This is a factor I did not consider. I withdraw my sliding scale addendum.
My proposal for the horizontal measurement rules still stands. Steve Tyng On Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:20:03 PM UTC-4, Bill Byrnes wrote: > > I don't have the rules in front of me, but it seems to me that even though > a smaller tank only takes 3 hits to kill it and a biger tank takes 4 hits to > kill it, the points awarded also reflect this- 750 and 1000 respectivly. As > opposed to saying that a kill is a kill, it might be more accurate to say > that each kill shot is awarded 250 points. A smaller tank might have to > make more trips back to the repair depot after being killed more often, but > the opposing team didn't get any more points. A bigger tank would have to > kill my smaller tank 4 times to get the 3000 points, but I'd only have to > kill a bigger tank 3 times for 3000 points. This makes smaller tanks > competitive to me. Did I miss something? > Bill > > --- On *Thu, 10/13/11, Steve Tyng <[email protected]>* wrote: > I'd like to expand upon this proposal a bit further. As the defense rules > are based on set numbers, tanks built before mid to late WW2 are not > competitive and thus not being considered for construction. I'd like to > see the armor thickness parameters that define defense points be based off > of a sliding scale based on the year of the designs introduction. > > Steve > > -- > 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 > > -- 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
