RE: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic WW2 (loong)

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:55:58 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT Weasel Fierce [mailto:septimus__at_...]
> Sent: 01. November 2000 10:55
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic WW2 (loong)
>
>
>
>
> > > Yeah, I suppose a heavy tank would have a save round 3+ or so.
> > > Reduce the bazooka to -3 and PIAT to -2 ???
> > >
> >I would recommend giving the PIAT and Bazooka the same save
> mod, since PIAT
> >had better penetration than the early bazooka (43) and only
> slightly worse
> >than the late war models (44-).
>
> yeah okay.
>
> >
> >If a heavy thank has a 3+ save on a d10, a bazooka would
> have 1/2 chance of
> >killing a King Tiger by penetrating the frontal armor, while in Real
> >Life(tm) the chance would be significantly lower.
> >
> >Which makes me still recommend a penetration based system.
> >
>
> Well, I would suggest that a bazooka stand would represent
> 2-3 bazooka armed
> troops and 2 with rifles / carbines.
> When cooperating they would stand a fair chance of destroying armor.
>

I see, In that case a bazooka unit wouldn't have many stands (probably just
one stand or two at most), since they weren't that numerous. Only about two
per platoon.

> Alternatively we could make tanks heavier (2+ or 1+ armor).
> Also, destroying
> a tank might reflect damaging or immobilizing it, resulting
> in the crew
> bailing out
>

I would definetely recommend using the full range available.

> How would you do a penetration system???
>

Quick and dirty way: by converting armor and penetration values from an
existing system. That wouldn't be ultra-realistic but close enough for most.
I would probably use Battleground WWII since it uses a d20.

> Could you come up with some examples on how this should work?
>

Each AT capable weapon would have a penetration rating and instead of save
each tank would have armor value. When a hit is scored the armor is
subtracted from the penetration. The resulting number is what the shooting
player must roll <= to destroy the tank. The armor value is massively
reduced if shooting from the side or rear. Personally I would like each tank
have two armor values (front and side/rear) to increase realism, but since
this opinion is unlikely to get general approval I must be content with just
one.


To address the possibility of even a small AT gun of hitting a weak spot a
critical hit would occur whenever the firer rolls an unmodified "1" on the
to-hit roll. In this case the penetration number is doubled (straight from
ASL, I admit, but why invent the wheel the second time?).

Example: Let's say a PzII has armor of 2. It is hit by a 45mm AT gun with a
penetration of 8. The firer must roll 6 or less (8-2) to destroy the tank.
If the firer had rolled a "1" the penetration would have been 16 and the
tank would have been automatically destroyed, since it is not possible to
roll over 14 on a d10.

Of course, this is radically different from the save based system of
NetEpic, and may even be too complex for the "simple faction". However, this
is my take on the system.

Jyrki Saari

-There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time is
money.
Received on Wed Nov 01 2000 - 09:55:58 UTC