Re: Another TD idea

On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, John Atkinson wrote:

> Remember the only reason they existed was in order to stuff guns that 
> could kill any tank on the battlefield at long range into an
affordable 
> hull. (ie not as big as a Tiger or JSII)  Once 90/100mm guns became 
> managable enough to stuff into a tank turret, then it became a 
> non-issue.  I can stuff an MDC/4 into a size 3 turreted chassis at an 
> affordable cost, so why do I need a tank destroyer?

Though I could argue for the merits of of turretless TD, the real point
is
that IMHO you don't *need* to need a TD. All I ask for is to be able to
take one, *without* getting severely penalized, if I *want* one. 

I thought the whole point of DSII was to be able to play with *my*
miniatures in *my* world. 

I may be asking too much, but I think "being able to play" includes
"being
able to play *at roughly equal footing*", i.e. it excludes "the stuff
they
put in to be able to say it's there but no one should really use".

E.g. let's say I want to play out the battles in Hammer's Slammers novel
"The Warrior". The opposing forces include a top-notch merc TD unit. Am
I
to believe that those mercs simply made an outmoded, obsolete, useless
and
stupid design choice and the high regard given by the Slammers is
completely unfounded?

Let's say I want to build a generic unit based on this fictional
example.

In other words: How would it hurt your turreted force that I might field
viable turretless designs?

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	   | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice   | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 3C14 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?    |	      - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      | hateme.html |