Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
06-19-2013, 08:31 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
Hello gents,
This is a conceptualisation-in-progress, please feel free to comment and improve on these ideas. Let this thread be a pot of ideas where we can progress the hobby.
As I see it, as more RC hobbyist/scale modellers/wargamers graduate from Generation 1 IR battles (Tamiya-based) and taking on Clark boards, the functionalities would enable us to progress to Generation 2 battles (Clark-based), whilst still can be dumbed down to fit in to the Tamiya gameplays.
I'm getting my head around putting up a concept to maximise the use of the Clark board (i.e. ammo load outs, remote config (Sony) as indirect fire support, supply and repair).Then putting in this concept to a unit based games where hits are not "hit points" but rather count as "unit strength".
An excel file of typical ammo load-outs, combat speed (off-road, sustained) and effective cannon range would be especially helpful here. Also the point-based system for club-level down to battle/tactical level needs more inputs. To enable more structured discussions, kindly copy the item of interest and indicate that in "red", and your response in perhaps "blue". I would appreciate this way to mimic a peer-review process to keep it focussed.
Here's a work -in -progress conceptualisation:
(1) Machine gun-based vehicles for Scout,Support,Supply and Service functions.
The employment of "machine gun-based vehicles" (i.e., half tracks, trucks, scout cars) to function as
(a)scout=must be within a certain distance from enemy AFV formation to call in artillery fire (say 3 m). once in range (3 m away), he aims the sony remote and fires at enemy formation.
(b) support = give directions to friendly AFV formations, by way of hand/voice signals to manuever friendlys to suitable firing positions and direct in aiming at enemy positions. (See item 6)
(c) supply =must be tank-length away fromfriendly AFV formations to reload. say an M4 fireteam of 2 tanks at 40 rounds each means this formation will have a total of 80 rounds.
(d) service =must be tank-length away from vehicle to repair/reinforce an AFV formation back up to original strenght. can be thought of reinforcements.
(2) Hit points (HP) as Unit/Formation Strength (TOE) instead of the class-based system
Instead of the usual 3, 6, 9 hits as per tank class, this would now correspond to the unit/formation strength. A successful penetration is all that's needed to KO a tank, but multiple hits are necessary to destroy a formation.
A tank platoon could be 4 tank strength (4 HITS,4HP), a company at 12 tank strength (12 HITS,12HP) or a fire team of 2 AFVs (2 HITS,2HP).
This puts in the need for recon and tactics as the opposing team will not know the enemy strength until a friendly light/medium tank comes within a certain distance (i.e., 3 meters) of an enemy tank unit and hits them.
The enemy tank unit will then declare its current strength. Say an M4 platoon gets spotted by a PzIII and was hit, the M4 player must declare 3 tanks left. The need to close in and hit is necessary then to enable either sides to deploy and redeploy as the need arises. Hitting a tank formation beyond 3 meters does not enable your side to get info on the enemy formations strength.
Say for example, in a tank meet, 8 Tanknuts show up with Clark equipped tanks.These are as follows: 2 M4 shermans, 1 Pershing, 1 M3 halftrack, 2 Tigers, 1 King Tiger and 1 PzIII.
After point have been assigned (more on that in item 3) ...here's the TOE:
Allies;
TankNut1: 1 x M4 Sherman platoon (4 HP)
TankNut2:1 x M4 Sherman company (12 HP)
TankNut3:1 x M26 Pershing fire team (2 HP)
TankNut4:1 x M3 Halftrack platoon (4 HP)
Axis
TankNut5:1 x Pzkfw VI E Tiger platoon (4 HP)
TankNut6:1 xPzkfw VI E Tiger platoon (4 HP)
TankNut7:1 x PzkfW VI B King Tiger fire team (2 HP)
TankNut8:1 x Pz III fire team (2 HP)
Here, either YHR's idea of IR range limitation or simply optical mod (tape over the IR receiver sensor) will distinguish the tank class. The latter could be somewhat like this, Meds and will have a tape in the front sensor whislt Heavies will have tape over fron and sides (meaning must be hit from behind only). A hull based IR sensor (see item 5) may be used instead of the optical mods.
The scenario above affords the allies the advantage of resupply (ammo load out), repair and indirect fire support due to the presence of the M3 half track. Also the presence of the M3 enables the allies to be ably-directed to firing positions (See item 6). The axis, though have more heavy hitters (long range tanks) but will have difficulty in laying fire and movement as they only have a PzIII fire team (2 HP). Once this is taken out, they would be more or less be on a defensive as they need to conserve ammo and does not have scouts/lights or even meds to help in movement and firing(See item 6).
[/b](3) Points-based Strategic Gameplay (Club, Inter-club, Campaign, Random battles)
Club level:Club level: An IR battle ready AFV model is assigned 10 points. More AFVs, more points such that those commanders could utilise their points to field/commit more formations in most battles, year long.Say for example, TankNut1 has 5 tanks and 1 halftrack, he gets 60 points. Say if he has this much points, and if a company level formation has 12 points/units, TankNut1 is roughly commanding 5 AFV companies, that is at least a battalion strength armour unit and perhaps be ranked as Lt. Col.
