Hi!
Well it seems the major proponents are in agreement with the idea of a free
fortification per company card and letting them fortify and control and "X"
number of objectives at the games start depending on the points played. All
terrain placement and objective remains the same.
If there are no major disagreements I'll include this in the new draft.
What type of fortfications should they get per company card? Does it matter?
As I see it as long as we dont give forts with firepower potential it
doesn't matter since they all protect the same.
Peter
>From: jyrki.saari_at_...
>Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Re: Planetary Defence Forces
>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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
Received on Wed Nov 29 2000 - 18:19:19 UTC