Oops! This second paragraph might more sense with the [inserted] text
>
> 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 [they are] 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 ;)
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://click.egroups.com/1/338/2/_/7255/_/950773082/>
>
>
>
>
>
> eGroups.com Home:
<
http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic>
http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic
>
> www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
Received on Thu Feb 17 2000 - 15:56:43 UTC