Re: VEHICLE SPEED AND MANUEVERABILITY

Ryan M Gill wrote:
> 
> At 11:18 AM -0500 4/4/02, Indy wrote:
> >
> >I think what has gotten lost in translation between various sides
> >of the discussion is that really the penalty should not be applied
> >for *having* a higher maneuverability vehicle, but *using* that
> >maneuverability (at least this is how I'm reading the current run
> >of posts). Just because a tank has a movement base of 15" with GEV
> >as its maneuverability platform does not (should not) make it any
> >harder to hit than a slow tracked behemoth if they both only move
> >4". Now, if it is moving at more than X" in a given turn (let's call
> >it 10"), then perhaps a penalty should be applied to the firer's
> >ability to hit the target. The point costs shouldn't matter
whatsoever.
> 
> Oh, I misread what he was saying there. Hmm. Throw too much in and
> the game system will get harder and slower. Drop a die if the vehicle
> moves more than 10" per movement. But if it's in a straight line,
> it's a piece of cake on the lead isn't it? Or is that being
> compensated for by the better firecon's higher die type?

Roll a d6. On a 1,2, or 3 it's a piece of cake to lead on it.
On a 4,5, or 6 it's being compensated for by the better firecon.

Either explanation works for me.  

:-)

(although thinking about it a little harder maybe the compensation
by better firecon would be more reasonable - who's to say that in
the quantized state of the game the target vehicle isn't already
jinking and varying acceleration (I am presuming they know they
are in a combat situation). You can argue that the better firecon
will negate this)