Now in the year-long operation of the club, in one of the battle days, he could perhaps field 12 points for that day on a Sherman and a Tiger he has brought along. He may for example, allocate 8 points for 2 platoons for his M4 Sherman (8 HP) for game 1 (battle of the bulge, allied side) and then the remaining 4 points for 1 x Tiger platoon (4HP) for game 2 (citadel,axis side). If he was decimated in both games, and his team lost both games, he then looses 12 points. Winning team perhaps could be awarded points and pro-rated amongst the tank commanders of this team.
Campaign level: limited to reflect historical scenario, say Citadel....Allies more points to assign than axis
Tactical level: On the spot games or battle day games.
This system perhaps allows for a competitive but an enjoyable way to get together and form battles in either clubs or inter clubs....Sort of going towards a more structured gameplay.
I'm still working out how to get a sense of point system assignment.
[/b](4) Combat Speed means the Sustained Off-road speed and not the max road/off-road speed.
This can be implemented viahardware change (TU) or software (Transmitter end point regulation). Both achieves the aim of realistic speed, but the former rewards players doing the hardwork by enabling their unit to be mobile even with weaked strength.
(5)Hull-based IR receivers (removable, with 3P receptacle)
The tank hulls will have a 3P receptable at four cardinal areas. To each will be fitted IR receivers for scouts and lights. For meds, only the sides and rear will have these. Whilst heavies will have only 1 receiver and receptacle at the rear. This is similar to YHR's idea of a removable IR emitter using a 2P receptablehttp://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_9166641/anchors_9169086/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#9169086, only that this time it is for the IR receiver. See attached pic for reference.
(6) Fire and Movement
Scouts and Lights can move up to the battlefield (forward and sidewards) up to the location of the commander's unit. Tank commanders using medium tanks can only move laterally (sidewards) along the edge of the battlefield. Heavy tank commanders must remain seated near the assembly point/base. Scouts and Lights will give directions as to movement and fire for both meds and heavies. See the attached pic for more detail.
more to follow..
cheers,
Rey
This is a conceptualisation-in-progress, please feel free to comment and improve on these ideas. Let this thread be a pot of ideas where we can progress the hobby.
As I see it, as more RC hobbyist/scale modellers/wargamers graduate from Generation 1 IR battles (Tamiya-based) and taking on Clark boards, the functionalities would enable us to progress to Generation 2 battles (Clark-based), whilst still can be dumbed down to fit in to the Tamiya gameplays.
I'm getting my head around putting up a concept to maximise the use of the Clark board (i.e. ammo load outs, remote config (Sony) as indirect fire support, supply and repair).Then putting in this concept to a unit based games where hits are not "hit points" but rather count as "unit strength".
An excel file of typical ammo load-outs, combat speed (off-road, sustained) and effective cannon range would be especially helpful here. Also the point-based system for club-level down to battle/tactical level needs more inputs. To enable more structured discussions, kindly copy the item of interest and indicate that in "red", and your response in perhaps "blue". I would appreciate this way to mimic a peer-review process to keep it focussed.
Here's a work -in -progress conceptualisation:
(1) Machine gun-based vehicles for Scout,Support,Supply and Service functions.
The employment of "machine gun-based vehicles" (i.e., half tracks, trucks, scout cars) to function as
(a)scout=must be within a certain distance from enemy AFV formation to call in artillery fire (say 3 m). once in range (3 m away), he aims the sony remote and fires at enemy formation.
(b) support = give directions to friendly AFV formations, by way of hand/voice signals to manuever friendlys to suitable firing positions and direct in aiming at enemy positions. (See item 6)
(c) supply =must be tank-length away fromfriendly AFV formations to reload. say an M4 fireteam of 2 tanks at 40 rounds each means this formation will have a total of 80 rounds.
(d) service =must be tank-length away from vehicle to repair/reinforce an AFV formation back up to original strenght. can be thought of reinforcements.
(2) Hit points (HP) as Unit/Formation Strength (TOE) instead of the class-based system
Instead of the usual 3, 6, 9 hits as per tank class, this would now correspond to the unit/formation strength. A successful penetration is all that's needed to KO a tank, but multiple hits are necessary to destroy a formation.
A tank platoon could be 4 tank strength (4 HITS,4HP), a company at 12 tank strength (12 HITS,12HP) or a fire team of 2 AFVs (2 HITS,2HP).
This puts in the need for recon and tactics as the opposing team will not know the enemy strength until a friendly light/medium tank comes within a certain distance (i.e., 3 meters) of an enemy tank unit and hits them.
The enemy tank unit will then declare its current strength. Say an M4 platoon gets spotted by a PzIII and was hit, the M4 player must declare 3 tanks left. The need to close in and hit is necessary then to enable either sides to deploy and redeploy as the need arises. Hitting a tank formation beyond 3 meters does not enable your side to get info on the enemy formations strength.
Say for example, in a tank meet, 8 Tanknuts show up with Clark equipped tanks.These are as follows: 2 M4 shermans, 1 Pershing, 1 M3 halftrack, 2 Tigers, 1 King Tiger and 1 PzIII.
