If the suggestion below is applied, air units still have a more subtle
effect and make the owner of ground units have to decide whether to keep his
ground units passive or not.
Which tends to reflect the idea of air superiority also meaning not just
destroying units, but, also suppressing them by making them not wanting to
risk drawing the heat from air units.
This suggestion would apply mainly for smaller units (e.g. infantry,
cavalry, walkers and vehicles up to say leman russ, falcon sized vehicles
(maybe +/-1 in the open, +/-2 in some kind of cover/concealment). Bigger
vehicles could get a +/-1 modifier if in cover at least as high or as
massive as themselves.
The idea is this modifier if the unit stays passive and does not move fast
(say advance rate or some distance (maybe 10cm) that would not throw up to
much of a cloud or create engine noise than they would if travelling
faster), or fires.
The reason for the +/- for the proposed modifier is because I am not sure of
the current (4.1) game mechanics as I have not met fliers in any game I have
played.
Your thoughts,
Darryl H
The theory and practice of gamesmanship or
The art of winning games without actually cheating.
(Title of book - Stephen Potter 1900-69)
>From: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
>Hi!
>
>How would these options translate in do game mechanics for epic?
See between **** ***** below (modified the paragraph from previous post
so it is clearer).
>Peter
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Darryl Hilbig" <darrylhilbig_at_...>
> > Just on the defence against air attack.
> >
> > Ground units have two options with regard to air defence, they are as
>follows:
> >
> > a. Active defence: the attempt to shoot down or make it harder for the
>air unit to place its ordnance where it needs to; and
> >
> > b. Passive defence: the use of camouflage and concealment by the
>ground unti so that the air unit does not know where, exactly, the ground
>unit is.
> >
> > Option a. is only useable against low level ground attack aircraft up to
>the maximum range of the small arms in use with the "wall of fire" concept
>of putting a wall of small arms automatic fire up in front of the air unit
>that it has to fly through on its way to the target. With the lethality of
>current ammunition and the lack of proper armour on most aircraft, this can
>be succesfful. But, this is only done very rarely by ground units,
>especially infantry who prefer option b..
> >
> > Option b. is the preferred choice by units as those that are stationary
>are both camouflaged and concealed from either recconaisance overflights by
>various methods and equipment against any sensors. Their other defence
>versus aircraft is concealment in overhead cover (which is unavailable to
>vehicles in Epic due to being unable to enter forested/wooded area or
>buildings)and dispersal (which really has no effect due to the way the
>system of firing works withing the game).
> >
> > So as a result of these defences, the flier may know the ground unit is
>in the area but not where. Just look at any air campaigns conducted from
>WW1 onwards in any area up to and including Afghanistan now.
> >
> > But, of these options, only the option which gives away your position is
>available to an 40K Epic commander.
*****Could a modifier be applied if the unit hasn't fired from that position
prior to that turn (or will not fire in that turn) modifies the attack of a
flier a couple of points worse than what it would be normally if the
unit(target) had fired/revealed its position.******
> >
> > Your opinions?
> >
> > Darryl H
> >
> > The theory and practice of gamesmanship or
> > The art of winning games without actually cheating.
> > (Title of book - Stephen Potter 1900-69)
> > >Hi!
> > >
> > >In essence if you dont have AA cover or flier cover and the enemy has
> > >fliers, you're in for a bad day. You can still win of course, but it
>isn't
> > >easy. It works like modern day stuff, you don't go into battle nowadays
> > >without air cover if you dont you get pounded.
> > >
> > >This was sort of intended, but I see your point. Many rules ahve been
> > >proposed to Address it, but none have passed muster. They either make
> > >fliers useless of are too complicated. Givng fire to infantry wihtout
> > >penalty makes it to easy to shoot down and AA units would be worthless.
> > >
> > >No doubt others will give their opinions too.
> > >
> > >Peter
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Sam Dale" <epic_at_...>
> > >To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 11:19 PM
> > >Subject: [NetEpic ML] Fliers..
> > >
> > >
> > > > Um. Something that was remarked upon in my gaming circle was the
>NetEpic
> > > > flier rules. Basically, the way they appear to work is that you have
>to
> > >take
> > > > AA weapons (or fighter aircraft) in every army or you can't touch
>enemy
> > > > fliers.
> > > >
> > > > Why was this route decided on? As it stands, i can fight a chaos
>army,
> > >take
> > > > a couple of companies of line troops backed up with several wings of
> > > > Marauders and maybe some Thunderbolts, and unless i attack Chaos
>Marines
> > > > (they'll need sixes to hit) or there's Doomwings present, there's
> > >nothing
> > > > that can do anything to stop them killing anything they choose to.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, the more fliers, the less to hold the objectives with, but if
> > >you've
> > > > got firepower to melt the enemy army away, it doesn't matter...
> > > >
> > > > Sam.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Mon Mar 18 2002 - 15:59:40 UTC