would not the speed and manueverability of a vehicle make it both harder to
hit (using you own explanation as well as its ability to make rapid starts and
stops to throw off enemy gunners)) and its ability to make rapid and safe high
speed turns in mid course (duck
and dodge, as well as stop/start, shoot and scoot)?
i would think that a fast manueverable vehicle would cost more for improved
speed and manaeverability, than a slow plodding armored behemoth?
but, the weapons mountings would be lighter on such a vehicle, there fore
costing less, and balancing this out a bit?
of course the armor and weapons on the armored behemoth would offer it more
protection and a high kill ration for any hits with its main gun?
kinda like an M3 stuart vs a king tiger fight?
speed/manueverability is "armor" only as long as you do not get a "hit",
but CAN this fast light vehicle HURT/KILL the monster? even in DSII
and SGII?
> DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
[...]
I think what has gotten lost in translation between various sides of the
discussion is that really the penalty should not be applied for *having* a
higher maneuverability vehicle, but *using* that maneuverability (at least
this is how I'm reading the current run of posts). Just because a tank has a
movement base of 15" with GEV as its maneuverability platform does not (should
not) make it any harder to hit than a slow tracked behemoth if they both only
move 4". Now, if it is moving at more than X" in a given turn (let's call it
10"), then perhaps a penalty should be applied to the firer's ability to hit
the target. The point costs shouldn't matter whatsoever.
> At 10:06 AM -0600 4/4/02, DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
Depends on production costs. Typucally a larger engine that you make fewer of,
cost more. A smaller vehicle can use more existing parts and engines than a
big massive thing can.
Big massive things need larger jigs and special components for the assembly
process too. That drives up the cost. Casting a super large turret cost far
more than casting a much smaller turret. Machining the turret ring on a large
hull vs a smaller ring also cost far more. Again, its size of the components
that causes additional issues.
> but, the weapons mountings would be lighter on such a vehicle, there
There is that.
> of course the armor and weapons on the armored behemoth would offer
Depends on the employment.
> kinda like an M3 stuart vs a king tiger fight?
But if the M3, doesn't ever engage or hides and calls in a Hurricane with
rockets, which is better? Airstrikes and heavy artillery were the predominant
means of destroying German armor.
> At 11:18 AM -0500 4/4/02, Indy wrote:
Oh, I misread what he was saying there. Hmm. Throw too much in and the game
system will get harder and slower. Drop a die if the vehicle moves more than
10" per movement. But if it's in a straight line, it's a piece of cake on the
lead isn't it? Or is that being compensated for by the better firecon's higher
die type?
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
Roll a d6. On a 1,2, or 3 it's a piece of cake to lead on it. On a 4,5, or 6
it's being compensated for by the better firecon.
Either explanation works for me.
:-)
(although thinking about it a little harder maybe the compensation
by better firecon would be more reasonable - who's to say that in
the quantized state of the game the target vehicle isn't already jinking and
varying acceleration (I am presuming they know they are in a combat
situation). You can argue that the better firecon will negate this)
> At 1:48 PM -0500 4/4/02, Indy wrote:
Likely the effects of folds in the ground and smaller objects are doing more
for target obscuration and evasion than the driver. Having driven and been
driven in the ferret on fairly smooth but churned up grass, I can attest to
the gyrations the thing goes through. I've not had her out in a big field and
up into the higher gears that I know she can do, but I suspect I'm going to be
mostly trying not to flip it vs trying to worry about being a hard target.
My point is, that at higher speeds, the ground handle the evasion for the
driver.
<<snip>>
> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:06:58 -0600 (CST)
> would not the speed and manueverability of a vehicle make it both
(a raspy croak from under the stairs) What? No, no, no, anything tracked is
just too slow to be able to maneuver! Tracked, armored, and maneuverable?
That's impossible! Who would think of such blasphemy! (Not that I would know
anything about that 2yrs as a Cav Scout and another 6 as a Tanker! Go get 'em
DAWGIE!)
(I'll quietly crawl back under the stairs now.) :-p