[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"Stacy Hilton" <stacyj-at-defnet.com>
Re: Maus? [TANKS]
Tue, 9 Oct 2007 02:47:45 -0400
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Pittelli" <frank-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