Want to try a 1/6th Jagdpanther!!!
Great choice. Looks tough and easier to build without a turret. Don't
worry about the loss of height for ammo magazine purposes. You only
need a couple inches above the gun for an effective tray magazine and
you'll have plenty of room in a 1/6th Jagd.
A question that has been nagging me for some time is why doesn't the
club pose restrictions on things like tank speed,both forward, and
perhaps more importantly, in reverse.
The laws of physics already enforce some fairly stringent limitations.
If you want to go faster, you'll consume more energy, have less control
and break more things. Anyone who can overcome those technical and
operational problems should be encouraged, not discouraged, by the hobby
because everyone in the hobby benefits from such technical innovation.
Besides, in almost 10 years of battling, we've never had any vehicle
that represents a de-stabilizing threat to the hobby. The nature of the
game and the skill of the operators usually makes up for any technical
advantage that the vehicles might have.
Turret traverse rates, and rates of fire would be other concerns I'd
have... If you strive to make the vehicles LOOK genuine, why not
follow through and make them act as close to historical norms as
possible??
The hobby is a compromise along the spectrum between historical accuracy
and a competitive game. If we move closer to the historical end of the
spectrum, then we'd eliminate huge numbers of tank designs built over
the last 100+ years that simply can't compete with modern designs. In
fact, we'd basically all have to build one of a handful of designs
because no other tanks could compete.
Ignoring the design issues, if we pick slower average speeds (fwd, rev,
rotate) for all vehicles to use to achieve a "scale look" to the
battles, what do we gain? Regardless of the actual speeds used, it's
the skill of the battler and the reliability of the vehicle that
basically determines the outcome.
But, our biggest concern about picking arbitrary limitations for speed,
weight, etc. are the un-intended consequences. For example, we know
from experience that slower speeds would increase the average battling
range, decrease the incentive for vehicles to attack and significantly
change the nature of the game. For example, if all vehicles move at 1/2
of our current average speed (about 3MPH), then it takes twice as long
for an attacking vehicle to cover the same distance towards their
opponent. That, in turn, gives the defending vehicle twice as much time
to hit the moving vehicle. Since stationary vehicles can shoot more
accurately than vehicles on the move, it's in everyone's best interest
to sit somewhere and shell the opposition at long range. Since
attackers can't close the distance, the game would be more like a
contest between fixed artillery than a dynamic tank battle.
Over the last 10 years, we've realized that there needs to be a true
balance between long-range engagements and short-range engagements for a
truly enjoyable game. Go all one way or the other and some of the fun
is lost. Even in our "street fight" scenarios (where some wickedly fast
action occurs at close quarters), we still have vehicles or artillery
shelling from long-range to "keep everyone honest".
Which then begs the question, why not let people build whatever they
want?--why stress the historical accuracy when the look of the tank
is the only thing historically accurate?
Because a sci-fi moon rover is not a "tank" and R2D2 was not intended to
destroy things :-)
I imagine that a delaying device coupled with the firing mecahnism
wouldn't be all that hard to accomplish...
When it comes to firing rate, I can assure you that unlimited speed of
firing is not that big a deal on the battlefield because of the simple
magazine capacity limit. If you shoot too fast, you'll probably waste
more shots and force yourself back to base more often. Besides, it's
not that easy to effectively fire that quickly under remote control.
It's definitely an acquired skill and you've got to have all the
mechanisms tuned and working perfectly. Most battlers shoot at a
comfortable pace and they are very cognizant of not only how many shots
they have fired, but how many the opposition has fired.
Perhaps if I saw a combat in person, I would understand the reasons
whay things are as they are.
Indeed. Videos don't do a good job of showing how battles are really
waged ... breakdowns, logistics, attackers, defenders, decoys,
mis-information, etc. ... it's not a game of technology, it's a game of
strategy, tactics and execution.
1) What governs combat rule creation?
Common sense. Individual responsibility. Laws of Physics. Freedom to
Innovate.
2) Are there any clubs, members, tank enthusiasts that you are aware
of on Long Island?
It only takes a few people to get started.
> 3) Guidelines, helpful hints in getting a club off the ground....
a) Talk to friends and family to find another zealot like yourself.
b) Pick a weekly time and place to get work on your vehicles together.
c) Set various deadlines - rolling chassis, shooting and first battle -
and then work hard to meet them.
d) Don't over-think everything ... build it, have fun solving problems
and dream about your first battle.
e) After your first battle, recruit someone else to use your old vehicle
and start building another while helping them re-furb your first vehicle.
f) Hold a bigger second battle.
g) Collectively taunt the Maryland Attack Group, forcing them to travel
up to Long Island and kick your collective butts. Nothing like teasing
a super-power to increase bonding with your team-mates.
h) Recruit even more members to become the second largest super-power in
the R/C Tank Combat world. You still won't defeat MAG, but you'll feel
good enough about your group to taunt the Brits and Canadians :-)
Frank P.
--
You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
To post a message, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]
Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
