(02-22-2017, 07:46 PM)leonard Wrote: +/- 1 on the result will not make a big difference.
I'm not sure what you mean by "big" difference, but I submit that doubling a hit probability (which means a step loss
at least) is
big,
significant,
a rose by any other name.
As Peter pointed out, changing from a 12 needed to hit (NtH) to an 11+ (a change of '1') doubles the probability. Changing from an 11+ NtH to a 10+ NtH likewise doubles the hit probability (from 3:36 to 6:36). Unless the armor contingent in the scenario is insignificant, such a change in hit probability is certainly "differential."
These changes, in my opinion, do not fall in to the "twice nothing is still nothing" category such as, for example, one might claim in D&D/Pathfinder by expanding a critical hit result (on a d20) from 20 to 19-20 (dbl from 1:20 to 1:10) and where the differential is not hit/kill (as in AT fire in PG) but only single damage vs. double damage (which could be meaningless as far as actual effect on the target). I'm not suggesting that dbling critical threat range in PF/D&D is meaningless, only that, in comparison, the PG dbling effect as noted above is far more significant in terms of reducing the target's ability to continue the fight.
I maintain that a better simulation of German armor systems (crew/machine) vis-a-vis US/UK (or anyone else) effectiveness would be to modify the presumption of (Heer/SS) efficiency and/or tank leaders. This is an easy and rules-ready means to simulate that German crews in later war years were not - necessarily - capable of rapid/accurate fire and/or coordinated and effective effort. But, when they were, Allied armor suffered.
