Hmm, I guess the first thing one should do, is to consider limiting the
types of units one would like to include.
For instance in the beginning of WWII they where unable to make a gun that
could both fire a low velocity high explosive and a high velocity
armourpiercing shell. Yet there was clearly a need for both. Two different
solutions arised, the americans chose to add two guns to their armour units,
a highexplosive hulmountet gun( With a very limited fire arc), and turret
mounted a armourpiercing gun (The Lee, and the Grant). The Germans mountet
their Panzer III with either a short barreled low velocity gun or with a
longer high velocity armour piercing gun, and combining both in a unit.
So if you are going to take all such considerations into account, then
you'll end up with a never ending armylist!!! + You'd have to have enormus
knowledge on the subject.....
Nils
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weasel Fierce [SMTP:septimus__at_...]
> Sent: 4. september 2000 12:23
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Epic WW1
>
>
>
> >Early WWII tank units should really suck when it comes to armour value,
> >range, firepower, armour piercing capability and CAF, continuing that
> line
> >of thought the T34 should be close to a Land Raider with a turret and, I
> >guess the TIGER I and II's should come close to a Shadowsword in stats.
> >
> >This would of course be an enourmous task indeed, and I guess there would
>
> >be
> >considerable differences of opnion and hard debates on the subject......
> >Sounds like a lot of fun!
> >
>
> Im on it!! :)
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Mon Sep 04 2000 - 10:49:14 UTC