I think the thing to remember is that the reason we build is not have perfect machine optimized to the max in every area, but rather because we love TANKS, PAINTBALL, and RC TOYS. Build what you love and you will be happy.. Build what has the best possible combination of size, armor, and firepower and you just may never be happy.
Also, there is nothing saying you cant make a sett of alternate rules for battles. Just like there is NFL football and Arena Football. Both are similar, but the rule differ just a bit in some ways. Make your own regulations and ask if anyone would be interested in participating in such an event. Call it the "Historic Series" or something and it will have it's own statistics and points kept seperate from the "Classic Series" stats. Just an idea. Aaron F SCAB - Long live the Alliance On Sep 22, 11:13 am, "Dave D." <degeck...@optonline.net> wrote: > Hey Frank, > > I hate to burst your bubble, but 4 tanks does not make a meaningful > statistical analysis... 400 tanks might. > And there's virtually nothing that's scientific regarding grown men chasing > each other around with remote controlled vehicles, LOL... > You're the big proponent of "common sense", if you can't see the clarity of > this argument, then you should eat your own words. > Remember Frank, common sense... > > You mention Steve T., and if you reread his recent post about the T-70, he > comes about as close as he's comfortable with in saying that > a rule change in this regard may be a good thing. And today, Mike Mangus > has expressed concerns over this as well. I'm sure others are thinking the > very same thing, but don't have the courage to come forth. So, I am not the > only person who is questioning this rule. But hey, like I said, it's your > baby, who am I to dictate to you folks how to play your game. But as a > fairly intelligent outsider, this particular aspect of your game looks > awfully silly. > > I just hope that I haven't overstepped any welcome I may have left to come > down some day with "any" vehicle. Of course I'm not gonna win your > proposition, you guys are way, way too far ahead of me on the learning > curve. But, if I built a Jagdpanther that was only a foot long, and five > inches tall, could you possibly think it wouldn't be the hardest thing to > hit on the field? But you have a rule to prevent that You created that > rule to make the playing field more level, so that every participant had a > fair chance. But these PzKmpfw IIs have turned things upside down, in a > sense. Yes, you both comply with the size rule, which is good. The > argument is, is it valid to allow a 20mm gun to perform exactly the same as > a 75mm, 76mm, 85mm, 88mm, 90mm and other larger guns? The hobby says a hit > is a hit, regardless of gun size, well okay. Look across your hobby, most > every participant chose a vehicle that sports at least a 75mm main gun. So > in a sense, everyone basically put themselves into a fair arrangement, with > no extreme advantage. But, WOW, you're now going to allow a couple of > operators to have a vehicle that's abit of an anomaly (tiny profile,but with > fairly good armor) armed with this "pop" gun 20mm, and allow these tanks to > fight it out on an even basis against this mostly larger, more heavily > armored, 75mm and up gun crowd in a fair way? Maybe there's even more than > just the defensive rating that's involved here. Nonetheless, comical, is > what I'd call it. I sincerely believe that this aspect of the hobby needs > to be improved upon. Change ain't always easy, and sometimes it isn't > always good, but if there was never any change, we'd all still be living in > caves, swinging sticks... > > But Frank, please understand, I don't want this to become a pissing contest. > It's just an idea that I believe would improve the hobby, my purest > intentions. I'll leave it at that. But if you do have a change of heart, > I'll gladly share whatever input I can to help in making this transition. > > Dave D. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Pittelli" <frank.pitte...@gmail.com> > To: <rctankcombat@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:35 AM > Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again... > > > 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat- Hide quoted > > text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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
