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

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 20:13:16 -0400

Hi!

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.

---> You don't need to keep track of anything. These are AT rules and
back then you had rubble counters, so when a structural point is lost
just add one counter.

>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.

---> See 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?

---> Some chance of failure should exist, the d6 is not too robust, but
that's all we have, so a 1 in 6 change is the "least" we can do.

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.

--->There ARE direct fire weapons that harm buildings: the Cyclops main
gun, magnus's eye beam, quake cannon titan weapon so the generalization
"only artillery affects buildings" cannot be made. As you'll read in
another e-mail you cannot limit affecting buildings to -2 artillery
since you leave out thud guns and whirlwinds and quite a few other
artillery pieces that SHOULD affect buildings.


>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.

--->The cover bonus remains unchanged.

mmmmm I'll don't add another order, but modify a preesistent, like First

Fire. But, i would make greater bonus but no shoots.

Yes, it was also mentioned. The current idea is to use the same first
fire orders ,but expand the definition to include the above.


>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.

--->We are not adding any new classification, these are already (or will
be added due to the pinning rules) in the rules, they just have a
clearer meaning. Under notes you'll have "infantry" to define its
pinning class anyway, this only additional add that "infantry" has no
bonuses/penalties in close combat versus units in buildings. Note that
we are already adding in the core rules a section with definitions, so
adding more or less detail in a description is no big deal since we are
already doing it.


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

not so simple... ^___^

<grin> Oh yes it is....

Peter
Received on Tue Apr 30 2002 - 00:13:16 UTC