RE: [NetEpic ML] Re: Planetary Defence Forces

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:32:25 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT peter ramos [mailto:ramospeter_at_...]
> Sent: 29. November 2000 18:15
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Planetary Defence Forces
>
>
> Hi!
>
> Why not then just say when PDF are involved use the siege rules for
> placement of terrain and objectives? In essence that what it
> is. Under this
> assumption the terrain and objectives would be set by the PDF
> player and the
> attacker would assault it, double VP's for breaking attacking
> units, bouble
> VP's for objectives taken by the attacker>
>
> Its harder to have a set piece battle that is fair for the
> PDF since their
> ability to move and attack is at a disadvantage.
>
> On the other hand I like the idea of giving them free
> fortification with
> each company card (sorta like the free commissar with IG) and
> instead of the
> 60cm deployement why not let the PDF player deploy his
> fortifications and
> the company card that accompanies it deploy around a selected
> objective.
> Terrain and objectives are placed as normal, but the PDf gets
> to "dig in"
> one "X" amount of objectives (like stated before as related to points
> played). This simulates their being there first and
> fortifying a position.
>
> Peter
>
[snippety]

This is the best suggestion I've seen so far. Takes nicely into account the
fact that areas of any importance are likely to be fortified.

Jyrki Saari

-There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time is
money.
Received on Wed Nov 29 2000 - 16:32:25 UTC