Vehicle Size- Does size matter?

[Richard_H]

Don, understood, I'll bear it in mind. I'm hoping that the only Load Cost items I've brought up re vehicles are where it's been under 10.

@ EOT - if you search the forum, I think you'll find that all sorts of 'smart' shells have been discussed before. Trying to add base bleed ranges and different ranges for different charges will (IMHO, of course) only succeed in clogging up what in some cases are already nearly full weapons rosters.

Richard H

[EOT]

Don't need to add any more ranges except airburst (VT) for more OOB's. Just checking to see if the base ranges and extended ranges whether they be rap/bleed are accurate enough. Anyone find their countries off-map artillery ranges too long or short of a range?

[Pibwl]

I don't feel that sizes need general changing, but only my 3 cents: most important IMO should be height and "fullness" of silhouette (say, boxlike APC should be bigger target, than a tank with low hull and only streamlined turret reaching the same height, as APC's roof). Barrel is IMO negligible.

Tanks similar to T-54 are size 4, tanks similar to M-48/Centurion/Leo-II are size 5 and it seems OK. There will be always problems with border cases, and it's subjective. Mathematical formula won't help much, because a difference of 10 cm might decide, if it's 4 or 5. (I've had a similar problem long ago, when I was modifying aircraft sizes in SP-I).

Having said this, I think, that PT-76 is too small (3), comparing to T-54.

Michal