The face to face thing happens in WOT all the time.  The one that ends up
getting through the armor first wins, but there it's all virtual so I can
rub the tank I'm facing off with.  There is of course the ramming aspect of
WOT which I would not promote for our vehicles.  This isn't robot combat
afterall.

John,

No controversy, I know you are kidding.  Hey if you want to carry an extra
set of balls around in you pants, I say go for it.  :)

Derek


On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:02 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> frontal exclusion for all
>
> I think that treating armored cars the same way as tanks with regard to
> frontal hits will help bring new members to the hobby. A tank-steered (as
> opposed to front wheel steered) armored car is probably the simplest
> mobile, firing, asset to produce. That said, I don't know how many newbies
> decided not to build an A/C because the rules were against them.
>
> I understand Steve's comment about historical accuracy. One of the
> fundamental principles of the rules has been to field as wide an
> asset variety as possible without too much regard for the performance of
> the actual vehicle. Using common tank and A/C rules will help do that.
>
>   - Doug
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Derek Engelhaupt" <[email protected]>
> *To: *[email protected]
> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:19:28 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
>
> There are inherent challenges with small vehicles less than 36".  How do
> you fit everything you need in such a small chassis?  With the 1/6th rule
> it allows people to try to fit stuff in a smaller tank like the 21st
> Century Stuart M5 or my original tank destroyer that I planned on building
> - the ASU-85.  There were technical challenges I just couldn't overcome
> with that tank having to do with the way the drive line was built on the
> real tank.  I couldn't replicate it so that it would be durable enough for
> combat.  I do like the 36" rule as in I wouldn't mind if all vehicles had
> to be made to that length.  You could build anything to any size you wanted
> as long as it was 36" long.  I mean even a 36" long Mule is possible to
> build.  The scale would be weird, but it's not like there is a standard
> scale now.  As it stands now being that both the 36" rule or 1/6th scale is
> allowed, it does mean my 21st Century Hummers could compete as supply
> vehicles.  Dropping the 1/6th part would disqualify them.  Same goes for my
> M113.  It's slightly less than 36" in 1/6th scale.  I like 1/6th so that
> all of my tanks are the same scale and if I decide to add props or detail,
> the parts are readily available.  So even though I would adhere to a 36"
> rule, I like that both are an option.
>
> There are tons of tanks and APCs that I would have liked to build if the
> 4/40 rule was available across the board.  As it is, there were many
> designs I passed up due to armor thickness or gun caliber short falls.
>
> From playing World of Tanks, I can positively say that forcing a firing
> delay circuit on the marker would change the game dynamic drastically.  I
> don't think it would be bad though.  It tends to make you rethink your
> tactics.  If you don't want to shoot and wait for a better shot, then go
> for it.  If you want to shoot and take the chance on a hit.  Go for it.
>  That's just tactics and tactics is what this hobby is about.  Just be
> prepared for you opponent to open fire on you after you take your shot.  :)
>  The timing circuit would put more of an equalizer on the faster tanks
> since they couldn't just strafe by and nail your side with 4 shots in one
> pass.  It would lead to longer engagements, but also more thought as to how
> you can approach your enemy for the kill.
>
> In closing, my proposals are this:
>
> 1.  4/40 for all tanks regardless of scale or size
> 2.  frontal exclusion for all
> 3.  standard rate of fire that limits one ball every 1 sec
> 4.  keep the 36" or 1/6th rule
>
> Derek
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Derek Engelhaupt <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but most of those were really old Russian tanks.  Mostly Iraqi
>> built T-72s and maybe a few Chinese Type-69s.
>>
>> Derek
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Frank Pittelli <[email protected]
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> If I'm not mistaken, didn't U.S. tanks already participate in a tank
>>> biathlon against Russian-made tanks ... an event called Desert Storm!
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/18/2013 2:51 PM, Mike Lyons wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps this is the future of RCTC?
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL8y8lTjFSQ
>>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> --
>>> 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to [email protected].
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> --
> 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>  --
> --
> 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
-- 
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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C 
Tank Combat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to