Hi Marek
Well I guess that giving the unarmoured versions 0 armour does make them too easy to sink. But of course the downside of this is that once on the beach they can no longer be sunk but now present the enemy with a quite formidable fighting vehicle which was in fact not the case. In reality they would (and by all accounts were) pretty easily shot to pieces.
Personally I would like to see them 0 to ensure they are used "correctly" ie as swimming trucks requiring the enemy to be thoroghly suppressed or smoked before they are employed. After all this is what the equivelent DUKW vehicle has to do. And of course there is always the armoured version for contested landings.
Im not so sure I understand how playability is enhaced by doubling the armour value of the armoured versions. I would have thought the "correct" front and side values of 1 and rear 0 would play fine.
The same reasoning applies to the remaining landing craft LCVT and LCM and probably LCP LCA LCS also. these vehicle all have 2 or beter Armour but seem to be unarmoured or have the standard .64 "armour" of mild steel. From
http://www.ussrankin.org/id40.htm
Only the control station is armoured (.64 cm) in LCM. So maybe armour value of 1 rather than 2 is appropriate for LCM?
For LCVT
http://www.ussrankin.org/id41.htm
has quarter inch (.64cm) armour so should be 1 not 2?
for LCA
http://www.royalmarinesmuseum.co.uk/...ng%20Craft.pdf
Describes LCA as being made of wood in game they are armour value 4 seems high to me even if they were made of steel.
The "correct" values for these LCM, LCVT, LCA would encourage them to be used as transports leaving the beach once unloaded rather than hang around as well armoured fire support as most players use them. After all who would want a bunch of sailors blasting away with 50 cals behind you when your about to go over the top.
Best Regards Chuck.