Re: Request For Comment

["ZBoucher" <teamundertow-at-attbi.com>]

hey guys

    sounds great it will make it easyer for us building odd vehicle like my
half track rocket launcher :)

                                                      Bryan Boucher
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Pittelli" <frank-at-pittelli.com>
To: <tanks-at-rctankcombat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 3:11 PM
Subject: Request For Comment


> BACKGROUND:  As the diversity of vehicle types being built increases, it
> is apparent that we should probably modify the rules slightly to fairly
> balance offensive and defensive capabilities.  As originally worded, the
> rules attempted to use the vehicle class type to solely determine both
> the offensive and defensive power of a vehicle.  Unfortunately, this
> didn't account for certain types of vehicles, such as an armored car
> with a powerful gun, but weak armor, or a reasonably armored tank that
> has a weak gun.
>
> PROPOSAL:  Each vehicle will be given a "rating" M/H which consists of
> an offensive factor M (the magazine size) and a defensive factor H
> (number of hits needed to destroy it) based on the following tables:
>
> Offensive (magazine size)
> ---------
> 40 = 70+ mm gun
> 30 = 35-69 mm gun
> 20 = 1-34mm gun
> 10 = Artillery
> 1 = Rocket Tube
>
> Defensive (hits needed to destroy)
> ---------
> 4 = 70+ mm armor
> 3 = 35-69 mm armor
> 2 = 1-34 mm armor
> 1 = no armor
>
> DISCUSSION: The proposed cut-off values for each table were chosen to
> make them easy to remember (35 and 70) and to reduce adverse affects on
> vehicles that are currently being developed. (To the best of my
> knowledge, nobody currently building a vehicle is adversely affected by
> this change.) As I see it, the cut-off values can be pushed up or down
> for lots of different reasons, but we'll never be able to satisfy
> everyone all of the time, so eventually any stable setting is just as
> good as any other.
>
> So, if you're reading this far and you've got an opinion on the matter,
> please feel free to post a reply and we'll see where the discussion
> takes us.  Even if you're not currently building a vehicle, we'd like to
> hear whatever you've got to say.
>
> Frank "Simple Rule Making Is Not Simple" Pittelli
>
> NOTE TO SCALE BUFFS:  Given that we allow AFVs that span over 100 years
> of technology to battle alongside each other (which I think is one of
> the cool aspects of this hobby), our use of "gun size" to determine the
> offensive rating and "armor thickness" to determine the defensive rating
> is clearly dubious from a scale-perspective, but probably necessary
> since we can't otherwise account for things like a SABO round vs. a
> 2-pound cannon ball, or steel-plate vs. reactive armor.
>
>
>
>
>