RE: (DS): Systems per Class

--- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:

> to address the main issue: why the systems per class
> rule, and should it be changed?

Restricting the argument to these points alone:

1)I do not know.

2)Yes.	The rule should be dropped.  It would be very
difficult to create abusive vehicles without this rule
in place that could not be created with this rule in
place.	In general, adding multiple heavy weapons
(size 2 and larger weapons) adds very little to the
effectiveness of the vehicle, at least in proportion
to the point cost.  Further, it would allow actual
IFVs capable of carrying a full squad (size 3, 2
teams, RFAC/1, GMS/H, for instance).  There is already
a balance in the system for trying to create
'ubervehicles' with a dozen different systems, and
that is the silly point cost thereof.  In other words,
the problem with highly capable vehicles is that each
one is still vulnerable to being blown up and all
those points you poured into buying it go up in smoke.

Further, on a purely personal basis, I rather LIKE
vehicles bristling with machine guns as otherwise I
find they are far too vulnerable to infantry teams for
my taste.

The primary effects of this rule change will be
twofold:
First, infantry-carrying vehicles will start sporting
more serious firepower.  This is not that big a threat
because unless/until someone comes up with a truly
effective IFV doctrine (something the
US/UK/FSU/FRG/ETC have been working on for years with
little sucess) they will still have to decide whether
they will ACT like tank destroyers, light tanks, recon
vehicles, or APCs.  And that is something I can cope
with, from a tactical standpoint.

Second, vehicles will sprout additional anti-infantry
weapons, primarily APFCs and APSWs, but also size 1
weapons.  Usually your primary armament will take most
of your capacity.  So the urge to add in systems over
and above the size limit of the vehicle is likely to
come when deciding what to do with the 'left over'
points.  And so 1 and 2 capacity point systems will be
the bulk of it.  Now, I am not truly worried that some
extra size-1 MDCs are going to unbalance any game I
play.  
APSWs and APFCs will have one primary function, to
make close assault with infantry far more lethal. 
This is not a terribly BAD thing, per se.  Close
assault should be mutually horrific, with mangled
corpses all over the place on BOTH sides (presuming at
least marginal competence on the part of both).  As it
stands, vehicles are pretty vulnerable to close
assault and there is rarely much they can do about it.
 While this is accurate for truly good troops, having
a lot of APSWs out there making noise is going to
discourage even the bravest to some degree.  I would
be surprised if infantry fire resolution actually
results in more than a handful dead--mostly just guys
who decided they didn't want to play anymore.  Anyway,
that would even the playing field so that both
infantry and armor commanders approach the subject of
close assault with much trepidation.

John

		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail