>No, since armor can be greater than 10 (1+ if saving throws are used) and
>penetration can be greater than 10 (-10 in case of save modifiers). A King
>Tiger would have armor of about 14 and its KwK would have penetration of
>about 13.
>
Ohhh, I see the light now.
'What you are saying might very well work. What does others think???
>-4 would suffice for both; the difference between side and rear armor
>usually wasn't that great.
>
Not really, but many tanks had very massive armor on the front and very
little on the sides
> > One more thing: I want to use two CAF values for troops. One
> > for infantry
> > targets and one for armored targets.
> > Oh, and make away with tanks assaulting each other
> >
>
>My thoughts exactly. Vehicles would have higher CAF for overruns and lower
>CAF for the
>other situations,like in AT, reprsenting the fact that vehicles are much
>more vulnerable if ambushed. Also, I would recommend passing a morale check
>before assaulting an AFV, it requires a lot of guts.
>
I agree with these things.
Anti-tank CAF would reflect both training but also equipment to a high
degree.
Vehicle overrun CAF would depend on speed but also on the general protection
of the tank (as CAF also reflects the tanks chance of surviving a cloe
encounter)
Vehicle defensive CAF would be a mix of armor and machineguns as these are
essentially the assault weapons of a tank.
The morale thing is great.
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Received on Thu Nov 02 2000 - 09:29:54 UTC