Hi!
This seems reasonable to me, too. However, I don't see Close Combat as
desperate, just more dangerous. It would help out a lot in woods.
Warprat ;)
jyrki.saari_at_... wrote:
>
> IMO this would be reasonable since troops charging are making a desperate
> attempt to get up close and personal with the enemy, and if the enemy is
> prepared to fire at them a carnage follows. This is especially true when
> dealing with troops in fortifications. Those inside are just waiting for the
> enemy to get in range and have most likely cleared fields of fire and
> practiced concentrating their attacks.
>
> Jyrki Saari
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT Peter Ramos [mailto:pramos2_at_...]
> Sent: 14. June 2000 18:12
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Defensive first fire
>
> Hi!
>
> One thing I don't klike about units on first fire shooting at units that
> engage it is that there is no real danger for the assaulting force. The
> shots are taken normally just like any other shot. The risk is about the
> same which usually means not much. If you add that the attackers get cover
> modifiers of the terrain defensive fire is pretty lousy.
>
> In Heresy I resolved this with a higher probablility of hitting. This makes
> assaulting a defended prepared position dangerous, unlike now.
>
> We don't need any elaborate rules for this though, I wonder if a simple +1
> to hit would make it worthwhile.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Peter
> _____
>
> <http://click.egroups.com/1/4923/5/_/7255/_/960995559/>
> <http://adimg.egroups.com/img/4923/5/_/7255/_/960995559/PowerCash.gif>
>
> _____
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Missing old school friends? Find them here:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/5534/5/_/7255/_/961057798/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Thu Jun 15 2000 - 08:48:20 UTC
