[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Looks good to me. Good job Frank.
> 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.