Hi!
Yes, I have thought of that too. For example wall fortifications would
have saves and structural points per wall segment (which would be left
open so as not to cramp anyone's terrain building options). The same
would happen with real large buildings like some of those that came with
TL, they could "fall" in sections each section having the same stats as
a "Standard imperial building.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Millett, George [mailto:George.Millett_at_...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 6:29 AM
To: 'netepic_at_yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] RE: [v5.0] Buildings and fortifications
As another alternative what about the demolishing of various wings of
the
building. By either having a table saying how many wings a building can
have
of mutual agreement depending on its size.
Then when that portion of the building is hit it will collapse in to
rubble
with the usual affect but leaving the rest of the building intact.
It would the have the advantage of having the building collapses in
stages
but would also remove the need for counters representing each Structural
point done
G
-----Original Message-----
From: Jarreas Underwood [mailto:jarreas_at_...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:34 AM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] RE: [v5.0] Buildings and fortifiactions
>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
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Tue Apr 30 2002 - 12:04:22 UTC