After point have been assigned (more on that in item 3) ...here's the TOE:
Allies;
TankNut1: 1 x M4 Sherman platoon (4 HP)
TankNut2:1 x M4 Sherman company (12 HP)
TankNut3:1 x M26 Pershing fire team (2 HP)
TankNut4:1 x M3 Halftrack platoon (4 HP)
Axis
TankNut5:1 x Pzkfw VI E Tiger platoon (4 HP)
TankNut6:1 xPzkfw VI E Tiger platoon (4 HP)
TankNut7:1 x PzkfW VI B King Tiger fire team (2 HP)
TankNut8:1 x Pz III fire team (2 HP)
Here, either YHR's idea of IR range limitation or simply optical mod (tape over the IR receiver sensor) will distinguish the tank class. The latter could be somewhat like this, Meds and will have a tape in the front sensor whislt Heavies will have tape over fron and sides (meaning must be hit from behind only). A hull based IR sensor (see item 5) may be used instead of the optical mods.
The scenario above affords the allies the advantage of resupply (ammo load out), repair and indirect fire support due to the presence of the M3 half track. Also the presence of the M3 enables the allies to be ably-directed to firing positions (See item 6). The axis, though have more heavy hitters (long range tanks) but will have difficulty in laying fire and movement as they only have a PzIII fire team (2 HP). Once this is taken out, they would be more or less be on a defensive as they need to conserve ammo and does not have scouts/lights or even meds to help in movement and firing(See item 6).
[/b](3) Points-based Strategic Gameplay (Club, Inter-club, Campaign, Random battles)
Club level:Club level: An IR battle ready AFV model is assigned 10 points. More AFVs, more points such that those commanders could utilise their points to field/commit more formations in most battles, year long.Say for example, TankNut1 has 5 tanks and 1 halftrack, he gets 60 points. Say if he has this much points, and if a company level formation has 12 points/units, TankNut1 is roughly commanding 5 AFV companies, that is at least a battalion strength armour unit and perhaps be ranked as Lt. Col.
Now in the year-long operation of the club, in one of the battle days, he could perhaps field 12 points for that day on a Sherman and a Tiger he has brought along. He may for example, allocate 8 points for 2 platoons for his M4 Sherman (8 HP) for game 1 (battle of the bulge, allied side) and then the remaining 4 points for 1 x Tiger platoon (4HP) for game 2 (citadel,axis side). If he was decimated in both games, and his team lost both games, he then looses 12 points. Winning team perhaps could be awarded points and pro-rated amongst the tank commanders of this team.
Campaign level: limited to reflect historical scenario, say Citadel....Allies more points to assign than axis
Tactical level: On the spot games or battle day games.
This system perhaps allows for a competitive but an enjoyable way to get together and form battles in either clubs or inter clubs....Sort of going towards a more structured gameplay.
I'm still working out how to get a sense of point system assignment.
[/b](4) Combat Speed means the Sustained Off-road speed and not the max road/off-road speed.
This can be implemented viahardware change (TU) or software (Transmitter end point regulation). Both achieves the aim of realistic speed, but the former rewards players doing the hardwork by enabling their unit to be mobile even with weaked strength.
(5)Hull-based IR receivers (removable, with 3P receptacle)
The tank hulls will have a 3P receptable at four cardinal areas. To each will be fitted IR receivers for scouts and lights. For meds, only the sides and rear will have these. Whilst heavies will have only 1 receiver and receptacle at the rear. This is similar to YHR's idea of a removable IR emitter using a 2P receptablehttp://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_9166641/anchors_9169086/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#9169086, only that this time it is for the IR receiver. See attached pic for reference.
(6) Fire and Movement
Scouts and Lights can move up to the battlefield (forward and sidewards) up to the location of the commander's unit. Tank commanders using medium tanks can only move laterally (sidewards) along the edge of the battlefield. Heavy tank commanders must remain seated near the assembly point/base. Scouts and Lights will give directions as to movement and fire for both meds and heavies. See the attached pic for more detail.
more to follow..
cheers,
Rey
06-20-2013, 04:15 AM
#2
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
Some interesting ideas there, if a bit confusing to read.
The more gameplay features and scenario based operations that can be built into the unit the better;
For expamle, vehicles requiring to be in close proximity to one another for an event to happen would benifit greatly from a close proximity detector to automatically configure that event.
The more gameplay features and scenario based operations that can be built into the unit the better;
For expamle, vehicles requiring to be in close proximity to one another for an event to happen would benifit greatly from a close proximity detector to automatically configure that event.
06-20-2013, 04:51 AM
#3
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
In line with the KISS (Keep It Stupidly Simple) principle, if mediums and lights are to have range limited IR emitters the they should have one respawn as a medium and two respawns as a light.
TDs can have their IFA but are subject to the same weight class limitations.
TDs can have their IFA but are subject to the same weight class limitations.
06-20-2013, 05:30 AM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
ORIGINAL: heavyaslead
Some interesting ideas there, if a bit confusing to read.
The more gameplay features and scenario based operations that can be built into the unit the better;
For expamle, vehicles requiring to be in close proximity to one another for an event to happen would benifit greatly from a close proximity detector to automatically configure that event.
Some interesting ideas there, if a bit confusing to read.
The more gameplay features and scenario based operations that can be built into the unit the better;
For expamle, vehicles requiring to be in close proximity to one another for an event to happen would benifit greatly from a close proximity detector to automatically configure that event.
Sorry for the confusion in typo and structure....this was done off the bat at work.
Regarding the close proximity of scout vehicle to direct/simulate indirect fire support, I think we can put in an IR range limiter (i.e., trim pot) and dialled in to just 3 m. As such, this scout fires his MG, and tanks would just sound off bullets richocheting. This "richochet sound" would now iindicate that the scout has acquired a "fix" on the target and can use his hand held Sony remote "press # 2" and simulate indirect fire.
cheers,
Rey
06-20-2013, 05:46 AM
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
ORIGINAL: cleong
In line with the KISS (Keep It Stupidly Simple) principle, if mediums and lights are to have range limited IR emitters the they should have one respawn as a medium and two respawns as a light.
