Re: grav

--- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Yeah.  But in Real Life, the only reason not to
> have
> >as much armor as is practical revolves around
> shipping
> >issues.
> 
> Which in no way refutes Oerjan's comment.

I'm confused. . . 

Yes, large vehicles will carry more armor.  It's
called designing vehicles to fit their battlefield
role.  It just makes more sense.  People with no
common sense when designing vehicles should not be
rewarded for being irrational.	If you insist that you
should be allowed to field masses of size 4 armor 1
vehicles, and your bitch is that under the point
system as it stands it's not enough price savings to
be able to buy enough vehicles to swamp the enemy
who's using size 4 armor 4 vehicles, then I don't see
your point.  I think the problem is you're trying to
treat this as an abstract mathematical problem where I
want it to make sense in concrete terms.

> >I noticed that.
> 
> I never buy anything but Superior, unless the
> vehicle's main mission is as 
> an APC or it's main target is infantry, since FCS
> has no effect on main 
> weapons vs. infantry.

I never buy anything but Superior.

> Was it the stalth that made the difference?  

It contributed.

I'm > guessing if it was a small,  > stealthed force,
it also wielded better weapons and > FCS.

Better weapons--typically.  I've had lots of opponents
who think HELs are wonderful.  And then don't insist
on fighting on a pool table to take advantage of it. 
Better FCS: Almost invariably.	Better tactics: Well,
duh.

> Silly, yes.  But if they're allowed, they should be
> just as useful as any 
> other unit.  Otherwise, why bother incorporating
> them into the rules?

Why should they be just as useful as any other unit? 
The answer to the second question is because some
people have a hardon for giant robots.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals