RE: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic WW2 (loong)

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 15:36:30 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT Weasel Fierce [mailto:septimus__at_...]
> Sent: 01. November 2000 12:55
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic WW2 (loong)
>
>
>
>
> >
> >I see, In that case a bazooka unit wouldn't have many stands
> (probably just
> >one stand or two at most), since they weren't that numerous.
> Only about two
> >per platoon.
>
> Yup. Actually, I was thinking of breaking with "only one type
> of stand in a
> detachment" and make detachments or battlegroups consisting
> of different
> types of troops.
> An infantry battlegroup would primarily consist of rifle
> troops, but have
> the odd MG, bazooka, mortar or other such support stands.
> Propably resulting in something slightly similar to E40K organisation
>
>
> >Each AT capable weapon would have a penetration rating and
> instead of save
> >each tank would have armor value. When a hit is scored the armor is
> >subtracted from the penetration. The resulting number is
> what the shooting
> >player must roll <= to destroy the tank. The armor value is massively
> >reduced if shooting from the side or rear. Personally I
> would like each
> >tank
> >have two armor values (front and side/rear) to increase
> realism, but since
> >this opinion is unlikely to get general approval I must be
> content with
> >just
> >one.
> >
>
> Isnt this really just a reversed saving throw??????
>

No, since armor can be greater than 10 (1+ if saving throws are used) and
penetration can be greater than 10 (-10 in case of save modifiers). A King
Tiger would have armor of about 14 and its KwK would have penetration of
about 13.

> BTW: Tanks suffer -1 to saves in the sides now in NetEpic, if
> using d10 I
> would suggest using -2 for side shots and -3 or even -4 for
> rear shots.
>

-4 would suffice for both; the difference between side and rear armor
usually wasn't that great.

> >Of course, this is radically different from the save based system of
> >NetEpic, and may even be too complex for the "simple
> faction". However,
> >this
> >is my take on the system.
> >
>
> Sounds reasonable, but I think it can be done in pretty much
> the same way
> with saving throws. We can just apply very low saves to some
> units, possibly
> even 1+ or 0+ to reflect that some vehicles are so heavily
> armoured that
> regular troops would be unable to hurt them.
>

For the real beasts (King Tiger, Stalin, Etc.) the save would have to be
negative...

>
> One more thing: I want to use two CAF values for troops. One
> for infantry
> targets and one for armored targets.
> Oh, and make away with tanks assaulting each other
>

My thoughts exactly. Vehicles would have higher CAF for overruns and lower
CAF for the
other situations,like in AT, reprsenting the fact that vehicles are much
more vulnerable if ambushed. Also, I would recommend passing a morale check
before assaulting an AFV, it requires a lot of guts.



Jyrki Saari

-There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time is
money.
Received on Wed Nov 01 2000 - 13:36:30 UTC