A few armored car musings and misc. requests

[John Given]

This game has worked just fine for 15 years.

John, you just cannot use your formula. There are too many other factors built into a units defense factor. Armor thicknes is just one component. What you are proposing has already been done by the original designers of the game. Also by Matix when they rereleased the the game.

The defensive values are very good. Perfect no. But there are no glaring errors that require attention.

As I have stated before. The game gives you accurate results the vast majority of the time.

I am sorry, but I have not seen anything that you offer that makes me say yes this needs to be done. Also I don't see any sort of clamoring by the CS community.

Thanx!

Hawk

You misunderstand me Hawk; I'm not in any kind of hurry for a 'defensive value vehicle rule,' nor am I saying anyone should abide by my ideas or that such is mandatory. I just thought that an easily explained system based on common sense (by somebody) would be a convenient way of ferreting out units with defensive values that were out of whack. Like I said earlier, the vast majority of units in the game seem to have accurate values that are consistent with factors such as armor thickness.

But I do concur that it's not like this needs to be done soon, maybe not ever, but I feel (rather strongly) that some light vehicles in the game need to have their defensive values tweaked - based, if nothing else, on common sense. Example; there's no way an essentially unarmored BA-20 'armored car' (only the turret was armored, and even then just barely) should have a 'hard' defense value of '3,' when many fully tracked, fully enclosed light tanks with substantial armor (up to 30mm) have the same defense value.

Thanks for the comments and suggestions everyone!