Re: RE: [NetEpic ML] Additional Issues

From: Dave <warprat_at_...>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:34:33 -0000

Hi, Rune!!

I agree. This seems to be the most fair, and the most simple method.


Warprat ;)
 


--- In netepic_at_egroups.com, Karlsen Rune <rune.karlsen_at_e...> wrote:
> 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_h...]
> 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 - 21:34:33 UTC

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