Hi Albert!
Yes, my Battle Plan was a bit of a gamble.
I always pick my forces out, before rolling randomly for terrain. But
this time was a little different. After rolling an excessive amount of
Buildings, hills, and forests, I designed an interesting senario to fit.
1/3 of the table was the outskirts of a massive city, divided in half by
a river. The other 2/3 of the table was the Emperor's Park, located on
a wide two level hill. The park had about 7 or 8 forests that contained
sacred temples, and one larger forest, near the city, where the river
emerged out of the ground, to divide the city in half. There was an
intact bridge to cross the river.
Because the forests were Holy, only mundane troops could enter them.
Greater Deamons, being powerfull, could force thier way in by force of
will, in all the forest shrines, except one. That was the River Shrine,
and was so Holy that NO Daemon, Greater or not, was allowed in.
To ballance this, all 8 objectives were used, and the River Shrine was
on the Chaos side, and worth 10vp.
To win the battle, one side would have to score 30pts. Chaos had 25pts.
in objectives by the end of turn two. 5pts. in objectives or broken
units would have meant victory for unspeakable evil. But, like I said
before, the Imperial Guard hammered away, turn after turn. Although it
will take untold years, to once again re-sanctify the forests, Chaos was
defeated.
Because of the table layout, the forces picked, and the relative
experience of the players, the battle was nip and tuck the whole game.
And a heck of a lot of fun, for everyone.
I agree with you, that changing tactics, is the key to victory. And
really, against an experienced Chaos General, I would have lost. But
playing with friends is more than just winning the game. When you play
with friends, you take more care to ballance things out, to not always
maximize your advantage. You try to be very fair. You play more to
have fun, and companionship, than to simply win. Although, winning is
always better than losing.
My pal has a very agressive playing style. Static defenses work pretty
well against him. Eventually, he will develope other tactical styles
to use, and make things more unpredictable for me.
One army he is experienced with, and uses quite well, is his Space Wolf
army. Drop Pods and Screaming Blood Claws exiting Thunderhawks,
supported by Wolf Priests, are an interesting challenge. Not to mention
the Command Terminators and Land Raiders.
Of course, static defence has no hope against the likes of the highly
mobile Space Wolves. Against them, a more agressive, mobile force is
needed.
And so on....
Your idea about the Deathstrikes, has merit. My personal feeling,
however, is that the points should be awarded, one point at a time, as
they are launched. I think the same rule should be applied to Ork Pulsa
Rockets, as well.
Warprat ;)
Albert Farr� Benet wrote:
> Well, it's not a bad battleplan. I see a excessive lack of mobility in favor
> of static defense against Chaos. I think you were lucky because if your
> opponent had seen your lack of mobility perhaps he could have applied
> another tactic different from an assault (and you might have experienced
> some problems). I would have changed one tactical company for a Rough Rider
> or 2 bikes and possibly go for easiest objectives. In a 3k match objectives
> DO matter a lot. They are 88% of your Winning points. Anyway, that's only a
> little diference from one "general" to another and perhaps it wouldn't have
> changed anything, it's just a matter of personal favoured tactics.
>
> What I am trying to say is that armies in NetEpic are more flexible than
> most of the people think. Of course you cannot expect IG making fast mass
> assaults like SM but that doesn't mean you cannot try some kind of outflank
> or envelope tactic.
> I think that the key to victory is to surprise your enemy. Against a bad
> player you can apply GW tactics, but against a good player you can't. They
> are far too predictable. My main army is SM (my own chapter) and most of the
> matches I payed were against orks. There were times when I fielded 20% more
> infantry than orks only with Marines! I've never lost against orks. The
> second foe I've faced most, and the one which has defeated me the most, are
> Squats. I found their war machines absolutely unbalancing until... I found
> the weak point. NO TITANS. NO TANKS. Just infantry. Lots of infantry. Oh,
> yes, and Rhinos and gunships and some Land Raiders with Terminators to
> secure objectives. And the same against Chaos (another difficult one for
> me).
>
> I think that when this text will arrive to you, your questions will have
> been already answered, but anyway:
>
> Deathstrike are fine to break high numbers of enemy troops or to destroy
> difficult war machines, and it's true, killing the firing trucks once the
> missiles are gone is stupid. But I think VP should be scored once two
> missiles have exploded, either by hitting it's target or because they have
> fallen due to enemy fire. Not before. And I don't think they are SO cheap.
> They MAY have a devastating effect but as I said, I wouldn't buy more than
> one Det. for every 5k.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Old school buds here:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/7081/6/_/7255/_/963960402/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Wed Jul 19 2000 - 06:32:59 UTC