TDs can have their IFA but are subject to the same weight class limitations.
In line with the KISS (Keep It Stupidly Simple) principle, if mediums and lights are to have range limited IR emitters the they should have one respawn as a medium and two respawns as a light.
TDs can have their IFA but are subject to the same weight class limitations.
I'm not entirely sure if I understood that correctly. I think the KISS scenario is the status quo, where all tanks have the same IR target size "apple", have health points where its tank crew are somewhat very lucky blokes.
In the suggested scheme "Hit points (HP)", are treated as a unit/formation strenght and not a single tank's health.
Tank classes are simiulated thought IR ranging (trim pot), IR reception (optical mod or item 5) and movement (item 6), hence no respawns as such.
This set-up takes scale tanking up a notch, as a successful penetration is likely to KO a single tank but more hits are necessary to destroy a formation. Rarely do tanks operate alone, as they fight as a formation or a remnant thereof. As such we can retain the Hit Points, but improve on it.
One may be using a Sherman, but could be a single tank (1 HP) our perhaps of company strength (12HP). It now boils down to team planning (to set up what and where tank formations are deployed) and reconnaissance to gain enemy dispositions and possibly intentions.
cheers,
Rey
06-20-2013, 06:15 AM
#6
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamilton,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
I like these ideas. Using different classes in different roles is awesome.
I think it might be hard to implement though, there's a lot going on here and lots of layers of integration that will be hard to keep track of.
Also the fact that every single Tamiya tank basically cannot take part in this and reequipping entire clubs with the Clark-'standard' isn't likely going to happen despite it's popularity and strengths.
What the Clark does offer that is most backwards-compatible is a shared IR code and a small size, which is EASY to take advantage of for light armored cars & half tracks. As I've said in earlier posts I think these will become popular, but you won't see a machinegun-only equipped vehicle for a long time because it has zero effect (even if only audible) against the HUGE number of Tamiya, SLU, ElMod and DBC tanks out there.
I think it might be hard to implement though, there's a lot going on here and lots of layers of integration that will be hard to keep track of.
Also the fact that every single Tamiya tank basically cannot take part in this and reequipping entire clubs with the Clark-'standard' isn't likely going to happen despite it's popularity and strengths.
What the Clark does offer that is most backwards-compatible is a shared IR code and a small size, which is EASY to take advantage of for light armored cars & half tracks. As I've said in earlier posts I think these will become popular, but you won't see a machinegun-only equipped vehicle for a long time because it has zero effect (even if only audible) against the HUGE number of Tamiya, SLU, ElMod and DBC tanks out there.
06-20-2013, 08:13 AM
#8
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
ORIGINAL: clarkmodel
I do want to know how many Tamiya, SLU, ElMod and DBC tanks out there[img][/img]
I do want to know how many Tamiya, SLU, ElMod and DBC tanks out there[img][/img]
I have 3 Tamiya, 1 DBC, 1 El Mod, 1 soon to be DBC equipped. My proposed future (way in the) will be Tamiya.
I don't have any Clark boards but have nothing against them either.
Anything that promotes the hobby is great in my mind, but it's also an uphill battle. There's so much that can be done to make IR battling more realistic, but you need a serious core of tankers that are willing to go along.
Closest thing I can think of to explain is my sons and I play Axis and Allies (the board game). We have every edition up to Global, which is an eight foot board that plays out the entire WWII. It's an amazing game with relatively simple rules, yet intricate detail and it's a blast to play. Problem is, that edition takes about a month to finish (we have a table set up just for it, so it can be undisturbed). On the other end of the spectrum, they have a 1941 edition with simplified rules and pieces and it can be played in an hour or so. Which do you think we play the most? 1941. If we have three hours, we'll play 1942, DDay or Guadalcanal, but rarely do we start a Global, no one has the energy or time.
For RC, grabbing some tanks and running to a local park with some simple shoot and kill battles are all we really want to do. If it required retrofitting equipment or doing a lengthy check in or setup, it's not happening with us.
I definitely love your idea and hope you can scare up interest, but those are my thoughts.
06-20-2013, 01:21 PM
#9
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
Most of this stuff is going way over my head. I will be completely left out if these new systems get any more complicated to set up.
I just want systems that can be plugged or wired directly to the component in question and work. No Sony remotes, or computor USB cords .
Just wire it and go.
06-20-2013, 02:09 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Grande Prairie,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 8,976
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
I while ago I was the guy promoting something different from Tamiya, but I have now come full circle and realized for the most part you need to keep it simple. People in general are not interested in anything much more complicated then what the Tamya system delivers.
Simple weight classes, damage hits and speed reduction is enough to keep it interesting for most. For years Elmod has had an advanced IR setting, but seldom does anyone use it.
However, there is new blood coming in, and Clark has produced a reasonably priced card to allow most to partcipate in something more. So perhaps there will be enough people to start something new. The more options though the harder it is to manage, and that is where the problem starts for the organizer.
I wish you guys luck with this, and the fact is, everyone could have one Clark Board, and if a venue were playing a Clark based game it would be easy enough to swap a Clark board into a tank. Remember the Clark board is less expensive then a Tamiya Apple.
