background (so rules and points for
Meltaguns are available, but they can't be designed into NAC tanks).
Hell, you could even create new design systems for alternative
backgrounds that allow the creation of (say) Battletech Mechs within
limitations relevant to the FASA game universe.

We should be able to have our cake _and_ eat it.

Tony

-----------------------------
Tony Francis
Senior Software Engineer