[NetEpic ML] Re: Pinning-the straw that broke the camel's back.

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:12:41 -0600


No sweat dude! Pinning in most games has a realistic and very useful
purpose, I just hate the way it can be abused and would like to fine tune
it. I guess fleshing out the pinning categories. clearly defining them has
to be the way to go.

It just occured to me that most dislike vehicle-infantry pinning or dual
CAF's, why not just them have one CAF (as it is now) but it applies to close
assault from infantry, when vehicles go into "close combat" why not just
have them "shoot" each other with standard weapons?

Just another random thought.


----- Original Message -----
From: Warprat <warprat_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 1:57 AM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Pinning-the straw that broke the camel's back.

> Hey Peter,
> Can't say that I agree with you here. Sorry, but I think pinning is very
> realistic. I LIKE pinning! I could easily live with the current rules.
> Of course, I think they could be improved somewhat.
> I think that people tend to confuse Close Combat and Pinning.
> Pinning represents a situation where a unit is forced to confront an
> equal or superior enemy that is posing an immediate danger to it. It
> must confront the danger or perish.
> Close Combat is initiated when a unit moves within 1cm of an enemy unit.
> This would usually involve pinning, but it dosn't have to. Close Combat
> is hand to hand fighting, shotguns, knives, grenades, titan fists, etc.
> Against a weak enemy, close combat poses little danger to a stonger
> unit, (Unlike pinning). Of course if the little guys gang up, there
> could be trouble.
> How is any of this artificial or counter intuitive?
> I can understand your fustration, however. Good rules don't have
> loopholes. We need to fix them if they are broken, or better explain
> them, if the rules are reasonable. This is where NetEpic really shines,
> and what makes this diverse group something to be really proud of.
> My personal feeling is that the Close Combat rules are one of the things
> that make Epic really fun to play and pinning plays a part in them. I'm
> not in favor or overruns or fighting a round of immediate close combat.
> Not because I think they are horrible ideas, quite the opposite, in many
> more detailed games and/or computer games, they work quite well. Epic
> is fun to play because you get to use a LOT of units. Simplicity is
> very important when attempting to use the human brain, especially mine!
> ;)
> I hope that my previous posts have not given the impression that Pinning
> and Close Combat are issues that are horribly broken and need to be
> eliminated. Yes, they could be tweaked a little, explained a bit
> better, but I would hate to loose the FUN that Pinning and Close Combat
> brings to the game.
> And of course any solution that I propose, HAS to be the BEST!! ;)
> Warprat
Received on Wed Jan 05 2000 - 00:12:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:50 UTC