On Tue 24 Jun, Richard Dewsbery wrote:
> > 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???
>
Umm, I must not have received all the messages posted to the list over the
weekend. Could you repost your infantry vs land raider comparsion to the
list again please.
> >
> > 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.
Hold on, in my original example only 3 Leman Russ were left after the first
round of fire.
By the way I now agree with you that Land raiders are more affected by BM. But in
the overall picture, even taking into account that land raiders are affected more
by BM, Land raiders perform better.
Overall I wish to thank you for an interesting debate, I like to play the
devils advocate now and then ;)
>
> 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_...
> >
> > --
>
--
Sean Smith
Home - Seans_at_...
--
Received on Mon Jun 23 1997 - 20:14:38 UTC