Re: [NetEpic ML] More Design Issues

From: <jarreas_at_...>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:17:52 -0500

Here we go with another long ramble. I had a point when I started... really I
did...


> I just can't seem to stop on this...8P

*heh* I know the feeling - I just got handed a "go take these photographs,
clean 'em up and put 'em on the web page - today" job and here I am. *shrug*
When you're in hell, does it matter if the flames that burn you are a million
degrees or a billion?


> What exactly is the scale for NetEpic?
> Is it a 1:1 ratio for the
> models? Is it 5:1?

I've looked at it, compared infantry movement to vehicles to aircraft,
measured models, done some math about time frames & movement rates, and come
to one conclusion: it doesn't really matter.

I'll justify my opinion with only one reason - there are others but this is
the main one: it doesn't matter. It's a game, and the inherent question of the
system should be: does it play well?

Look, the unit movement / weapon range ratio is completely fucked for any sort
of realism - I mean, a trooper that can move further than he can shoot? A tank
cannon that shoots just as far as a hand-held one? Lack of range-finders?
Don't talk about realism - the system doesn't make real-world sense.

Fortunately, it doesn't need to. The game mechanics flow smoothly, the army
lists are reasonably balanced and the units are diverse within each army list.
IMHO, Net Epic succeeds - I have fun playing it and it's pretty easy to get
other folks into it, at least enough for a pick-up game and that (to me) says
a lot for a game. Yes, the fluff needs some work - I'll get into that later
(unless my boss wanders around again, in which case I'll have to send this off
and come back later). So, don't worry about it.

What we may have to do is define "epic." To me, an "epic" battle is
division-level involving hundreds of thousands of men. If each infantry stand
represents 1,000 men, it'd take 30 Imperial Guard companies to represent the
Soviet forces at the Seige of Leningrad. That was most certainly an epic
fight, but totally unreproducable in Net Epic - the scale just isn't there,
and if we try then the movement and line-of-sight rules become laughable.

If you really want numbers, 1:1 works, 1:2 is a little better and 1:5 lets you
fantasize about actually fielding a division. I used 1:2 when I developed my
flier rules - I'll dig up the math and justifications if you want to see it.
But it doesn't matter - realism doens't make sense so enjoy the fiction. This
is a game of battalion-level combat and we shouldn't become even more
unrealistic by saying it's anything else.


> Secondly, we're still at odds over what is
> "canon" and what is not.

True - IMHO, the GW timeline is weird. Really cool, but it doesn't make sense
in places. Humans have gone from "Fire - what a concept" to teleportation and
cybernetic eyes in 5000 years - why the **** did it take the Emperor 20,000
years to build his empire? *ahem* Sorry - I'll get off my soapbox now. Anyhow,
I had a few ideas a put 'em in my timeline. Let's bounce around a few more and
see what develops, but I don't want to hold up the rules development / army
revisions because of fluff - who *really* knows what happened 10,000 years
ago, and when you've got a wild-eyed, obscenity-screaming Chaos lunatic ready
to turn you into cream of lasagna, who *cares*?


> In general, I think that by trying to include
> everything in the core
> rules, we are creating an over burdened, weak
> set of rules,

You're partially right. One of my favorite quotes by Laz is "be a generalist -
specialization is for insects." I'll be going back over the core rules with an
eye towards both simplifying and ease of expansion. Special rules and unique
abilities wait for the appropriate army book. But by including (well, at least
mentioning) everything in the core rules, we give ourselves a solid framework
to build around. A short, condensed set of rules may not be burdened down with
dozens of abilities and notes, but neither can it mesh with the diversity of
Net Epic. Modular systems sound nice, but don't really work in complex
operations.
-Yar
Received on Fri Nov 22 2002 - 21:17:52 UTC