> John Atkinson wrote:
It's only abstract if you don't use the point system. The issue here is that
the point system is slightly broken. If you don't bother with the point system
then it really doesn't matter, but it's lacking in distingushing between a
class 4 armour 1 and a class 4 armour 4 in a significant enough way.
> > I never buy anything but Superior, unless the
Same thing here. The point difference between Basic, Enh, and Sup FC is not
enough to actually show the game term change in power.
When designing forces I look at FC as the levels that units would be
contructed with. State of the art killing platforms are Sup, regular units are
Enh, and cheap units and obsolete ones are basic.
> > Silly, yes. But if they're allowed, they should be
They should be just as usefull for the points you spend on them. A tank should
be better in certain cercomstances then a walker and a walker should be better
in others, urban combat for example.
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
> When designing forces I look at FC as the levels
And state of the art killing platforms tend to mop up
against cheap obsolete ones. See: M-1A1 vs T-72G in
the Great Desert Firepower Demonstration.
> They should be just as usefull for the points you
Why is being taller than a house an advantage in urban combat?
Could we drop the whole walkers/tanks/kipper tin/debate?
I have heard every one of these arguments before, with both better and worse
PSB and better and worse manners...
I really don't want to see this edge in to the 'worse manners' catagory and it
has been skirting the edge for a bit now.
<smile>
Thanx,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> And state of the art killing platforms tend to mop up
Correct. But the cost difference in the points system doesn't reflect it
enough.
> Why is being taller than a house an advantage in urban
I never said anything about being taller then a house. A class 2 walker
wouldn't be. It would have an easier time hiding and shooting around corners
of a building, manuevering over small walls and the like. You just happen to
think all walkers have to be huge.
David Good Idea even though I know a certain person that lives on controversy
(John) and loves to stir the pot as it were. This one is beginning to step
over the line a bit into the purely unpleasant.
Not taller than a house, just slightly taller than a tank of the same size is
long. Walkers should also be able to kneel behind buildings (as troops do
behind walls and bushes) or even go prone when desired.
Because your mass is vertical, you can fit down alleys that tanks cannot fit
in. Also, in the close range of urban combat, you should usually get shots to
the top armor of the tanks you are shooting at.
But, you say, you wouldn't send a tank force, you would send infantry. And
that is the point. You now have a unit that is as flexible as infantry, but
with the firepower of a tank.
The trade-off between tank and walker should be
about the same. Yes, a walker presents a larger
cross-section to fire at from a tank. But from
the perspective of a walker, the tank's cross-
section is not the cross-section of its front or
side armor, but of the front/side and the TOP.
So if walkers are more vulnerable to be hit from tanks, the tanks should have
the same modifier to be hit from the walkers.
A lot depends on how mobile/agile you view
walkers. If they are lumbering robots from the 40's, they would be easy
pickings. If, as I view them, they are as agile as infantry, then you can gain
a great deal.
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]