[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
From: Jim Neifert <jneifert-at-shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: New Member - Michigan
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 07:33:56 -0700
Reply-To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com

Amen, simple rules allow for more fun.

Now if someone could explain to me how to stuff that paintball gun and co2 
tank into this turrent, along with paint balls, servo's I would be happy, 
and I even made the turrent a little oversized.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Pittelli" <frank-at-rctankcombat.com>
To: <tanks-at-rctankcombat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: New Member - Michigan

> Steve Edwards wrote:
>> I wondered about this after watching  a 1/16 battle (the little guys that 
>> shoot IR beams). There was a lot of "unrealistic" tactical maneuvering 
>> going on; struck me as "gaming," and reminded me of the differences 
>> between laser-tag and paintball.  I haven't seen the "big boys" go at it 
>> yet though, so I couldn't say if those tactics translate.
> The first time you see a battle, I think you'll agree that there is 
> nothing "unrealistic" about our battles.  The tanks move across the field 
> just like their full-scale bretheren, with turrets facing towards the 
> enemy at all times to protect yourself.  We fire on the run, angle guns to 
> gain more distance, dig in behind barriers whenever possible, retreat 
> facing the enemy when necessary and crash through trees and underbrush to 
> surprise the enemy.
> More importantly, when a paintball hits a tank, you not only see the hit, 
> but you hear it and feel it.  The shooter and shootee both get a shot of 
> adrenaline and all your senses work overtime to figure out how to 
> make/avoid the next hit.  (You get even more of a burst of adrenaline when 
> the paintball goes whizzing past your ear ;-)
> The 1/16 scale LED game is interesting (especially on a nice field like 
> the one in Danville), but it can't compare to the action and physical 
> demands of a 1/6 scale paintball battle.
>> IMO it makes some amount of sense to have a limited speed scale (heavy / 
>> medium / light) but only if the scoring of frontal hits were adjusted as 
>> well -- ie a Sherman sould be faster than a Tiger, but the Tiger's 88mm 
>> should likewise be able to score a frontal hit at double the range of the 
>> Sherman's 76mm. Tallying of hits could be made easier by using different 
>> color paintballs for heavy / medium / light guns.
> It's interesting to note that you only included WW-II tanks in your 
> example.  Try formulating such an approach for 100 years of vehicles 
> ranging from pre-WW-I to Desert Storm.  Clearly, any rule based on scale 
> specs would result in nothing but M1A1s on the field, since it is faster, 
> stronger and more powerful than any other tank ever built.  Most scale 
> clubs limit themselves to a relatively short time period in history to 
> reduce such problems, and we'd rather have lots of different vehicles on 
> the battlefield so that everyone can build their favorite.
> Also, scoring hits only at certain ranges according to scale gun specs 
> simply won't work on a competitive battlefield.  It's difficult enough to 
> get a group of grown men to agree that a paintball actually hit a vehicle 
> in some circumstances (it bounced, it splattered on the ground, that was 
> already there, etc.)  We follow the lead of the human paintball game ... 
> it there's paint, you're hit ... doesn't matter how it got there or from 
> whom.
> Simple rules make fun games.
> Frank P.