[NetEpic ML] Re: Weapon revision: thoughts

From: Thomas Lawson <kurmark_at_...>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:44:33 -0600

> The dual attack system, while realistic, adds an unnecessary level of
> complexity to a game that revelled in its simplicity. The fact that
> Infantry can harm Armour at all is represented by the fact that most
> Infantry carry weapons that can deal with Armour (Missile Launchers,
> Lascannons, Meltaguns, Plasma Guns, etc). I admit that there are some
> Infantry units that should have no change of being able to shoot up a tank
> (like Gretchin and Ratlings) as they only carry small arms. So instead of
> a dual attack system like AT had, why not simply designate certain
Vehicles
> as "armour" and certain Infantry as "small arms" or something similar.
> Thus, we can introduce the simple rule that any unit designated as having
> "small arms" cannot harm any unit designated as "armoured". Thus, we have
> none of the silly situations where a unit of Gretchin, Ratlings, Ogryns or
> other similar infantry can take out a Land Raider, Rhino, Falcon or other
> similar armoured unit while still retaining the simple attack system that
> made Epic so pouplar in the first place. Even in 40K such units had zero
> chance of killing armour with weapons fire.

Kelvin, you are now my official spokesman when I aint around.

This sounds like an easier fix to the problem if indeed a change is
warranted. It would require only 3 designations be added to the game. Maybe
it should be listed in the weapon notes as Hard Attack, Soft Attack or
Hard/Soft. It should be pretty intuitive and only require looking at stats
for a few weapons.This way, some infantry units will be completely incapable
of knocking out a tank except for in CC. This is good as I have always felt
that tanks in Epic got blowed up real good all too easily....especially by
light infantry.

Anything that adds on simply, but doesn't require more numbers is a good
thing.
Received on Fri Dec 17 1999 - 06:44:33 UTC