[NetEpic ML] Re: Vehicle close combat

From: Dan Lobb <danlobb_at_...>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 01:34:07 -0600

At first, I agreed with Warprat. However, I am not sure units on first
fire would have a lower caf, as they have presumably taken cover and are
laying in ambush for whatever comes their way. I would not say the CAF for
advance orders should be lower as they are carefully picking their way
toward the enemy, moving from cover to cover, so they are slow moving, but
not unalert. Charging units are the reckless groups that may have some
beneit in hand to hand by virtue of moment (= morale boost?), but I thought
the definition of Close Assault was a shootout at point blank range.

If I were making the rules, I would not adjust infantry CAF for these
reasons, but might give a bonus, (round up) to large vehicles attempting to
overrun infantry. Say Land Raider size and up. I don't think vehicles
should get this if charging units that are on the edge of woods or rubble
either. They could not continue at Charge rate through the position so they
can't the rounding up benefit in these cases. I do think they should be
able to charge units on the edge of the woods/rubble, just without the
rounding up bonus, proposed here.

Dan Lobb
(Opinionated Semi Lurker)


>
>>
>> Why not make it even more simple. A vehicle on Charge orders gets its
>> full CAF. A vehicle on First Fire or Advance gets half its CAF,
>> (rounded down).
>>
>> Since vehicles cannot enter woods or rubble on Charge orders, this
>> becomes a non-issue.
>>
>> To tell you the truth, however, I was one of the "Diehards" who voted
>> against changing the Close Combat system. But I could live with it if
>> instead of rounding down, we instead round up. I like the idea of
>> overruns; used it in a lot of "other" games. But I hate to see vehicles
>> with a low CAF of +1 get nothing more than a Rhino would, should it get
>> attacked.
>>
>> Hail to the "Old Guard"!
>>
>> Warprat ;)
>
Received on Thu Feb 17 2000 - 07:34:07 UTC