Hi!
I have shifted one way, then another over this issue. I'm beginning to think
that leaving it as is may be an option. At this point no option is all that
simple with exceptions and more rules being piled on. Also I'm not convinced
any of these are better probability wise than the old defense system, which
even with its short comings gave the desired result of nullifying the swarm
effect and limitimg infantry assaulting titans. In addition this system has
been tested and works, in spite of its clunkiness. Perhaps modify that
system better than a new system
The more I think about it the less enthusiasm I have with any of hte
proposed ideas.
Well, in a couple of more days depending on traffic well put up the modified
vote up again with all the alternatives favored.
Peter
>you got it i like the old system def. guns fire and
>the cc is fought after that if any inf is left that
>is.
>this works and is simple. enought said!!!!!!!
>
>--- Steven <snew1_at_...> wrote:
>> We've had some great ideas tossed around and a lot
>> of hard thought
>> put into the subject of Titan CC but is it really
>> that important? Any
>> one of these will do. Titans ARE vulnerable to
>> infantry! That's why
>> the Tech-Guard have Titan defence companies. These
>> are their machines
>> and they realize they need to have infantry around
>> to protect them
>> from other infantry. If the Marines borrow one for a
>> campaign and
>> then leave it all alone, it should die!!! Even scout
>> titans (which
>> will easily outpace defenders) are only meant to
>> soften up and expose
>> the squishy underbelly of the enemy force. Titans
>> were never meant to
>> be all powerful.
>>
>> In NetEpic, numbers rule. Titans are usually little
>> more than a
>> nuisance, but they sure are cool. They can, and do,
>> go down. Point a
>> Land Raider Co at one for a turn and see what
>> happens. Those 20 shots
>> erradicate those shields and leave it vulnerable to
>> anyone.
>>
>> Infantry going after one should be a last ditch
>> effort, and it should
>> have a high price in casualties, but it should be
>> effective.
>>
>> Everyone's had great input, and should be
>> congratulated on some fine
>> ideas, But we need to concede some of our feelings
>> to try and
>> consolidate some of these into a useable system. The
>> longer this goes
>> on the further away from our goal we get.
>>
>> SNEW
>>
>>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
>http://invites.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Apr 17 2000 - 17:27:02 UTC