I could really care less about the sub 3' tanks. As you point out, their easy enough to take out as any other tank for an experienced battler. My main thoughts are concerning potential 4'+ vehicles. It's my contention that if someone brings one of these to the field one day, we should throw them a bone for all the effort in construction and transporting such a large paintball target. My second thought is to set speed limits for larger vehicles because as experienced battlers know, a 200 pound beast doing 8MPH in the hands of a new driver is just asking for trouble. I just thought it would be nice to address this before some new guy shows up at some point with his new 250 pound welded steel 1:6 scale Abrams pushing 10MPH.
Giving everything 4/40 is OK with me (yawn). This fixes the inequity foisted upon Joe back in the day, put's my future T-70 on par with the Panzer II's, and allows racking up quick an easy points when a 4' monster does show up on the field. Steve "I Care Too Much" Tyng On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:46:35 PM UTC-5, Frank Pittelli wrote: > > Sure. But your proposal also makes smaller tanks faster than larger > tanks which requires speed enforcement (with all the complexities that > come with it) and which clearly provides smaller tanks with an advantage > that far outweighs the loss of offense/defense ratings. > > Derek's suggestion to give 40/4 ratings across the board solves a number > of problems discussed in this thread, has no apparent disadvantages, is > simple to enforce and (probably) has no un-intended consequences. Given > that Joe has proposed something similar in the past and that Doug feels > it would encourage Armored Car development, it's one of those rare > proposals that might gain unanimous consent. > > Regarding the small number of tanks shorter than 36", you are certainly > well aware that smallness of size, in itself, doesn't provide a > significant advantage. Anyone who examines the stats compiled for the > two identical Panzer IIs will quickly see that size doesn't matter. > Moreover, some of the larger tanks take less hits than the smaller ones. > Given that most veterans can shoot soldiers in the head from 20-40 > feet out also supports the notion that target size is not as important > as people want to believe. Getting rid of the 1:6 scale rule really > wouldn't change battle outcomes much at all, but it could cause a lot of > harm to people who (a) want to use commercial parts and/or vehicles or > (b) want to stay in a common scale because they also do scale modeling. > > First rule of rule making: Do no harm. > > On 12/19/2013 12:14 PM, TyngTech wrote: > > If you think about it a bit, my current ratings proposal basically > > throws out the 1:6 scale rule and moves us back to the 3' rule BUT adds > > additional 2' and 4' rules to accommodate current and future > abominations. > -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
