Re: Asymmetry was: Well, too interesting

The Lee/Grant did not have asymmetrical armor.	It did have a gun
sponson 
for the 75mm in the front of the hull, offset to one side.  I suppose
that 
that would make the gun housing a "weak point" on the front/side, but
I've 
never seen it reflected in any WWII game that I've ever played.

Allowing for armor to be equal all around or to be oddly balanced is
fine, 
but it does mean that you'll have to pay for armor on each facing 
(assuming a point system).  I'm not against this, but everything that
I've 
seen (including about 10 years playing a home-brew SG level game that 
included vehicles with a very flexible design system) is that designers 
concentrate the armor to the front, and rarely don't balance the sides.

Again, I'm not against it, but I do have to wonder if the net effect
will 
end up with heavy frontal armor, balanced sides (weaker than the front),

and top/bottom/rear all being even weaker and about the same...

J

John K. Lerchey
Computer and Network Security Coordinator
Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Doug Evans wrote:

> ***
> Or real-life designers of tanks and aircraft
>
> See the M3 Grant tank or the German BV141 airplane
>
> Less extreme examples are tanks with turrets off-set to a side,
> engineering vehicles with cranes on a corner etc.
>
> Some GZG tank models also have turrets offset to a side, which a
player
> might want to see as implying a difference in protection levels.
> ***
>
> As I recall, these didn't have asymmetrical armor. You may be hearing
some
> complaints, but your point may still be valid if the vehicles in
question
> have different side vulnerabilities based on internal/external
> arraingements.
>
> Usual codicil of me being a vacc-head.
>
> The_Beast
>
>
>