[NetEpic ML] Re: Weapon revision: thoughts

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:11:17 +0200


-----Original Message-----
From: EXT Peter Ramos [mailto:pramos2_at_...]
Sent: 17. December 1999 5:50
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Weapon revision: thoughts

If the infantry save vote goes as the trend indicates, changes in weapon
stats will be the next step. Here are some idle thoughts regarding that
1. weapons with modifiers (anti-tank), should have a reduced hit probability
versus infantry, due to size and nimbleness. If hit however they should be
toast. Only units with super heavy armor (termies) will get a save.
JS: I don't think it is that simple. There has been discussion how hard it
is to hit infantry with a 120mm cannon. Sure, if you use APFSDS it IS hard
but who is stupid enough to do that? A HE round from a 120mm is another
thing. Lascannon would probably have a hard time hitting infantry but a
volcano cannon (defence laser) wouldn't. In AT/SM1 it used a template. So I
don't think a save modifier is a good measure of accuracy.
2. Small weapons should have higher to hit values. their use is very
limited, bolters and such may be a 5+ to hit but heavy bolters should be
more accurate (4+)
JS: Yep. Heavy bolters are like machine guns after all.
These changes should be simple, but will add a lot of tactics. Tanks will be
used as such and infantry will tend to target infantry units, but be
occasional able to shot down a tank. By far close assault will be the most
effect method to take out tanks by infantry.
Any other ideas?

 click here <http://clickhere.egroups.com/img/001749/hbe_holly_1108.gif>
Click here!
eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic
www.egroups.com <http://www.egroups.com> - Simplifying group communications
Received on Fri Dec 17 1999 - 10:11:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:49 UTC