Well, if we go down this road and makes some rules for withdrawal from CC, I feel we have to be consistent.
One question pops up: Why would casualties taken from CC be any different from casualties taken from incomming fire?
Eivind
>
> Fra: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
> Dato: 2003/05/19 Mon AM 11:09:09 CEST
> Til: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Emne: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
> > Sent: 19 May, 2003 11:15
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
> >
> >
> > My take on this is that as long as the detachment isn't
> > broken, they still have the will to fight, and you can
> > command them to do whatever you wish.
> >
>
> Problem is, with the current morale rules the troops are either just fine or completely broken. There's nothing in between. Troops don't care the least if they're shot at as long as they haven't reached that mystical break point, at which point they either go on fighting untile they're wiped out or run for it. If they run for it and rally, they go on as above.
>
> > But thats me being a very dedicated member of the Keep It
> > Simple Society, and in fact running for presidency of the If
> > It Aint Broken Dont Fix It Club. :-)
> >
>
> "Broken" is obviously a relative term; I consider the current "it-ain't-over-until-the-other-side-is-wiped-out" rules to be broken.
>
> > I dont think I will ever use such CC-rules, but I could
> > perhaps live with it as an optional rule for you heretics. :-)
> >
> >
> > Eivind
> [snip]
>
> Jyrki Saari
>
>
> 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 Mon May 19 2003 - 09:32:43 UTC