RE: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic WW2 (loong)

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:28:56 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT Weasel Fierce [mailto:septimus__at_...]
> Sent: 02. November 2000 11:46
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic WW2 (loong)
>
>
> >
> >Ah! Sounds reasonable.
>
> Hopefully. The diea being that I refuse to believe that
> infantry moving
> forward will be able to fire at full efficiency.
>
> You can argue that this is reflected by delaying shots to the advance
> segment, but the problem is that the volume of fire,
> representing the actual
> amount of ammunition being fired accurately, is the same.
>
> Troops wont be able to aim their fire as accurately when advancing or
> redeploying.
>
> >This sounds a lot more reasonable, By the way how would
> machine guns and
> >such affect tanks? some have relatively high save modifiers.
>
> They are too high. The MHG would have -1 and the rest of the
> small arms
> should propably not have mod's.
>
> The reasoning is that machineguns (especially .50 ones) can
> destroy tracks
> and destroy similar exposed stuff, which can immobilize the tank.
>
> Immobilized vehicles are likely to be abandoned by the crew and would
> effectively count the vehicle as destroyed.
>
>
>
> Alternatively, we could divide units into light and heavy.
> A jeep might have a 7+ light save while a Panzer IV could get a 3+ H
>
> All weapons have their save mod listed as light or heavy.
> Light weapons are only subtracted from light armoured units,
> while heavy
> weapons have their modifier applied to all targets.
>
> How does this sound??????

Good, even if I probably make and use the penatration based system ;-)

Jyrki Saari

-There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time is
money.
Received on Thu Nov 02 2000 - 13:28:56 UTC