Re: [NetEpic ML] Close combat interpretations: the good,the bad and what to do.

From: Andy Michaud <amichaud_at_...>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 23:13:10 -0700

I think that this is a great idea. Its sounds like it would work out
very well and also add more flavor.

Andy

> Peter Ramos wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>
> Nothing engenders conversation than a good ol' discussion about the
> core mechanics. The latest one is regarding which interpretation to
> follow. As everything in life there's two sides to the coin let's go
> in to them regarding the two alternatives:
>
> 1. Attackers can selectively engage troops and gang up on specific
> units while not engaging others.
>
> The good.
>
> A certain amount of tactics goes into assaulting a position by this
> method, more so if you are attacking with a smaller elite force.
> Anything that adds some thought to the game is a good thing and there
> is a certain amount of punch and counter punch to be done. Players
> must more cautiously use reserve since a small force may attack a
> flank of a superior foe and leave the others out to dry. The
> resolution is dirty and chaotic, but an aura of uncertainty as to the
> outcome keeps players guessing. Also armies that rely on small hard
> hitting troops can really maximize what they do best (i.e aspect
> warriors)
>
> The bad
>
> The so called "tactics" does permit an unhealthy amount of cheese
> mongering since you can by pass a carefully laid out defense by
> pinning the few models that compose one flank and take the objective
> with a second unit without much risk or loss. This also provokes
> cheese from the defense too, since the defending player can use such
> infamous tactics as "Pete's Hanovarian square" tactic, where you place
> your models side by side in a square (or circle) and place one unit in
> the interior of the position to hold the objective. There is no way
> the opponent can charge and engage that last stand in one turn. Many a
> game has been lost this way with one stand holding the objective in a
> sea of enemy models. It's a legal move but cheesy in extreme. In
> addition to enengage some and not others leads to highly unrealistic
> methods of making VP's. If the game is constantly in motion, it kinda
> sucks to see 3 out of 5 models engaged on purpose so as to break them.
> also combat tend to drag out to much with the charge and counter
> charge that occurs in subsequent turns.
>
> 2. Attackers MUST engage all units within reach once before ganging up
> occurs.
>
> The good
>
> Combat is treated more as a group-to-group affair as in essence it
> should be. Numbers mean something, as a numerically superior foe
> should and can have an edge under these rules. Combat tends to be
> slighly more decisive and ends in a turn or two. Its more orderly and
> easier to keep track of. It also avoids cheesy ploys regarding
> positioning of troops like above.
>
> The bad
>
> A certain amount of thought is lost in this process and thus some
> tactics. The group-to-group affair eliminates the wise opponents
> capitalizing on the fioes bad deployment. The defender has to think
> less on WHERE to place his troops and thus the attacker has more of a
> burden in figuring out how much more troops he needs to bring in. You
> also eliminate the ability of small groups of elite troops to strike
> at one point in the line. Its funny but these troops are actually
> better defending that attacking under these rules. A squad of eldar
> banshees could never hope to overcome all of a IG platton on the
> attack since it can't outnumber it, but an attacker would need to
> dilute its superiority in numbers against them before ganging up when
> attacking them. Quite odd. Also this method requires clearing up a lot
> of specific situations and anomalies
>
>
> Is there a solution?
>
> Perhaps....
>
> Why not MERGE the two? How? Easy....
>
> There has been some thought on elite troops and that there status
> isn't much of a boon. Why not designate elite status, in addition to
> its current ability versus titans, as troops who can selectively pin?
>
> Thus the bulk of epic troops are the mindless drones the background
> makes them to be: IG tactics, ork boys, eldar guardians all would
> charge and enegage all before ganaging up.
>
> The elite troops however are smarter, they see teh battlefield and
> exploit the holes in the line.
>
> This has the advantage of using something already present in epic
> without fancy rules and exceptions.
>
> All good? Not quite.
>
> It requires assigning elite status to a few more units, but not that
> many more and this is mainly a editing issue me and Daniel can handle.
>
> Well? Speak up inquiring minds need to know!
>
> Peter
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Sat Nov 04 2000 - 06:13:10 UTC