Re: [Epic] Firepower vs Anti-Tank

From: Richard Dewsbery <dewsbery_at_...>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:36:47 +0100

> First my comparsion involved equal value in points of Landraiders and
> Leman Russ, if you want to include infantry, you are going to have to reduce
> the number of Leman Russ to ensure it is still a valid comparsion.

Er, why???? If you've been reading this thread, you'll have seen I
posted a full comparison between the two vs infantry. My comparison was
with 340 or so points of Land Raiders, vs 340 or so points of infantry,
and then 340 or so points of Leman Russ vs the same number of infantry.
Why do I have to reduce the number of Leman Russ tanks???

>
> Second, you can't just igorn casualities and still have a valid comparsion.

I didn't. In my worked examples I included survivors at the end of each
engagement (and by extension, casualties) after 3 turns.

> The reality is that casualities inflicted on the Leman Russ in previous turns
> affect how much firepower they have in future turns.

Yes, I know this.
>
> Overall your arguments are flawed because they are trying to compare apples
> with oranges.

Er, but weren't the original posts, Land Raiders vs Leman Russ, doing
EXACTLY THE SAME? And without doing this comparison, how do I know
which is better? A certain cola manufacturer has been doing this for
years. After doing these comparisons, I now know that I like apples if
fighting against armour, and oranges if facing infantry (pretty obvious
from the start, but some people like to see it in black and white). At
the end of the day, the whole damn game is about matching apples vs
oranges, and seeing who wins. My apples shoot lumps out of your
bananas, but your water melon squashes all before it until I wheel out
my grapefruit. The only criticism I will accept as valid is that I
ignored the rally test reduction in BMs from turn to turn - and I gave
reasons for this. Of course, if you disagree with my maths, then feel
free to do it yourself.

RichardSean Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon 23 Jun, Richard Dewsbery wrote:
> > > I have to disagree I don't think that Land raiders that susceptable to BMs.
> > > In my example even in the second round of firing the Land raiders could
> > > inflict 4.5 kills vs 1 kill for the remaining two Leman Russ
> >
> > By your examples, the land raiders place 2 BMs, the Lman russ's 3. Now
> > on the next turn's shooting,, the land raiders (assuming full strength
> > from the previous turn) will have 15 AT shots. This is a 17% reduction
> > in their shooting. The leman russ - with 2BMs on the detachment, have a
> > reduction of 2 from their firepower - they will now throw 14 dice to
> > hit. This is a 7% reduction in their shooting. So, leaving casualties
> > to one side for the moment, the land raiders are far more susceptable to
> > BMs, and cannot place as many themselves. In a one-on-one shooting
> > exchange between the 2, I'd place all of my money on the land raiders.
> > But in a prolonged set of exchanges involving infantry as well, I'd
> > expect the Land Raiders to come under more supressive fire earlier.
>
> First my comparsion involved equal value in points of Landraiders and
> Leman Russ, if you want to include infantry, you are going to have to reduce
> the number of Leman Russ to ensure it is still a valid comparsion.
>
> Second, you can't just igorn casualities and still have a valid comparsion.
> The reality is that casualities inflicted on the Leman Russ in previous turns
> affect how much firepower they have in future turns.
>
> Overall your arguments are flawed because they are trying to compare apples
> with oranges.
>
> --
>
> Sean Smith
>
> Home - Seans_at_...
>
> --
Received on Mon Jun 23 1997 - 19:36:47 UTC