Simple weight classes, damage hits and speed reduction is enough to keep it interesting for most. For years Elmod has had an advanced IR setting, but seldom does anyone use it.
However, there is new blood coming in, and Clark has produced a reasonably priced card to allow most to partcipate in something more. So perhaps there will be enough people to start something new. The more options though the harder it is to manage, and that is where the problem starts for the organizer.
I wish you guys luck with this, and the fact is, everyone could have one Clark Board, and if a venue were playing a Clark based game it would be easy enough to swap a Clark board into a tank. Remember the Clark board is less expensive then a Tamiya Apple.
06-21-2013, 06:31 AM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
Hi guys,
Indeed this looks daunting to implement all at once and does not need all to be incorporated. The way I look at it is to promote and expand the hobby as this hobby of ours has the potential to be "the" pinnacle for RC-based games-where teamplay, tactics and scale modelling is roled into one. I'm pushing for something more than robowars or even RC races work or wargaming (board games) could muster.
Perhaps a simple way to start the ball rollin is the use of ammo load outs to reflect historical situations and the use of impact TBU (only 1 is need per tanker).
TOE:
2 x Tigers at 20 rounds each vs 5 x Sherman at 40rds and a halftrack.
Conditions: US will have the ability to repair tanks (pressing the Sony button 1) and can be triggered once the halftrack is in direct contact with a Sherman. Halftrack driver holds the sony remote.
Tigers get a tape in front of their Impact battle sensor.This simulates relative invulnerability to 75 mm gun fire.
Battle Config: All tanks set at 2 hits (HP), momentum on, hull recoil when hit set at 16(max), hull recoil when firing set at 16(max-hence no fire on the move), no respawn.
cheers,
Rey
Indeed this looks daunting to implement all at once and does not need all to be incorporated. The way I look at it is to promote and expand the hobby as this hobby of ours has the potential to be "the" pinnacle for RC-based games-where teamplay, tactics and scale modelling is roled into one. I'm pushing for something more than robowars or even RC races work or wargaming (board games) could muster.
Perhaps a simple way to start the ball rollin is the use of ammo load outs to reflect historical situations and the use of impact TBU (only 1 is need per tanker).
TOE:
2 x Tigers at 20 rounds each vs 5 x Sherman at 40rds and a halftrack.
Conditions: US will have the ability to repair tanks (pressing the Sony button 1) and can be triggered once the halftrack is in direct contact with a Sherman. Halftrack driver holds the sony remote.
Tigers get a tape in front of their Impact battle sensor.This simulates relative invulnerability to 75 mm gun fire.
Battle Config: All tanks set at 2 hits (HP), momentum on, hull recoil when hit set at 16(max), hull recoil when firing set at 16(max-hence no fire on the move), no respawn.
cheers,
Rey
06-21-2013, 09:46 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Grande Prairie,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 8,976
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
My opinion is that this little change in ammo effectively rules out Tamiya, DBC, EL mod and the IBU and plays into the hands of Clark and the SLU only To exclude so many for so little seems counterproductive.
06-21-2013, 10:18 AM
#14
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
In my humble thinking:
This is a forum based in RC tank models, no electrics or software or whatever. Most of the people here, including me, are interested in tank models, then the electric side of the matter could be asked to Clark or other good vendors out there.
There are a lot of electronic forums where one can talk about technical matters. I gave up my engineer profession to devote my life to the scale models, so I don't feel is good to have one of each two post talking about of technical matters.
Just to know there are new products, where to buy them and how much cost would be enough.
I don't mind that a newcomer askig for help.
This is a forum based in RC tank models, no electrics or software or whatever. Most of the people here, including me, are interested in tank models, then the electric side of the matter could be asked to Clark or other good vendors out there.
There are a lot of electronic forums where one can talk about technical matters. I gave up my engineer profession to devote my life to the scale models, so I don't feel is good to have one of each two post talking about of technical matters.
Just to know there are new products, where to buy them and how much cost would be enough.
I don't mind that a newcomer askig for help.
06-21-2013, 11:02 AM
#15
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cambridge ON, CANADA
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
If I was battling why would I limit my ability to carry 20 shells? ( Obviously I would be in the Tiger ) Why would I allow the Sherman to be repaired? If this is accurate or an attempt at it Shermans were completly destroyed more often than not.
If I am a Sherman guy why let the Tiger have the tape? What if I don't have a halftrack?
I know what your trying to do here and it is admirable but honestly this stuff is more than likely best left to the local club. Its tough enough for me to get to a club, I highly doubt I am driving 2-1/2 hours to have anything but fun matches.
I am super serious about tanking in general because I have fun. Lots of rules tend to kill that fun.
If I am a Sherman guy why let the Tiger have the tape? What if I don't have a halftrack?
I know what your trying to do here and it is admirable but honestly this stuff is more than likely best left to the local club. Its tough enough for me to get to a club, I highly doubt I am driving 2-1/2 hours to have anything but fun matches.
I am super serious about tanking in general because I have fun. Lots of rules tend to kill that fun.
ORIGINAL: reyemmanuel
Hi guys,
Indeed this looks daunting to implement all at once and does not need all to be incorporated. The way I look at it is to promote and expand the hobby as this hobby of ours has the potential to be "the" pinnacle for RC-based games-where teamplay, tactics and scale modelling is roled into one. I'm pushing for something more than robowars or even RC races work or wargaming (board games) could muster.
