Re: [NetEpic ML] More Design Issues

From: <deaconblue3_at_...>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:54:00 -0500

When you're in hell, does it matter if the flames that burn you are a
million
degrees or a billion?

-->Why yes it does matter. I prefer medium to well done after all...8)


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 think it does matter. Not in a hard numbers sense, but in terms of
design, it has to be factored in. What exactly are we trying to
represent in playing an Epic battle? The actual numbers are irrelevant,
but a general sense of are we fielding regiments, battalions, divisions,
or true armies? this underpinning of thought colors all else that
transpires. this is especially true when designing the army lists for
the various powers that be. Some of teh "army lists" IMO shouldn't be
available as separate entities at all. SOB comes to mind. Not that the
list is bad, or the units unbalanced, but that they are a support unit,
and don't field a full force on their own. same applies to TechGuard
IMO.
 
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?

-->the core rules are fine, with very few exceptions that still don't
quite work right. It's teh army lists where we're running into problems.
 Mechanically, I think NetEpic is solid. It's when it comes to armies,
and all the inherent complaints revolving around each that we are getting
bogged down with perceptual issues, and some whining about "why can't I,
it doesn't say I can't." I think we would be better served, as a whole
(and not on individual bases), to pare down the army lists to the most
common available in the current setting (M41). From there we can provide
lists for anything and everything under the sun if that what people want
to do. In some cases argued so far, I see some of the same bad decisions
being made here, as were made in E40K. I'd like to avoid that if at all
possible.

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


-->I agree on providing a foundation in the core rules. No issue at all
there. It is the army books themselves where I'm taking issue. I think
we've gone way overboard in generating new army lists, and new units for
those lists. I believe that some can be condensed into others where they
more appropriately belong IMO. The core rules need to cover all teh
common aspects of the universe. Concpets and mechanics pertinent to all
armies. and yes it can mesh with the diversity of NetEpic. If two
people play Orks and Eldar, do they need the Imperial or Chaos book?
Does a Bug player need the Squat book? They shouldn't. I hate to point
it out to you, but NetEpic, by its very nature is modular. You don't
need every book we make to play. You can mix and match as you please
among the books, requiring only the core rules and the appropriate army
book. In no way was I implying that the basic mechanics should be
modular (though they are in many ways), but that players shouldn't need
all the army books just to play Orks vs Imperials. And consider this,
perhaps we have gotten too complex with NetEpic, and need to scale back a
bit. Just a thought...

Josh R

"No matter where you go, there you are." B.Bonzai
Received on Sat Nov 23 2002 - 07:54:00 UTC