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

From: Steve Kerry <steve_kerry_uk_at_...>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:12:44 +0100 (BST)

I think the idea of damaged buildings that may or may
not fall down each turn is excellent! Rubble counters
could be used, or dice sitting on the roof to show how
many points of damage each one has taken. Keeping
track on bits of paper should be avoided at all costs.

When a building does fall, it spreads debris over a
large area and can sometimes knock other buildings
down as a result (there was a gruesome example in New
York where the twin towers fell straight down rather
than toppling over, but took several more buildings
with them anyway). Certainly any infantry or vehicles
adjacent to a collapsing building would be wiped out.

Any large gun should be able to damage a building, but
it needs to be an artillery piece not a bolter or
lasgun. Thudd guns would be ideal for demolishing
office blocks! I can't see how a Vindicator could
fail to blow holes in a fortress or bunker, either.
Perhaps the requirement is for artillery or vehicle
mounted guns rather than hand-held weapons? TSM's
would still be relevant as some guns are bigger and
noisier than others.

Hmm, what about a stand of Human Bombs running into a
building and going boom from the inside? That would
certainly make a big dent!

Infantry defending a building should certainly gain an
advantage from outside attackers, as they are
defending a fortified position. But only the
attackers are also inside the building, neither side
would gain much of an advantage over the other.

Just some thoughts to encourage discussion...

Steve


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Received on Tue Apr 30 2002 - 10:12:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:59:37 UTC