On 9/21/2011 9:44 PM, Dave D. wrote:
> It stands to reason that a smaller side profile tank will undoubtedly
> outperform it's larger adversaries.
Most people would agree that Mr. Tyng and I have roughly the same skill
levels and we have certainly battled enough times so that our records
are statistically valid. So, consider the Tiger vs. the Cromwell. The
Cromwell is not only faster than the Tiger, but also has a lower profile
with less target area. Accordingly to your theory, the Cromwell should
always outperform the Tiger. However, a quick look at the statistics
will show that the Tiger has given up 80,000 points over the last 9
years (8,900 per year), while the Cromwell has given up 72,750 points
over the last 7 years (10,392 per year), which are pretty darn close
averages.
For even more scientific proof, consider the 9 year records of Joe's
Hetzer vs. my Tiger. Once again, the Hetzer is smaller and faster than
the Tiger, but over the same 9 years period the Hetzer has received
almost 35% more hits.
So, amongst some of the most experienced battlers in the hobby, the
statistics clearly show that size and speed are *not* the main
determinants in the outcome of a battle. Rather, battling skill, the
reliability of the systems and the nature of the game itself determine
the outcome to a far greater extent.
To prove my point once and for all, I throw down the following
challenge. Build whatever size tank you want and make it as fast as you
want. We'll give it a 40/4 rating regardless of it's actual
characteristics for your first two years of battling. Then, come to at
least two MAG battles and show us your battlefield domination. If you
score more net points than everyone else during those battles, we'll
allow you to change whatever rules you want.
Frank P.
--
You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
