RE: [v5.0] Buildings and fortifiactions

From: Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_...>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:33:46 -0400

>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.

I don't have any AT rules or counters and I don't want to have another
dozen bits of paper on the battlefield. I agree that damaged and unstable
buildings are nice, but I'd prefer to put them into optional rules. In the
basic game a building should be either 'there' or 'not there'.


>>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.

This seems rather redundant - units that excel in assault have a high CAF.
That's part of the definition of the Close Assault Factor. I've made the
suggestion below that units inside a building get +2 CAF, and for a game as
styilized as Epic I think it's appropriate. City-fighting is nasty and
vicious and deadly, and I'd rather simplify it than come up with a new
special ability.


>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.

Why should some chance exist? A guardsman has a 1-in-3 to hit a small,
dodging target - a building is much larger and doesn't move at all. Unless
we include rules for "bonus to hit a vehicle because it's bigger than an
infantryman" and "penalty to hit because it move more than half it's
maximum" I'm going to vote and push for "you can always hit a building."
Now, I'll admit that *damaging* a building is different - a lasrifle should
not be able to hurt a concrete building on this game scale. That's what the
building's armor save is for: a 3+ on 2d6 is pretty darn tough.

Now I'm going to start making suggestions. When I say "building" I'm
referring to buildings, strongholds, bunkers and the like. Trenches are a
special case as they're destroyed by the centimeter and not as a whole, but
that'll be noted in the Trench description. How's about:

 1) Any weapon fired at a building will hit it. If you want to hit units
inside a building, you have to target them (and not the structures) and
suffer a -2 To-Hit penalty. And just because you hit doesn't mean you've
damaged it.

 2) Template weapons auto-hit buildings but you still have to roll for
units inside at -2.

 3) Non-artillery weapons can't hurt buildings. Titan template weapons and
anything listed as "Damages Buildings" can.

 4) When a building gets hit it must make an armor save on 2d6 to remain
standing. If a structure collapses, all units inside are destroyed with no
save.
        6+: Lightweight materials or shoddy construction (1-in-3 falling down at 0
TSM)

        4+: Typical steel & concrete buildings (1-in-12 of falling down at 0 TSM)

        2+: Fortifications (not falling down at 0 TSM - you need big guns to take
'em down)

 5) Only infantry pinning-class units (infantry & light artillery) can
enter buildings (artillery bunkers are an exception listed in their
description). The next size up (cavalry & walkers) can engage units inside
in Close Combat but may not enter. Everyone else must either shoot at units
inside or engage the building itself.

 6) Units in a building get +2 to their CAF. It doesn't matter if you're
attacking, defending or if you're both inside - it's harder to kill someone
who's in a building.

 7) If you Close-Assault a building, it must make it's armor save at a -2
penalty. You count as "immobilized," meaning you don't get the normal 2d6
CAF roll if anyone else tries to kill you in Close Combat - and you'll
probably die before you can bring the building down.


That last item hasn't been brought up before. CAF weapons can kill tanks
with no save - I figure they can do just as much damage to a building. I
like the concept of 'close combat is really deadly' and I'm willing to
argue it into the building rules.

And as a final note: yes, I am treating all buildings as one-dimensional.
Convenience has won out over multi-level rules in this case, though if
you've got a convenient way of making buildings that hold models on many
levels I'd really like to know about it.
-Yar
Received on Tue Apr 30 2002 - 03:33:46 UTC