RE: [DS] Gently -- Capacity, Points

-----Original Message-----
From: Oerjan Ohlson [mailto:oerjan.ohlson@telia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 17:39
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [DS] Gently -- Capacity, Points 

Brian Bell wrote	:

>I would like to see the following in the DS2 design system:

As a basic structure for a points-only system, this is almost exactly
what 
I want as well. I don't really agree with the various actual numbers
though 
- the value of a particular die size is only very rarely directly 
proportional to the die size itself :-(

[Bri] It was an idea, not a finished product. Thank you for your
comments!

>1) Tactical Points system.
>
>TAC = Movement Points * Protection Points * Offense Points + Carring
>Capacity

The cargo you carry on the battlefield - be it infantry, artillery ammo
or 
something else - is almost always a "weapon" of some sort. The formula 
should therefore be

TAC = Movement Points * Protection Points * (Offense Points + Carrying 
Capacity)

*Snip*

[Bri] Alright. By the way, not stated, but assumed (on my part) was that
any
value that figures to 0, but is multiplied is set to equal 1.

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

ECM and PDS multiply with one another rather than add, so this formula
becomes

Protection points = Armour * (Signature + ECM * PDS)

*snip*

[Bri] I was goint to average direct fire protection and missile
protection.
So:
Protection Points = Armor * ((Signature + Missile Protection)/2). Note:
all
values have a minimum of 1 and rounding is done UP.

*snip*

Brian's reply about GMSs and IAVRs being roof-hitting *snip*

[Bri] I actually said GMS and Artilery, buty your point is valid.

Armour/5 isn't worth five times as much as Armour/1, though. For the DS2

chit-pull damage resolution, the relative armour factors are roughly:

5 + Armour rating (+1 more if ablative or reactive)

[Bri] Acceptable.

>Signature has the following point costs: 1:12, 2:10, 3:8, 4:6, 5:4

Better: 1:12, 2:11, 3:10, 4:9, 5:8 (ie., 13 - Signature)

[Bri] OK.

>  ECM has the following point costs: Basic:6, Enh:8, Sup:10
>  PDS has the following point costs: Basic:6, Enh:8, Sup:10

A PDS die is worth more than an ECM die *snip*
ECM: None: 1, Basic:1.1, Enhanced: 1.2, Superior: 1.3
PDS: None: 1, Basic:1.2, Enhanced: 1.35, Superior: 1.5

...give the correct relations between the various (ECM * PDS)
combinations, 
but they're *not* properly scaled in comparison to the Signature values
above.

[Bri] I was trying to avoid fractions if at all possible. How about:
ECM: None: 8, Basic: 9, Enhanced: 10, Superior: 11
PDS: None: 8, Basic: 10 Enhanced: 11, Superior: 12
Missile Protection = (ECM * PDS)/8 round up.

>Offensive Points are equal to the FCS value * range band points *
weapon
>strength points * Chit Validity points.

If it only were this simple... *snip*

>Range Band: Determine the range band by subtracting Medium Range 
>from Long Range. *snip*

Like KH I don't understand the reason behind this algorithm, although I
did 
manage to parse it. One problem with it is that HVC/5, HKP/3-5 and
MDC/3-5 
(with ranges varying from 40" to 60") all get a range band value of 14, 
while HELs and GMS/H are undefined (should they be 20 and 16
respectively, 
or should they be 14 as well?). None of the DS2 weapons fall in the
"Close 
Range minus Range Band is more than 0 but less than Range Band/2" group,

BTW - the result of this subtraction is either 0, 1*Range Band, or more 
than 1*Range Band for all the DS2 weapons.

[Bri] I goofed. It should be something like "If the result of
subtracting
the range band from Close range is equal to the Range band, add 1/3 the
range band points (round up). If the it is greater than the range band
add
1/2 the range band points (round up)."

*snip*

Two further questions here:
- "All/2" is weaker than "Red" unless the target's armour rating is
lower 
than the number of chits drawn
- How do you account for the way chit validities vary from range band to

range band?

[Bri] Yes. "All/2" is weaker than "Red" but greater than "Yellow". I was
unsure how to handle it.
All except DFFG have a straight digression in chit validity. All ->
Red&Yellow -> Red -> Yellow. So I ignored the chit validity digression
with
range band (as it was constistant).

>Artillery has a range band points of 20.
>Artillery has a strength rating of Light:12, Medium:18, Heavy:24
[accounts 
>for 3 vehicles
>caught in blast radius due to unit coheriency].

Hm? Vehicles may be up to 3" away *snip*

[Bri] I goofed. Make it Light:6 Medium:9, Heavy:12.

*snip* Then add by movement type: High Mobility Wheeled &
>GEV:1 Tracked, Walker:2 Grav:3, VTOL:3, Aerospace:4, Amphibious:1.

I'd group Tracked and GEV together, with HMW trailing behind and LMW
being 
worth even less. Walker mobility is actually more worth than Grav given
the 
current DS2 terrain effects; a Walker with BMF X has a longer average
move 
through mixed terrain than a Grav vehicle with the same BMF.

[Bri] OK.

Hm. I'm not entirely convinced that a BMF 15 Grav tank is really worth
more 
than twice as much as a BMF 10 LMW with the same armament and defences 
though :-/

[Bri] I agree. But I am unsure how to proceed. Perhaps I will have to
revert
to fractions at this point.

Brian B2 pointed out that vehicles that are physically large and/or
heavy 
should get a (very) small points rebate, since their size can restrict
them 
from using certain bridges, and also makes them more difficult to carry 
inside other vehicles.

[Bri] I as thinking that this fell below the grandularity of the
TACTICAL
value of a vehicle. (But should be a part of the Strategic
value/Campaign
Value calcualtions.)

>2) Tuffleyverse-specific capacity limitations.

Eg., use the current DS2 *capacity requirements* (not points costs!) for

non-armour systems, but charge 1 per level of armour per side and
increase 
the total capacity of the vehicle to 10*Size. The points cost of the 
vehicle is determined as above :-/

[Bri] Not specifically the current system. Just an acknoledgement that
it
would play a factor in figuring Startegic/Campaign points.

All in all I agree with the basic concept. The relative weights of 
Signature vs ECM/PDS and how to value weapons need to be worked on more 
though :-/

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com