Re: [Epic] Q&A Question...

From: Andy Skinner <askinner_at_...>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 12:26:20 -0500

A. Allen McCarley wrote:
> I agree. However, this is one of those times when Jervis is trying to
> make one of those statements. I did post this (last week, I think), but
> with all the electrical storms and resulting system crashes I've been
> having out here I can't guarantee that the posting actually made it
> through to the list. At the time, I was surprised that my posting didn't
> garner much comment from the list. I think the comments we are seeing
> now are the result of people seeing the Q&A on my web pages. If there
> are people who don't have access to my web pages (or just don't want to
> go there....) then I can post Jervis' last set of replies again.

Allan, I didn't see your posting on the list, though I have just
gone to see it on the web site.

> It really doesn't make much difference. Place one template over the juicy
> spot in the target detatchment, or stack several over the same spot. The
> resultant firepower will be the same.

Ugh. The stacking several was what I had hoped to prevent. I
didn't realize the other option (using a single one for all) was
even a possibility. A single template is a really bad gauge of
average troop density. For a single barrage, I might put up with
it, though I wish the hits applied to the densely packed units,
not getting mixed in with the rest. For multiple barrages, the
more you can put down, the better you approach an average density
level if you don't overlap them (until they're all covered). I'll
be house-ruling this one, though I'm not sure what I'll pick.

andy
askinner_at_...
Received on Wed Sep 03 1997 - 17:26:20 UTC