I have say that I built a Stug because I like the tank and not because I thought it was going to be a real killer out there. I found that after playing the game that it did not matter what tank I was shooting at or what size it was. I could't hit it anyway. Bob It's all about having fun.
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 22, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Cobra <afreem...@live.com> wrote: > 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 -- 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
