[NetEpic ML] Re: 4.0 revision suggestions

From: Brian Evans <brian.a.evans_at_...>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 01:28:12 -0500

see below.......

----- Original Message -----
From: Weasel Fierce <septimus__at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 9:48 AM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] 4.0 revision suggestions


>
> NetEpic revision ideas:
>
> Since revision time is due soon (suppose the outcome will be NetEpic
version
> 4.0?) I got a few things to say about the things that I would prefer to
see:
> When is the big revision thing gonna start? We might as well start it now
> since decisions take time to make, and the more people the longer time.
>
> Let's hear some oppinions and perhaps even some votes.
>
> Infantry armour saves:
> I really think the saving throws of infantry stands need revisioning. I'd
> like to see marines with 5+ saving throws and a 6+ save to lighter troops
> that are still tougher than IG infantry (Like eldar aspects). I know this
> will be fiercely opposed so don't mailbomb the list with complaints. Also,
> some of the saves are strange, for example the eldar dark reapers got a
save
> comparable to terminator armour. In 40K they have (and also has had) a
save
> a 3+ on 1d6. Why do NetEpic make them so extremely hard. If keeping in
line
> with NetEpic's current saves they shouldn't get a save at all.
>

If you give infantry an armor saving throw, will you need to change all the
armor values for vehicles? Or will you create a case where infantry are
more resilient to weapon's fire than say a Rhino?

> Heavy units:
> One thing which is bad is that devastator squads and similar units can
move
> and still fire their heavy weapons. They should get some kind of penalty,
> propably by being limited to shooting only bolters (Like in Adeptus
> Titanicus). However, it really depends on the timescale of a NetEpic
battle.
> If a turn represents about 20 minutes then a penalty is certainly in
order,
> if representing 1 or more hours then it might not be as appropriate. I
don't
> know.
>

There already exists a negative........The enemy can eleminate your
Devestators in the first fire phase, before the Devestators can shoot. You
also will not get a chance to fire at anyone who charges you if on Advance
orders.

>
> Tank bolters:
> The bolters of tanks are EXTREMELY poor. While they should not be
comparable
> to infantry bolters (for the reasons mentioned in Incoming 1) they should
> still be a weapon, not just some add-on with no realistic effect unless
you
> got 10 of the damn things.
> It is worth remembering that these weapons are often linked bolters or
> individual heavy bolters.
> I'd say that their range should be increased to 25 cm. or they should hit
on
> 5+. 25 cm. is propably the best solution
>

A single bolter should have a very difficult time eliminating a 5 man squad.
Remember that an infantry stand has 5 bolters shooting (4 bolters plus a
Heavy Weapon most likely), a tank in 40K only has 2 bolters or a single
storm bolter. The tank's bolter has a much reduced amount of fire-power
than the infantry's 5 weapons coupled with a limited firing arc.

> Long range:
> Peter (I think) once stated a suggestion that shots at over half range
would
> count as long range shots and suffer a -1 penalty to hit.
> This will penalize the boring shooting armies a bit but perhaps it will
> render support fire too ineffective?
> I'd vote FOR this rule however since closely fought battles are always
more
> exciting than shooting matches
> The bad thing is that standard infantry with 50 cm. weapons will be quite
> ineffective. But if everything else suffer the penalties as well, the
result
> should still be balanced. It will give template based weapons a real edge
> though.

This will strongly affect game balance, this would be a huge change.


>
> Close combat:
> I think separate rules should be made for ramming vehicels and overrunning
> infantry. This is how tanks fight in close combat after all, they don't
> fight with sword and pistol like the infantry.
> Adeptus Titanicus will be a usefull starting point for the rules for such
> combat
>

Keep it simple, a vehicle's CAF does an adequate job of simulating a tank's
anti-personel weapon's fire, vulnerability to close-in infantry attacks, and
just plain running attackers down. I do not think we need a separate stat.
or rule to cover vehicles in close combat.

> Anti-infantry / anti-armour:
> Adeptus Titanicus dealt with the fact that some weapons are more effective
> against certain targets. This could be reflected by giving each weapon two
> save modifiers. One versus infantry and one versus tanks. If keeping the
> current level of NetEpic saves this would propably mean that poor
> anti-personnel weapons like lascannon would get a +1 modifier or
something.
> This increases complexity but also realism.

I always thought that Epic simulated the effects of firing your weapons
multiple times in a turn as opposed to just a single shot with say a
LasCannon.

>
> Complexity:
> One thing that needs to be decided upon is the complexity of NetEpic
vesion
> 4.0
> Will we be aiming at making this game a very detailed and realistic system
> which takes a lot of time and might not be very accessible to beginners,
or
> a simple and fast system which leaves out detail which veteran gamers will
> consider paramount.
> It is difficult to find a place between these extremes. Please note that
> simplicity does not have to reduce the tactical experience and challenge.
> Simple games like epic 40K can still be tremendously strategic since there
> are fewer rules and loopholes.

Keep the rules simple. Keep the units simple. I have always thought of
Epic as being a very broad picture of the battle. Small variations in armor
or weaponry should not have a strong influence on the game. If we try to
differentiate between very minor differences in equipment we will have to
make 'special rules' for almost every unit or have to expand the stat. line
greatly.
Received on Sun Nov 21 1999 - 06:28:12 UTC