Re: Heresy Mine! was Re: (DS): Systems per Class

Glenn Wilson wrote:

[...]

> >And yes, it means that the second example MICV design on p.12 is
> >illegal.
>
>No, That means (TA DA!) the rules are flawed!

That is not a contradiction, you know. Under the rules as written (and
as 
explained by the main developer of the rules, Mike E.) the example
design 
*is illegal* (ie., the RAW contradict themselves); the fact that the
rules 
as written are also *flawed* (as evidenced by the fact that designs like

this "illegal" IFV are in service in the real world today) doesn't make
the 
example design any less illegal under the rules as written.

FWIW I fully agree with BB that the rules should be changed; but you
have 
to know what the rules actually say *now* before you can change the
rules 
in any meaningful way :-/

***
Personally I don't think that the "1 weapon per size class" is necessary
at 
all *if* you use the "elements can only fire 1 weapon per activation"
rule. 
If you allow vehicles to fire multiple weapons in a single activation, 
you'll most likely run into problems with small vehicles overloaded with

GMS/L... but only because the GMS/L is underpriced (especially 
capacity-wise; IMO GMSs (and SLAMs) should use reloads just like
artillery 
does).

***
>I think all SF rules with design methodologies are poorly designed or
>executed as are most historical and (crawls out on limb) ALL fantasy
>efforts.  Reality is too complex for a reasonably simple game to try
and
>take in.  You compromise and there is where you get dinged.

Pah. I'll bet that in at least 90% of the cases these flaws in various 
vehicle design systems had nothing to do with "compromise" or
"simplicity", 
but everything to do with *ignorance* - the rules authors simply didn't 
know enough about what their rules were supposed to model to come up
with 
something realistic. In the specific DS2 case, I know for certain that
the 
rules authors' knowledge about the subject came mostly from Hammer's 
Slammers and similar SF novels, which although (usually) based on 
real-world combat experience do not give any particularly complete
picture 
of realistic restrictions on vehicle design.

Also for the DS2 case, your point about "paper-thin armour" misses the 
target by roughly 180 degrees: with *today's* *thick* armour materials,
we 
can stuff more equipment (or men) into a smaller vehicle hull than DS2's

supposedly *more* advanced tech base allows us to do. If future armour
is 
so much more volume-efficient (and future weapons *don't* advance 
correspondingly in penetrative power and thereby force the vehicle 
designers to keep the armour thickness roughly unchanged), we ought to
be 
able to put *more* stuff (or men) into future vehicles than we can do
today 
- not *less*.

Since DS2 is supposed to be a *generic* game, ie. *not* tied to a
specific 
background with a specific tech base, it cannot decide "what is the 
baseline (or 'virtual reality' if you prefer) of the game" - because
making 
that decision destroys its supposedly generic nature; if it is to be 
generic it has to leave that choice to the *player* (or at least give
him a 
very wide array of choices). And that in turn means that since its
low-tech 
options are supposed to cover tech similar to or slightly ahead of what
we 
have today, it really has to to allow the players to re-create today's 
modern combat vehicles. At the moment DS2 doesn't. Hopefully DS3 will.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry