Hi!
No problem Jervis, feel free to comment on this or anything else that
catches your attention, we welcome input of all kinds and the points you
raise are darn good ones.
I think the rule change you use can be integrated easily, since it would
be an extension of the rule we already use. The way it could work is
thus:
1. Work out combat as normal.
2. Once a full round of combat is resolved roll 2d6 and add the amount
of casualties inflicted. Other modifiers can be tagged here too.
3. Loser retreats all units "x" amount of cm's away from combat.
That's a simple way of doing it, there are obviously other ways of
fitting it in.
As I mentioned in another post, this has been mentioned in the past
(cant remember the resolution though), but as Jervis pointed out the SM
system is very attrition based and does not "decisively" end a close
combat battle which can drag for turns (or the whole game if big
enough). Its been a shortcoming of the system that has been pointed out
before.
I missed bring it up when the revision started, but if there is interest
we can start it anew.
Comments and opinions please.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Jervis Johnson [mailto:jervisj_at_...]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 8:13 AM
To: 'netepic_at_yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
<<LURK MODE DEACTIVATED>>
> Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 05:50:39 -0000
> From: "Gustavius Q Knackerthrasha"
<justin.hewlett_at_...>
> Subject: Close combat..
>
> This simply prompted a long discussion about close combat.. In the
next
> few weeks we hope to test a few of the rules to try and make you
> carefully choose where and when you initiate Close Combat.. <snip>
>
I know I shouldn't really get involved on this, but this emaail peaked
my
interest as it touches on one of the areas where I feel that the SM/TL
is
really rather weak. Basically, SM/TL relies almost completely on
attrition
as a method of deciding who wins a close combat (i.e. it's pretty much
'last
mand standing'). This can make them drag on for a bit. On the other hand
if
you read books on modern warfare, one of the things that they emphasise
is
that assaults tend to be bloody but brief, and that one side or the
other
will either run off or surrender very quickly. Both E40K and now E:A try
to
address this problem by ensuring that after a round of combat has been
fought there will always be a result, and this result will force one
side to
fall back away from the combat. In E:A this is done by having _each_
side
roll 2D6. Then each player takes the higher of their two dice rolls and
adds
modifiers from the following chart. Why two dice? It makes the result
less
random than using a straaigh D6 while still allowing for some extreme
results.
The player with the lower roll has to fall back (make a double move away
from the enemy). If there is a tie then another round is fought
_immediately_ (very bloody ; )). I'm not sure how easily such rules
would
translate to the NetEpic, but you might want to give them a try...
> 1.12.7 Assault Modifiers
> (cumulative)
> For each kill you have inflicted during the assault
> +1
> You have more units than the opposing formation
> +1
> You have more than twice as many units as the opposing formation
+1
<Snip modifiers for blast markers, perhaps give a +1 for having charge
orders?>
Best regards,
Jervis Johnson
Head Fanatic
<<<LURK MODE RESTORED>>
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Fri May 16 2003 - 16:04:49 UTC