Re: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] Buildings and fortifiactions

From: Zerloon <zerloon_at_...>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:41:24 +0200

At 16.42 28/04/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi!

Hi!!!!

>Buildings
>
>In AT terms all structures had a "damage rating" basically hit points or
>damage points. We can call then "structural points". The saves we keep
>as we have them know, on 2d6. A failed save usually subtracts ONE
>structural point. Some artillery (namely siege artillery like griffons
>and bombards) do more structural damage per failed save than standard
>artillery.
>
>Here are some examples of what building saves and structural points
>could be:
>
>1. Wood/adobe/ non-concrete or steel structures (i.e Orks huts). Save-
>9+ on 2d6, 1-2 structural points
>
>2. concrete, steel re-enforced (i.e standard imperial building). Save 6+
>on 2d6, 3 structural points.
>
>3. Fortifications- varies (will cove this separately after basic
>building rules).

I disagree, keep track of all building hit point is bothering. I'd like
city scenario, but the idea to keep track of 22 bulding make me very sad.


>Probability of collapse
>
>As buildings suffer damage they may collapse. Even without further
>firing at them. This is due to the damage suffered might be greater than
>expected. In every end phase roll a d6 for every building that has been
>damaged (doesn't matter when the damage occurred). If the die roll is
>equal to or less than the amount of structural points a building has
>suffered it collapses prematurely.

Same as above.


>Hitting buildings
>
>IN the old days you got a bonus, in net epic terms let's keep it simple
>and say a building is hit by any weapon on a roll of 2+. Let's face it,
>its improbable that a building will not be hit if someone wishes it to
>target it. Besides not all weapons can harm buildings so it only really
>affects those that can. Hitting a building is not the crucial points,
>it's the save. So hitting should be easy, but failing the save harder.

I agree, but at this point isn't easiest assume that ALL direct fire
automatucally hit a building?
More, Add that a building can be damaged ONLY by barrage (since is a
extensive damage) and by weapon with a modifier of -2 or more.


>Hitting buildings with troops inside
>
>This question is pretty common, what do I hit? The building? The troops?
>Or both?. For direct fire weapons (non-artillery barrages) the player
>should nominate that the target is the troops OR the building. Most of
>the time it's moot since most direct fire cannot harm the building, but
>for those cases it does the player must choose. Of course either course
>of action has its benefits of drawbacks (hitting the building is easy,
>but it has a high saving throw; hitting the troops is hard, but usually
>not save).
>
>Barrages always hit the building (it's inevitable) and the troops inside
>(as per barrage points and cover modifiers).

I'll keep the actual cover bonus of -2.


>Assaulting buildings
>
>Although common sense says some units just can't assault troops in a
>building it does not specifically say who can or can't. Therefore we
>must note what structures (and who can assault them). For example only
>infantry should be allowed to attack in close combat other infantry in
>buildings. On the other hand assaulting a trench, one can add more
>eligible units.

Ok


>Units like titans or knights with close combat weapons can damage
>buildings automatically being in base-to-base contact with them.

Ok


>That's the basics, pretty simple, much more informative and direct than
>what we have now. What follows are some of the "perks" I came up with.
>
>Defense against assault
>
>As it stands, there is no point beyond the cover modifier to hit, to
>actually defend a structure versus close combat. There is not benefit
>for being "dug-in" and receive a charge. We already have a dug-in order
>but its worth is dubious. So let's change what a "dug-in order can do:
>
>1. A dug in order may only be placed on a detachment that is currently
>within a structure or some sort (building, trench, etc). The dug in
>order affords the detachment a bonus in close combat and firing in the
>first fire phase. Note these bonuses ONLY apply if the unit has these
>orders. Detachments engaged in structures on any other orders DO NOT
>receive these bonuses. This adds a tactical benefit to assaulting units
>in structures BEFORE they consolidate, just like in real life.
>
>The CAF bonuses are as follows:
>
>+1 for defending in "light" structures (wood/adobe/non-concrete)
>+2 for defending in "medium" structures (like standard imperial
>buildings).
>+3 for defending in "heavy" structures (like fortifications).

mmmmm I'll don't add another order, but modify a preesistent, like First
Fire. But, i would make greater bonus but no shoots.


>Assault categories
>
>This is not so much a category as a widening definition of existing
>definitions. They refer to the units "ability" to engage units in
>structures.
>
>1. Excels at assault- these are units like the combat engineers where
>they negate the effects of the "dug-in" order. There are not many units
>like this and gives units like combat engineers added significance.
>
>2. Standard- these are the bulk or the units. They can assault but have
>to special bonuses or penalties. Dug-in counter bonuses apply as normal.
>
>2. Poor at assault- these units are just no good in an assault. They
>either can't assault (artillery) or very bad at it (vehicles) or too big
>(titans). These units only recourse is too reduce the structures by
>firepower.
>
>As you can infer you don't have to add anything to the units description
>since "artillery" will already define its assault capability, just as
>much as "infantry" or the "vehicle" designation will.

I disagree again ^___^ I don't like to add another classifications peraphs
just note about elite.


>And that's it! Pretty concise and simple.
>
>Comments?

not so simple... ^___^


>Peter

Zerloon
Received on Mon Apr 29 2002 - 23:41:24 UTC