Perhaps a simple way to start the ball rollin is the use of ammo load outs to reflect historical situations and the use of impact TBU (only 1 is need per tanker).
TOE:
2 x Tigers at 20 rounds each vs 5 x Sherman at 40rds and a halftrack.
Conditions: US will have the ability to repair tanks (pressing the Sony button 1) and can be triggered once the halftrack is in direct contact with a Sherman. Halftrack driver holds the sony remote.
Tigers get a tape in front of their Impact battle sensor.This simulates relative invulnerability to 75 mm gun fire.
Battle Config: All tanks set at 2 hits (HP), momentum on, hull recoil when hit set at 16(max), hull recoil when firing set at 16(max-hence no fire on the move), no respawn.
cheers,
Rey
Hi guys,
Indeed this looks daunting to implement all at once and does not need all to be incorporated. The way I look at it is to promote and expand the hobby as this hobby of ours has the potential to be "the" pinnacle for RC-based games-where teamplay, tactics and scale modelling is roled into one. I'm pushing for something more than robowars or even RC races work or wargaming (board games) could muster.
Perhaps a simple way to start the ball rollin is the use of ammo load outs to reflect historical situations and the use of impact TBU (only 1 is need per tanker).
TOE:
2 x Tigers at 20 rounds each vs 5 x Sherman at 40rds and a halftrack.
Conditions: US will have the ability to repair tanks (pressing the Sony button 1) and can be triggered once the halftrack is in direct contact with a Sherman. Halftrack driver holds the sony remote.
Tigers get a tape in front of their Impact battle sensor.This simulates relative invulnerability to 75 mm gun fire.
Battle Config: All tanks set at 2 hits (HP), momentum on, hull recoil when hit set at 16(max), hull recoil when firing set at 16(max-hence no fire on the move), no respawn.
cheers,
Rey
06-21-2013, 12:06 PM
#16
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
ORIGINAL: mcovalsk
In my humble thinking:
This is a forum based in RC tank models, no electrics or software or whatever. Most of the people here, including me, are interested in tank models, then the electric side of the matter could be asked to Clark or other good vendors out there.
There are a lot of electronic forums where one can talk about technical matters. I gave up my engineer profession to devote my life to the scale models, so I don't feel is good to have one of each two post talking about of technical matters.
Just to know there are new products, where to buy them and how much cost would be enough.
I don't mind that a newcomer askig for help.
In my humble thinking:
This is a forum based in RC tank models, no electrics or software or whatever. Most of the people here, including me, are interested in tank models, then the electric side of the matter could be asked to Clark or other good vendors out there.
There are a lot of electronic forums where one can talk about technical matters. I gave up my engineer profession to devote my life to the scale models, so I don't feel is good to have one of each two post talking about of technical matters.
Just to know there are new products, where to buy them and how much cost would be enough.
I don't mind that a newcomer askig for help.
06-21-2013, 12:55 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Grande Prairie,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 8,976
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
I know that some of these threads dominate, but they do this by nature. It is sharing some ideas and opinions, and remember the DBC was born on RCU because of interest in electronics and the need for Heng Long owners to have a Tamiya compatible tank. I dread the day we no longer foster innovation and encourage others in this hobby.
RC tanking, like model railroading, is a multi faceted hobby, and therein lies its draw. It is so much more than just scale modeling of tanks.
The thread titles are clearly identified, and people who have no interest in this should be able to just skip the threads that don't appeal to them.
RC tanking, like model railroading, is a multi faceted hobby, and therein lies its draw. It is so much more than just scale modeling of tanks.
The thread titles are clearly identified, and people who have no interest in this should be able to just skip the threads that don't appeal to them.
06-21-2013, 02:35 PM
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
Hi gents,
Thanks for your responses. Albeit most do not progress the discussion, nevertheless, let's set the bar up.
-
Hi Cleong,
I havent proposed this with my club as I think there's still only about two of us with Clark boards. I do bring a Tamiya, a Clark and DBC3 to battle and play Generation 1 IR battles.This Gen 2 gameplay is for the future, perhaps give or take 2-5 years.
Sure I agree testing a theory is next, but were still in theory building at this stage (this thread). This is routine within the geochemical research environment I am in-theory formulation-hypothesis generation-experimentation-modelling/simulation-prediction. But this environment I'm in restricts my attendance to battledays. And such, ifperhaps, you or other clubs with Clark boards could allocate time for experimental battles using similar or simplified approach with the Clark boards-would be great mate (Thanks in advance). It would be nice to get feedback on such endeavour.
Hi YHR,
Indeed it may appear to polarise the hobby at first, but my opinion is it would not. Rather it opens up to cater to a wider range of RC converts, from pure scale modellers, RC bashers/tinkerers, and wargamers.
RC tankers can choose to play the old way if majority says, but has the option to to progress to more advanced gameplay.
I do admire your dedication for the hobby and resilience to get things rolling and quite found the same as you do. Pre Clark RC tankers prefer simple games and I do adhere to that gameplay as well.
Even before where technology was limiting, yet ideas came about. I do however think we can do much more progress these days.
This time we have do a choice and relatively easy to switch from Generation 1 battles (simplicity, experience) and Generation 2 (realism, scale battling).
