Hi!
I agree Jyrki, since you been around as long as I, you'll remember
discussing this before, but I cant remember what the problems were to
incorporate such a rule. Do you?
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: jyrki.saari_at_... [mailto:jyrki.saari@...]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 9:02 AM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jervis Johnson [mailto:jervisj_at_...]
> Sent: 16 May, 2003 15:13
> 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,
Ah HA! Now we got you!! ;o)
> 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').
I didn't think about this whe the CC rules were discussed, but both you
and the original poster are IMO right about this.
> 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?>
>
Elite: +1
Fearless: +1
Causes terror: +1
This is IM(NSH)O worth testing; and I don't think it would be too hard
to incorporate. Just make the roll after the first round has been
fought, add the modifiers and apply result. Maybe as an optional rule?
> Best regards,
>
> Jervis Johnson
> Head Fanatic
>
Jyrki Saari
> <<<LURK MODE RESTORED>>
P.S. Thanks for the plastics!
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 - 17:53:28 UTC