RE: [NetEpic ML] Additional Issues

From: Karlsen Rune <rune.karlsen_at_...>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:19:22 +0200

        I agree in principle. But, if such a move is implemented, it
shouldn't
        be an additional bonus to movement. Why not simply allow all inf.
        to use any remainder of their move after CC, as long as they do not
        move into another CC or take another OP?

        Rune

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Weasel Fierce [mailto:septimus__at_...]
                Sent: 2000-04-22 19:48
                To: netepic_at_egroups.com
                Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Additional Issues


>
>I'm not so sure about this. In my view if you don't support
an attack
>adequately and permit nearby support on advance to clean
you out after an
>assault the player didn't do his job.

                My reasoning for an advance rule is not to prevent fire on
the assaulting
                troops, but rather to make assaults a bit more worthwhile,
and to represent
                how troops go "over the top" to take an objective.

                After annihilating the enemies holding their objectives, I
feel that the
                infantry should be able to follow up and move unto whatever
their enemies
                were defending. If they can't do this, why should they
assault in the first
                place???



        
________________________________________________________________________
                Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com


        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                eGroups eLerts
                It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
                http://click.egroups.com/1/3079/3/_/7255/_/956425703/
        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                
Received on Tue Apr 25 2000 - 07:19:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:58 UTC