RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:58:23 +0300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Weasel Fierce [mailto:weasel_fierce_at_...]
> Sent: 16 May, 2003 20:07
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
>
>
>
>
> >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:
> >
>
> The real problem with "decisive" systems like this is that
> they lead to
> weird situations where a detachment of 10 stands breaks
> because one is
> killed in close combat.
>

Which has happened in "RealWurld" more often than not. Especially if the 10 stand unit has failed to inflict any casualties on the enemy. I think that is better than a CC which drags on and on until one side is totally terminated. CC rarely is a battle of attrition after all.

Besides, it's entirely possible with the current rules that a 10 stand detachment, which has _not_ taken _any_ casualties, breaks because of shooting. How? well, if the IG company in question loses 1,5 platoons (15 stands) to shooting the intact platoon has a 50% chance of breaking.

> Problem really originates from the way that close combats
> occur between
> individual models, rather than detachments
>

Which the suggested rule would IMNSHO go a long way fixing.

>
> Weasel

Jyrki Saari
Received on Mon May 19 2003 - 06:58:23 UTC