This is realistic, and the rule is a good and simple one. (As all rules
should be!)
However, for the game purpose I se no point in this. You would also have to
reduce the price of every single vehicle in the game...... I'm new to this
group, and do not know if this is a big issue. But really, why change a rule
that works just fine??? I do not think our local group will use this
rulechange.
Nils
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Ramos [SMTP:pramos2_at_...]
> Sent: 16. februar 2000 02:52
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Vehicle close combat
>
> Hi!
>
> The first issue to resolve is how vehicles engage in close combat.
>
> Having heard all the previous debate I have devised the simplest means of
> showing the vehicles "difference" without too many rules.
>
> Simply put, when a vehicle charges it uses the printed CAF listed in the
> rules (overrun attack). When the vehicle itself is charged use the half
> the printed CAF's value (round down).
>
> Example:
>
> A landraider CAF +3 charges a IG stand and gains it's +3 bonus as listed.
> The same Land raider gets bushwacked by a IG bike later in the game thus
> he gets a +1 (half of +3 rounded down).
>
> Note that once the vehicle "charges" it gets its full CAF regardless who
> countercharges it, the important thing is that the vehicle came full tilt
> and charge.
>
> Also terrain types like woods, rubble and cities the CAF could be halved
> by default due to the difficulty of these terrain features.
>
> Its not "classy" but to the point and gives a reasonable difference
> between infantry and vehicles.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Peter
> _____
>
> Win Big Prizes NOW at IGN.com!
> <http://click.egroups.com/1/1083/2/_/7255/_/950666109/>
> eGroups.com Home: <http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic>
> www.egroups.com <http://www.egroups.com> - Simplifying group
> communications
>
Received on Wed Feb 16 2000 - 07:33:46 UTC