Re: Maus? [TANKS]

["Stacy Hilton" <stacyj-at-defnet.com>]

Seems to me an "either or" deal to be fair.  Either everyone builds a tank 
at least 3 feet long, gets 40 paint balls and gets four hits to die, or we 
adhere to scale and the strength/weakness of the original vehicle.  I fully 
understand the reason for the "dual rule".  I only wanted to show that an 
unfair advantage is much more likely if the status quo remains.  It is 
possible that a vehicle could be constructed three feet in length that would 
be six or more feet in length at 1/6th scale.  Said vehicle could retain all 
the advantage of the "original vehicle" without disadvantage.  Thick armor = 
more hits to kill, huge gun = more ammunition.  The tendency would then be 
to build the largest, most heavily armored and armed vehicle you can find at 
a much smaller scale, say 1/12th.

AND, I simply cannot believe that you think I'll buy off on the idea that 
it's just as easy to hit a 36" X 14" target as a 72" X 28" one.  It flies in 
the face of logic.

I don't want to start a fight.  I just think that 1/6th scale is the way to 
go.  We could capture many of the advantages of these vehicles while 
expressing some of the disadvantages.  I think this would allow for more 
variety, otherwise maybe I'll just give up on my BT-7 and build a Maus too.

Paul Hilton.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Pittelli" <frank-at-rctankcombat.com>
To: <tanks-at-rctankcombat.com>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Maus? [TANKS]


> Stacy Hilton wrote:
>> But a 3 foot Maus is another story. I think this scale "thing" will
>> need to be tightened up in the future. I understand the reason for
>> having the "either or" option. But as more tanks are built, it would
>> seem fair to stick to 1/6 scale as a rule.
>
> I'm not sure you do understand the reason for the "1/6 scale or 36 inch" 
> rule, so I will explain.
>
> In any competitive hobby, there is a tendency for participants to start 
> "gaming" the rules to gain an advantage.  As more people participate, the 
> likelihood of someone doing that increases, so others start gaming as 
> well.  This isn't "wrong", but it can de-stabilize the game.  For example, 
> if we declare that all vehicles must be 1/6 scale, then there will be a 
> tendency for people to build the smallest tank design they can find under 
> the "theory" that size matters on the battlefield (which, by the way is a 
> false theory).  Nonetheless, the tendency would cause more small tanks to 
> be built, and fewer M1A1s, King Tigers and other truly impressive tanks. 
> Bad for game diversity and enjoyment in the long-run.
>
> In fact, the original rules said "all tanks must be 36+ inches".  That is 
> not only the "fairest" rule (all tanks are the same basic size), but also 
> the "easiest" to enforce (which will become important one day as the 
> number of participants increases).  From a gaming standpoint, that rule is 
> almost impossible to bend, twist or workaround.  But, the major advantage 
> of the 36 inch rule, is that it allows some of the greatest tanks in 
> history to be built at a reasonable size.
>
> Interestingly, it was the "scale" guys who argued for 1/6 scale to be 
> added (thereby making the rule less fair) so that they could use 
> commercially built vehicles and parts.  There is also a tiny faction who 
> believe that "mixed-scale" is simply "not right" ... but with a little 
> diversity training, attitudes like that will eventually die off  :-)
>
> So, I don't mind re-addressing the issue and having a nice debate.  But, 
> be careful of what you ask for in a democracy.  There is a good chance 
> that we could go back to the absolutely fair 36+ inch rule and abandon 1:6 
> scale completely.
>
> Frank "Every Rule Has A Story" Pittelli
>