[NetEpic ML] Re: Let the Revision begin!!

From: Millers <herblady_at_...>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 21:29:39 -0600

        hi all,
    heres my suggestions,
        1, a, please leave as is, maybe a weapon does have a certain trouble with hitting infantry but for overall game mechanics its best not to get to literal.

        2, a, yes some titans are prone to be destroyed but again its the overall effect that we're after. If titans can't be killed the game will devolve into a really complicated game of battletech. i like the idea of little creatures killing the big guys. without it you lose the fell of urgency in the game.

        3, b, but please go easy,, i think peter has the right idea here, and sappers are a real concept that is easy to adapt to the game
                carry on, damian
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Peter Ramos
  To: netepic_at_egroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 6:28 PM
  Subject: [NetEpic ML] Let the Revision begin!!

  Hi guys!

  As most net epic old hands know once I get free time I start my usual barrage of posts. Again I thank "Weasel" for starting this off.

  Ground rules

  1. Everything is voted on before its passing, majority vote of 2/3 is needed to pass a specific entry
  2. Core rule revisions will be tackled first
  3. Army lists with unit by unit analysis of stats and rules
  4. Alternate rules

  The first couple of issues will be of course the latest hottest topics on the list:

  Infantry saves and titans

  No the vote that follows is to assess need for a change, not what the change is. I need consensus as far as this before we start making up rules. It seems that the opinions may have fluctuated since the last vote.

  Issue #1

  Infantry saves

  A. Leave as is
  B. Change

  My personal take. I have heard all the opinons on this and currently I am swaying to leave as is. Reasons: no system no matter how simple has unforseeable changes since it affects a whole host of other rules. Also I feel that infantry SHOULD be easily elimimated as the rules currently are. I played AT extensivley and I remember how long and horrid it was to have a game with infamtry saves. The increase in realism really kills playability. Also I think we should revise the WEAPONS not the infantry saves, since some weapons or are too weak of too effective. What are the infantries strengths? free movement in dense terrain and buildings and increased ability to assault vehicles. With these in mind I vote "A".

  Issue #2

  A. leave as is
  B. change

  My take is that they need a change, but not a drastic one. As a matter of fact the best idea I have heard is to increase the possibility of repair of shields. This simple change would be very profound. Also I would fiddle with the actual saves per location. Note giving titans a save on 2d6 sounds simple but it may be too powerful. The average weapon save modifier is -2 making most weapons hardly effective. Changing armor saves is simpler and more balanced, sites like the reactor and such can have an armor of "0" (as some suggested) and so forth, while weapon mounts still have crummy saves. As far as the power of shields, be cautious. An y change here may have big effects. For smaller titans I'd leave as is, but for warlords and bigger ones maybe shields that require -2 weapons is the way to go, after all these can shunt more energy to their shields. Well the exact changes we can hammer out later, my vote is "B"

  Issue #3

  Close combat

  A. leave as is
  B. change

  My vote is "B", but not as far as the general mechanic with we should keep, but as far as the interaction of infantry with vehicles and titans. I think vehicls should have high CAF when they charge and low ones when caught in a charge, in short words the old AT overun system was simple and easy to adapt. As far as with titans I'm not sure but I am disatisfied with the current state of affairs.

  These are but a few to get the ball rolling, please submit more issues if necessary and comment on the ones listed.



  Click here!
  eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic
  www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
Received on Sat Dec 18 1999 - 03:29:39 UTC

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