Well, too interesting to drop all of the posts in thisthread...

> Yves Lefebvre wrote:

I don't think that would be that big a deal. It takes a second to look at the
sheet, and most people I've gamed with do that anyhow,
with their current designs, if only to double-check.

> - Might create more argument about the angle of attack : Since you can

Again, I don't really think this would be much of a problem (except for those
rules lawyers who aren't really playing the *game*). Angles of attack are
fairly well delineated in DS2 already (see also big diagram on p32
:-)

> - Having bigger front armor value will make the vehicule harder to

Now *that* I can see being a factor in making games longer (and at the same
time I think would force players to maneuver more to try to get side shots if
at all possible, use terrain more in order to move to get those side
shots AND/OR to keep fronts to the enemy, etc).

> Personnaly, I like the lenght of game that DS2 gives. The current

I'm interested in playing with adjusted armour rules. I just haven't had time
to come up with a scheme to determine a way to do it fairly in the
current design system. :-/  [I say, waiting for Oerjan to do this, since
he is so much better equipped to do so ;-) ]

Mk

> >> >6. Expansion of GMS classes to 1-5 (call them P, L,

Hi Indy,

See below.

> - Having bigger front armor value will make the vehicule harder to

So a quick and dirty solution would be allow a vehicle to increase frontal
armor to up to double its size value, at a cost of an additional 40% per

AP. The APs count ONLY towards the front. And yes, you're paying twice

what you do for a normal armor point.  Adjustments for reactive/ablative

are applied normally on top of the additional armor cost.

This won't give you an 8/2/1 M1, but it will allow you to have a 6/2/1
M1 assuming that the M1 is size 3.