> From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Or real-life designers of tanks and aircraft
See the M3 Grant tank or the German BV141 airplane
Less extreme examples are tanks with turrets off-set to a side,
engineering vehicles with cranes on a corner etc.
Some GZG tank models also have turrets offset to a side, which a player might
want to see as implying a difference in protection levels.
Greetings Karl Heinz
***
Or real-life designers of tanks and aircraft
See the M3 Grant tank or the German BV141 airplane
Less extreme examples are tanks with turrets off-set to a side,
engineering vehicles with cranes on a corner etc.
Some GZG tank models also have turrets offset to a side, which a player might
want to see as implying a difference in protection levels.
***
As I recall, these didn't have asymmetrical armor. You may be hearing some
complaints, but your point may still be valid if the vehicles in question
have different side vulnerabilities based on internal/external
arraingements.
Usual codicil of me being a vacc-head.
The_Beast
The Lee/Grant did not have asymmetrical armor. It did have a gun
sponson for the 75mm in the front of the hull, offset to one side. I suppose
that
that would make the gun housing a "weak point" on the front/side, but
I've never seen it reflected in any WWII game that I've ever played.
Allowing for armor to be equal all around or to be oddly balanced is fine, but
it does mean that you'll have to pay for armor on each facing (assuming a
point system). I'm not against this, but everything that I've
seen (including about 10 years playing a home-brew SG level game that
included vehicles with a very flexible design system) is that designers
concentrate the armor to the front, and rarely don't balance the sides.
Again, I'm not against it, but I do have to wonder if the net effect will end
up with heavy frontal armor, balanced sides (weaker than the front),
and top/bottom/rear all being even weaker and about the same...
J
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Doug Evans wrote:
> ***
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Allowing for armor to be equal all around or to be
That's the plan. And as Laserlight pointed out, the
issue of front-loading armor has already been
addressed. The end solution has not yet been reached, but it's a matter of
details.
[quoted original message omitted]