RE: (DS): Systems per Class

As a vacc-head, I've kept out of this discussion for the most part, but
I
feel I must play devil's advocate.

The discussion sounds rather like the argument against the use of class
structure in FTII, and lo, the class structure for buildingFTII(.5)
ships
has disappeared. However, it does not mean that it was invalid, merely
that
it was too rigid to be a 'basic' or even 'official' rule as it was. At
the
risk of angering Brian again by bringing up RL, I will point out that,
at
various times, classes, whether in ships or armored vehicles, has been a
valid concept. The realities that brought these about were many, from
mission-driven, to certain non-linear, non-continuous variables, and not
necessarily easy to recreate without class structures.

Now, technology, political 'realities', and the like will vary with
time,
and mission creep will happen. At Jutland, the German DD's were smaller
as
a group than the British DD's, almost enough to classify them as two
different classes, but were still recognizable from CL's, and all the
DD's
were used in similar manner. Over the years, 'destroyer' has grown
pretty
damn big. Not quite B5 destroyer big, but you get the idea.

My impression is that at various stages, a heavy tank is a heavy tank,
even
if they were slightly larger, say, in Germany than most other places,
and
there's a distinction from light tanks, though that line may shift,
especially during the upheaval of war.

It may not fit your idea of the game, but I think the idea of classes
was
and is still justifiable. Just damn tricky to make into a rule.

The_Beast