Facing was: Well, too interesting

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian B" <greywanderer987@yahoo.com>
> > >So establish a clearer more definitive rule for
> > >determining angle of attack.
> >
> > The movement system is quite abstract (you can
> > change your ending facing).
> > Putting more importance on angle of attack would
> > likely means you need a
> > more complexe movement system.
>
> Not that much more complex, if at all.  As it has been
> stated, the rules regarding determining facing are
> already pretty clear-cut.

And also not really accurate.

At least for WWII tanks, the optimum orientation was NOT facing the
enemy
directly, but rather, when the diagonal pointed towards the enemy ! This
is
obvious when you think about it: in this position the front plate will
be
hit by enemy missiles at an angle, thus offering better resistance,
while
the side plate is hit at a shallow angle, so that projectiles glance
off.

This was recognized at the time, e.g. in the instructions for the Tiger
tank:
http://panzerlexikon.de/hinter/Tigerfibel/86.htm
http://panzerlexikon.de/hinter/Tigerfibel/87.htm
The red dots mark the safe directions (note those in the rear!), the
leaf
shaped pattern the range at which a specific enemy gun can penetrate the
hull.

I know no set of war games rules that explicitly reproduces this
pattern.
They usually make the diagonals the point where the enemy starts to "hit
the
side armour".

Don't know how this looks for modern armour distributions, and of
course,
you can invent PSB for SF.

Greetings
Karl Heinz