Hi Mcovalsk,
I disagree with your assertion "this is a forum based in RC tank models, no electrics or software or whatever". This statement holds no ground and cannot be backed by facts. Let me show you why.
Of the post 2012 threads, the Clark threadhttp://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_11137871/tm.htm has the highest view to post ratio at 69 and on average has about 124.5 views per day and of those viewers about 1.8 post per day. This is based on thread start date June 30, 2012 and now with 44457 views and 644 replies.
I would be good if you could show proof otherwise. Sorry mate to be nailing you on the head this one, but facts needs to be set here. We are all tanknuts and such, there really is no reason why we can't progress to something better and yet be able to cherish the past.
Hi Freakydude,
To answer your questions-that rests on the game scenario. For that particular example, it puts historical sense into it, much like going gaga over small rivets or weld lines or similar details.
The reason I think why this hobby is still small, is outsiders (or even RC enthusiasts) see us as (1) tanknuts spending lots over a wannabe model or (2) boys with cheap toys. The former refers to spending heaps (time, money and blood) to make a toy look the real thing, but cares little to none on how it behaves (movement, fire, gameplay), whilst the latter plays a cheap toy for a day and gone off to find another toy the next day. IMHO, the Clark board fills in gap between both camps, and provides the means to retain both and move to bring "armouritis" to a pandemic level.
If we as a community recognise this and rethink as we now have the backing of an advanced yet affordable technology (Clark), perhaps in the future you wont have to drive more than 2 hours to battle and that your sales may shoot up the roof as more people become interested in "the much improved hobby".
Hi All,
Sometime in 2011, we had discussed "Shaping the future of IR battles"http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10650873/anchors_10650873/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#10650873but lacked the technological backing. Now we have a reasonably priced board and the means to implement such ideas.
Iwould encourage all to put in there thoughts as civil and focussed as possible. This is not meant to kill the tamiya-based games, rather open up the hobby to the future.
Personally, I am keeping an all-Tamiya Tiger, tinkering with my DBC3-Benedini equipped MBTs (gun stabilisation etc) and deploying ClarkTK22T1 early-turrerd KTs (Tam and HL ) as this covers the whole spectra of armouritis.
Perhaps, one of the small steps we could take without alienating the old system could be a "change in mindset" regarding the HIT POINTS.
Hit points will now be treated as formation strength (3, 6, 9 tank units) and armour classes distinguised by IR sensitivity (tape over front, front and side) relative to a normalised IR gun (~ 75mm as effective scale range set at 30 m, 9mm recessed).
As El mod is concerned, whislt it had advanced IR functionality at its time, you need at least 344 AUD to get one. Economics was its hindrance.
I see no reason why a serious tanknut can't cough 69 - 82 AUD for a single Clark board to unlock Gen 2 battles but spend heaps on upgrades and still ends with a less capable IR battle tank.
I for one would swap/trade my DMD-T01 MFU-03 for at least 3 clark boards (TK22Leo2, TK22Leo1, TK22M41,TK22M1) and use benedini for engine sounds.
cheers.../Rey
Thanks for your responses. Albeit most do not progress the discussion, nevertheless, let's set the bar up.
-
Hi Cleong,
I havent proposed this with my club as I think there's still only about two of us with Clark boards. I do bring a Tamiya, a Clark and DBC3 to battle and play Generation 1 IR battles.This Gen 2 gameplay is for the future, perhaps give or take 2-5 years.
Sure I agree testing a theory is next, but were still in theory building at this stage (this thread). This is routine within the geochemical research environment I am in-theory formulation-hypothesis generation-experimentation-modelling/simulation-prediction. But this environment I'm in restricts my attendance to battledays. And such, ifperhaps, you or other clubs with Clark boards could allocate time for experimental battles using similar or simplified approach with the Clark boards-would be great mate (Thanks in advance). It would be nice to get feedback on such endeavour.
Hi YHR,
Indeed it may appear to polarise the hobby at first, but my opinion is it would not. Rather it opens up to cater to a wider range of RC converts, from pure scale modellers, RC bashers/tinkerers, and wargamers.
RC tankers can choose to play the old way if majority says, but has the option to to progress to more advanced gameplay.
I do admire your dedication for the hobby and resilience to get things rolling and quite found the same as you do. Pre Clark RC tankers prefer simple games and I do adhere to that gameplay as well.
Even before where technology was limiting, yet ideas came about. I do however think we can do much more progress these days.
This time we have do a choice and relatively easy to switch from Generation 1 battles (simplicity, experience) and Generation 2 (realism, scale battling).
Hi Mcovalsk,
I disagree with your assertion "this is a forum based in RC tank models, no electrics or software or whatever". This statement holds no ground and cannot be backed by facts. Let me show you why.
Of the post 2012 threads, the Clark threadhttp://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_11137871/tm.htm has the highest view to post ratio at 69 and on average has about 124.5 views per day and of those viewers about 1.8 post per day. This is based on thread start date June 30, 2012 and now with 44457 views and 644 replies.
I would be good if you could show proof otherwise. Sorry mate to be nailing you on the head this one, but facts needs to be set here. We are all tanknuts and such, there really is no reason why we can't progress to something better and yet be able to cherish the past.
Hi Freakydude,
To answer your questions-that rests on the game scenario. For that particular example, it puts historical sense into it, much like going gaga over small rivets or weld lines or similar details.
