>I really think making it too complicated scares people off. I would settle
>for the +1 as the lowest or best save and stick with the rule of a unit
>that
>does not have AT capabilities is unable to damage heavy and medium armored
>tanks. Penetration is great but I am looking at speed and complexity.
>Side/rear shots would be a -1 to save. Maybe a bazooka should have a -1
>or -2 TSM and a heavy AT cannon should have a -3 or -4 or better depending
>on the weaponry.
I can see your points as well. However, I would give the basic grunts a
chance to damage tanks as they would otherwise hardly be worth taking
>As for movement troops should move 10cm. 5cm is too slow. The idea of 2
>CAFs
>is good.
Reducing movement to 5 cm. was intended to promote shooting and ranged
combat, and to get the emphasis away from close assaults.
WW1 showed quite well that charging enemy machineguns were suicide.
>Also standardize the weapons because in 1939 to 1945 there were some major
>innovations in weaponry in strength and ability. Leave options or dates or
>a
>time line when these weapons began evolving.
>Darius
>
Sure thing. A lot of changes happened in just 5 years
_________________________________________________________________________
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 Fri Nov 03 2000 - 06:46:22 UTC