Prev: Re: Lasers can't be defended against? Next: Re: Lasers can't be defended against?

RE: Tank ROF, was Re: DS2 Balance

From: Ndege Diamond <nezach@e...>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 23:09:06 -0700
Subject: RE: Tank ROF, was Re: DS2 Balance

  Consider that the WWII tanks had to stop to get
>any kind of chance to hit their target while the Abrams can motor along
at
>70mph taking pot shots at over a mile away with a decent to fair chance
of a
>hit is a big difference.  Increasing the rate of fire seems more than
>reasonable and balances out the high vs low tech quite nicely.  YMMV.
>

No, that's a very good point. I like the rule. I guess I just needed to
see
the justification for the rule spelled out ;)

Ndege Diamond
-
Every dogma has its day.
-
Nezach(at)earthlink(dot)net


Prev: Re: Lasers can't be defended against? Next: Re: Lasers can't be defended against?