RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 10:35:27 +0300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext [mailto:jyrki.saari_at_...]
> Sent: 19 May, 2003 09:58
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
>
>
>
>
> > -----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.
>
[snip]

Clarifying myself: the detachment in question wouldn't _break_, eg. it wouldn't be on fall back orders. Instead it would just have to _withdraw_ xcm from the combat.

Jyrki Saari
Received on Mon May 19 2003 - 07:35:27 UTC