Re: Stabilization, was Tank ROF

>From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
>Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Stabilization, was Tank ROF
>Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:27:06 -0400

>That's a Big Two.  Stabilization is part of accuracy.
>(John Atkinson would insert a joke here about Byzantine
>hairsplitting on the nature of the Trinity)

I'll look forward to being amuzed by it when he posts it. But I still
say 
the distinction still exists.  Stabilization is part of fire control. 
You 
can have a system that is extremely accurate, when fired at a
standstill. 
You could have another system that is only moderately accurate, but is 
stabilized to where movement does not detract from it.	There is a 
difference. Yes, stabilization ENHANCES accuracy, but they are not the
same 
thing.

>Snip rules for Running and Gunning.  While I haven't been
>following this thread with great attention, I'd say the
>distinction you're trying to draw is for a greater difference of
>tech levels than is warranted.  It's not "What would
>fusion-powered anti-grav panzers with DFFG's do against
>Shermans," it's more like "how would the latest mark of Russian
>tanks do against M1's?"

Maybe, maybe not. In terms of "What does the future hold for armored 
vehicles?" That is a topic that could (And I'm sure does) take up a 
discussion board all it's own.	Our main concern is how to apply such
topics 
to GZG's games, and the point has been well-made that superior systems
do 
not seem to provide enough advantages to warrant their use in
large-scale 
play.  Thus the suggestions by all that are being proposed are intended
to 
truly make the operational differences between Basic, Enhanced, and
Superior 
systems warrant the difference in their construction costs. Basic
systems 
should be just that - basic, almost rudimentary, the recourse of
militaries 
with low budgets and research staffs, but willing to throw a lot your
way. 
Superior should be just that - markedly better than anything else on the

field except another Superior system, with a greater ability to keep
moving, 
hit it's target, and avoid being hit than anything on the field.
Superior 
stabilization should be a function of superior FireCon.

>I'd say we can safely take it that all
>2180 era tanks will be able to fire on the move.

If THIS is the case (which I've argued above it shouldn't be), then the
rule 
should be amended to let ANY unit fire in the middle of it's movement,
and 
the cost differential for FireCons should be reduced.

Brian Bilderback
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com