RE: Request For Comment

[SteveT44 <SteveT44-at-comcast.net>]

Looks good to me.  Good job Frank.

Steve


frank-at-pittelli.com wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>