Hi Eivind!
The final results both give about the same casualties. But they differ
GREATLY on how the various units from both sides are left at the end of
the turn.
Your way, is neat and sanitary. The many substeps create a situation
where the enemy armies are divided at the end of the turn. In essence,
the Close Combat burns itself out in ONE turn.
The original method, (which I gave an example for), is NOT neat and
sanitary. Big battles will rage for at least a couple turns, as the
game goes on. Survivors from both armies the first turn, will be locked
on the second turn. It's very messy, but more realistic.
My vote is for the "Down and dirty", method of the the original rules.
Huge Close Combat battles, that take on a life of thier own. More like
the raging inferno, a big battles should be.
Comments?
Warprat ;)
eivind borgeteien wrote:
>
> Hi!
> Glad you finally got the powerpointpresentation!
>
> I dont think there are much difference between how you want do CC and
> how we do it. Its just a question of procedure, the final result wont
> be of any significant difference.
>
> Eivind
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: warprat [mailto:warprat_at_...]
> Sent: 1. november 2000 14:10
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Core Vote
>
> Hi Eivind,
>
> OHHH BOY, does your example look WRONG to me!
>
> In your example, I would do the following, after FF is done:
>
> 1) Pair the combats.
>
> A) sm7, ork4
> B) sm8, ork5
> C) sm9, ork6
> D) sm10, ork7
> E) sm11, ork8
> F) sm12, ork9
> G) sm5, ork3
>
> The Marine player, having troops doubled up, must make the following
> choices:
>
> H) sm1 or sm2, must attack ork1. The extra stand (say sm1), may
> double
> up on ork1, OR ork4.
> G) sm3 or sm4, must attack ork2. The extra stand (say sm4), may
> double
> up on ork2, OR ork7.
>
> 2) All pairs fight ONE round of Close Combat, if two units are
> fighting
> one enemy, the second stand gets to add 1d6.
>
> 3) The combat is resolved one pair at a time.
>
> 4) Any surviving stands still pinned by an enemy unit, at the end of
> the
> turn, will possibly fight a round of Close Combat in the next turn.
>
> 5) The surviving detachments (on both sides) may be given any order on
>
> the next turn, but any units still pinned in the next turns Close
> Combat
> Phase, must fight a round of Close Combat.
>
> What does everyone else, including Peter, think?
>
> Warprat ;)
>
> eivind borgeteien wrote:
> >
> > Here is tha powerpoint presantation. Hope it shows up!
> >
> > Eivind
> >
> > <<CC%20example[1].ppt>>
> > ###########################################
> >
> > This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft
> > Exchange.
> > For more information, connect to http://www.F-Secure.com/
> >
> > Name: CC%20example[1].ppt
> > Part 1.2 Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
> > Encoding: base64
>
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> ###########################################
>
> This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft
> Exchange.
> For more information, connect to http://www.F-Secure.com/
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Thu Nov 02 2000 - 13:42:46 UTC