The reason I think why this hobby is still small, is outsiders (or even RC enthusiasts) see us as (1) tanknuts spending lots over a wannabe model or (2) boys with cheap toys. The former refers to spending heaps (time, money and blood) to make a toy look the real thing, but cares little to none on how it behaves (movement, fire, gameplay), whilst the latter plays a cheap toy for a day and gone off to find another toy the next day. IMHO, the Clark board fills in gap between both camps, and provides the means to retain both and move to bring "armouritis" to a pandemic level.
If we as a community recognise this and rethink as we now have the backing of an advanced yet affordable technology (Clark), perhaps in the future you wont have to drive more than 2 hours to battle and that your sales may shoot up the roof as more people become interested in "the much improved hobby".
Hi All,
Sometime in 2011, we had discussed "Shaping the future of IR battles"http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10650873/anchors_10650873/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#10650873but lacked the technological backing. Now we have a reasonably priced board and the means to implement such ideas.
Iwould encourage all to put in there thoughts as civil and focussed as possible. This is not meant to kill the tamiya-based games, rather open up the hobby to the future.
Personally, I am keeping an all-Tamiya Tiger, tinkering with my DBC3-Benedini equipped MBTs (gun stabilisation etc) and deploying ClarkTK22T1 early-turrerd KTs (Tam and HL ) as this covers the whole spectra of armouritis.
Perhaps, one of the small steps we could take without alienating the old system could be a "change in mindset" regarding the HIT POINTS.
Hit points will now be treated as formation strength (3, 6, 9 tank units) and armour classes distinguised by IR sensitivity (tape over front, front and side) relative to a normalised IR gun (~ 75mm as effective scale range set at 30 m, 9mm recessed).
As El mod is concerned, whislt it had advanced IR functionality at its time, you need at least 344 AUD to get one. Economics was its hindrance.
I see no reason why a serious tanknut can't cough 69 - 82 AUD for a single Clark board to unlock Gen 2 battles but spend heaps on upgrades and still ends with a less capable IR battle tank.
I for one would swap/trade my DMD-T01 MFU-03 for at least 3 clark boards (TK22Leo2, TK22Leo1, TK22M41,TK22M1) and use benedini for engine sounds.
cheers.../Rey
06-21-2013, 07:30 PM
#19
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cambridge ON, CANADA
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
rey
I agree with your points. As your last point states maybe it would be easier to take a few of the smaller things and tackle them first. Once we can agree on certain things and the ball is rolling we won't be able to stop it.
so this being a big job and believe me, rethinking a new format is a big job - why not first put all your battle tanks into categories that can be organized in such a way that you can allocate hit points or extra shots to or values to. Kind of like a battle rule.
ie Tiger was slower firing, so maybe the re-load time goes to 12 seconds, Sherman was a faster loader, its reload should be at 10 seconds.
The first step in what you suggest I think is to ascertain a specific value for the three tanks criteria, being Armour, Speed and Firepower.
In all there is maybe 12 to 15 IR battle tanks ( including customs) that need to have standard values applied.
Then you need a way to apply the values to any custom tank/Paper Panzer that us nuts make.
Apply that criteria to the tanks using common sense knowledge
ie a HL Tiger with standard metal gear box is faster than scale, apply a 10% addition to reload time
An HL Tiger with a 3 to 1 gear is close to scale - No penalty, No bonus
An HL tiger with a 3 to 1 that weighs + 20 lbs will be slower , drop reload by 10%
this is an example only but it kind of shows how you can use the Clark board to balance a more historical view of actual combatants.
You can set quite a few preferences on the Clark board other than just weight class
Weight class, percentage of damage, reload times, shells carried, maximum hits, invunerability are just some of the ways you can balance your battle.
Anyway you get the point, lets start at the ground and move up
06-21-2013, 07:44 PM
#20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Generation 2 IR AFV battles (Clark-based)
ORIGINAL: FreakyDude
rey
rey
I agree with your points. As your last point states maybe it would be easier to take a few of the smaller things and tackle them first. Once we can agree on certain things and the ball is rolling we won't be able to stop it.
so this being a big job and believe me, rethinking a new format is a big job - why not first put all your battle tanks into categories that can be organized in such a way that you can allocate hit points or extra shots to or values to. Kind of like a battle rule.
ie Tiger was slower firing, so maybe the re-load time goes to 12 seconds, Sherman was a faster loader, its reload should be at 10 seconds.
The first step in what you suggest I think is to ascertain a specific value for the three tanks criteria, being Armour, Speed and Firepower.
In all there is maybe 12 to 15 IR battle tanks ( including customs) that need to have standard values applied.
Then you need a way to apply the values to any custom tank/Paper Panzer that us nuts make.
Apply that criteria to the tanks using common sense knowledge
ie a HL Tiger with standard metal gear box is faster than scale, apply a 10% addition to reload time
An HL Tiger with a 3 to 1 gear is close to scale - No penalty, No bonus
An HL tiger with a 3 to 1 that weighs + 20 lbs will be slower , drop reload by 10%
this is an example only but it kind of shows how you can use the Clark board to balance a more historical view of actual combatants.
You can set quite a few preferences on the Clark board other than just weight class
Weight class, percentage of damage, reload times, shells carried, maximum hits, invunerability are just some of the ways you can balance your battle.
Anyway you get the point, lets start at the ground and move up
cheers
