Re: [NetEpic ML] Epic WW1

From: <deaconblue3_at_...>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 12:59:33 -0400

I think that you should sacrifice historical corectness with making
things
as simple as possible. Taking IG as a starting point is excellent, and
most
infantry units should be more or less the same depending on from what
period
of the war you'd like to play.

-->This depends on what level of operations are being represented. On
smaller scales, the differences between say a German Infantryman in 1939
and 1945, are rather vast, while on say a Battalion level, they're fairly
insignificant (on a technical level, morale wise, it still matters).

I guess you could use NetEpic rules as a base for most types
of historical wargames. However, I think that roughriders are somewhat
more
efficient than their polish lancer comrads form the beginning of WWII.

-->I wouldn't suggest using a direct equivalents from NetEpic for WW2. I
would use the NetEpic mechanics, shooting, orders, armor saves, morale,
VPs, etc, but use new army lists for the historicals. That and I would
switch to a d10, as opposed to a d6. Using a d6 can get clunky,
depending on how much variation you want in the units.

Early WWII tank units should really suck when it comes to armour value,
range, firepower, armour piercing capability and CAF, continuing that
line
of thought the T34 should be close to a Land Raider with a turret and, I
guess the TIGER I and II's should come close to a Shadowsword in stats.

-->Example: the PZ-I was a MG tank, and rocked against infantry, but was
useless against armor or fortifications. So, it would have a higher CAF,
but no armor save (or a very poor one), and limited range, and a distinct
inability tot penetrate armor. Tigers were great armor busters, and had
good armor, but were awful in CC.



Minister for General Mayhem
"Don't let the bastards grind you down." Gen. Joseph Stilwell
Received on Mon Sep 04 2000 - 16:59:33 UTC