Re: Oerjan Ohlson's Wet Dreams

[big snip]
>I can see three options:
>
>1) the IAVR's impact die is too big (too easy to penetrate, esp. for
>major hits)
>
>2) the probability to get a major hit is too high - Regular soldiers
>will get Major hits at the tank with more than half the shots, and even
>Greens manage it almost half the time.
>
>3) the performance of the armour is much too erratic.
>
>
>So what to do about them?
>
>1) is easy to modify, of course - just reduce the IAVR's impact die.
>Might make it too weak against infantry - though IAVRs aren't really
>designed to shoot infantry in the open :-/ If they hide in a bunker the
>IAVR works fine, but the bunker counts as a "vehicle".
>
>2) can be modified by reducing the IAVR's *firepower* die, but that
>won't help very much. Besides the *total* hit rates (major + minor
>hits) are OK against *stationary* targets, and reducing the firepower
>die would hurt that.
>
>3) Tom Barclay suggested a solution here: let level-X armour roll XD12
>instead of 1D12*X.

If I can jump in here (having watched the discussion with interest....
<grin>), this is something that I'm seriously considering using for FMA,
with a possible retrofit to SG if it works; now, the main reason it
wasn't
used in SG in the first place is that I didn't like the idea of having
to
roll 5 dice (or 1 die 5 times) for an armour-5 target. What does
everyone
else think about this? It's certainly a better probability system, but
is
it too much die rolling or not...?

Jon (GZG)
>
>At the moment I prefer 3). It still gives the IAVR a chance to knock
>the vehicle out completely, but it is *very* small; the number of
>System and Suspension hits would go up a bit (since the number of
>non-penetrating hits goes up) - which is IMO as it should be, since
>those bitz are where a real IAVR gunner would aim at anyway! Haven't
>tested it yet though, so I don't know if there are any hidden snags :-/
[snip]