Re: Facing was: Well, too interesting

--- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

> 
> ----- 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 ! 

*SNIP*

> 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".

A couple of ideas:

1.  You can always PSB it that the armor is more
rounded in the future, or the armor rating for any
side is an average of head-on and glancing, and just
ignore the issue.
2. If you want to simulate it, there are a couple of
ways.  I'm not sure if I'd advocate them for the basic
rules, but they might be useful HR's:
2a.  Any To Hit roll that rolls the minimum needed to
hit, scores only a glancing shot, and suffers either a
damage class penalty or a 1 range band validity
penalty.
2b.  roll a Dx for every hit.  If the result is a 1,
then it's a glancing hit.

=====
"In life, you must try and be the type of person that your dog thinks
you are."

- Anonymous

		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail