Hi!
Yes, that will also eliminate several difficulties as for calculating
battlegroup morale, suppression and a whole host of things. It keeps it
a lot simpler, but with the same amount of character.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Weasel Fierce [mailto:weasel_fierce_at_...]
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 1:35 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Heresy II Feedback
>1. The battlegroup concept works well. The number of command units has
>gone down and it gives them a sense of command and control. The sizes
>however are grossly overestimated. If you make an Ork battlegroup with
>the minimum amount of troops necessary you'll find you'll need over 100
>stands to fill the battlegroup spots a typical warband commander can
>offer. Of course this is too much. The solution however was staring me
>in the face. The army lists already list detachment sizes, so the
answer
>is simple a battlegroup IS ONE detachment. It still differs from the
>original concept due the way battlegroups work. This makes things
>manageable. For example one SM commander can attach up to 5
>battlegroups. Since a basic tactical detachment of 4 stands equates one
>battlegroup 5 battlegroups would be 20 stands (unlike 60 in the
previous
>scheme). For orks one ork command with maximum battlegroups runs at 36
>stands. A definite improvement.
Ahh. This means that a battlegroup will now contain only troops of the
same
kind ?
Weasel
How many lives will be taken today?
How many times will we just look away?
Pennywise - One voice
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
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 Sat Jun 01 2002 - 20:03:19 UTC