Re: [Epic] Net Epic - Movement and Initiative

From: Colin Partridge <9404237p_at_...>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:51:54 +0000

Of all the suggestions for alternative movement and initiative posted
so far, this one(see below) by Tony Christney is IMO the best. It sounds like
it would work well, and crucially is not too dissimilar to the
current system.

My suggestion for differentiating between AA units and ordinary units
snap firing is this:
        Ordinary units snap firing must be given a Snap fire order. I f
        If they fail to make use of this then they must wait until the
        advance fire phase to fire. The logic behind this being that they
        were concentrating on trying to catch enemy units sneaking between
        cover and not on the battle as a whole.

        AA units however need no special order to snap fire.
{comments?}

> From: acc_at_... (Tony Christney)

> Someone mentioned my idea for an alternating movement phase. I
> really liked the idea when I came up with it, and I still think that
> it would be the method which requires the least change in the current
> system. I have played DS II, and I am not a complete fan of the idea
> of activating an entire unit at once, ie. doing movement and shooting
> at the same time. I am a big fan of the orders and phase system used
> in Epic. I feel it requires more strategy and planning out what you
> want each unit to perform in advance. I have other problems with the
> DS II system, but this is not really the place to complain...
>
> Anyway, here is my basic ideas for movement.
>
> 1. the movement phase would be divided up into three stages of movement;
> chargers, advancers, and first firers.
>
> A. Units with charge orders are required to move first. The logic
> being that these units are less concerned with enemy movements than with
> either getting from point A to point B, or with getting into close combat.
> This also prevents units with advance orders from running away, then opening
> up on their would be attackers.
>
> B. Units with advance orders can move after all charging units
> have moved. The logic here is that these units are advancing relatively
> slowly, making use of cover and keeping track of where the enemy units are
> moving. Hence they have the advantage of being able to move into position
> to attack units which have just run headlong across the battlefield.
>
> C. First fire units that are capable of moving do so last. These
> units are the most experienced troops (commanders), or have very sophisticated
> fire control centers (Imperator, squat SHV, etc.). I also like the idea put
> forth by Ryan P Arndt that command units should be able to move in any phase
> if so desired. However, I don't think that the units that can move and first
> fire that are not command units should have this option.
>
> 2. The movement phase would be done in an alternating style similar to
> the combat phase. Alternately, we could lift an idea from DS II. The player
> with the least number of units with a given order can choose to move first
> or second. In addition, if a player has fewer unmoved units than his/her
> opponent, then they may choose to force their opponent to move two units
> at a time. This may be done consecutively until there are equal numbers of
> unmoved units with the current order.
>
> 3. Initiative would still be rolled for, but only would affect who gets to
> shoot first, which is much less of an advantage than the current system, IMO.
>
> In addition, I support the idea of being able to interrupt an opponent's
> unit during its move in order to take a shot. However, I think it would
> be best to limit this to direct fire, ie non-artillery, units on first fire
> orders. The difficulty of hitting a moving target with artillery weapons
> is, IMO, to great to be easily overcome . Also, any unit that chooses to
> snap fire at a unit may do nothing else that turn. If it is a command
> unit, it forfiets its ability to move later in the turn. Also, there should
> be something to differentiate between AA and regular troops on FF. Perhaps
> that only AA may fire at aircraft, or have a 50cm (arbitrary!!!) limitation
> on regular units snapfiring. The range limitation would prevent players
> firing units on FF at transports and the like as they leave their deployment
> zone. This would also allow AA to be much more effective at snap fire. A
> third possibility would be having a modifier to hit, but I would tend to
> reject this since it has too much of an effect on the statistics. A fourth
> rule could be a modifier for long range and for fast moving vehicles. Of
> course, this is more appropriately discussed at a later stage of Net EPIC.
>
> I also am in support of redefining the vehicle type restrictions on moving
> through terrain. Skimmer _bikes_ should be able to enter woods, however, I
> am a little leery of allowing all skimmers to enter woods. I just have a
> tough time seeing a Tempest skimming away through the trees! OTOH, there are
> plenty of woods around where I live that would be impossible to drive anything
> other that a mountain bike through (which I do at every opportunity!). It
> really depends on how dense the trees are. Basically, I would allow for
> eldar bikes, landspeeders, disc riders and gargoyles(?) to enter woods, but
> not the remainder of the skimmer units. Of course, there should be no pop-ups
> through the canopy!
>
> Additionally, tracked vehicles should be able to move backwards at half rate.
>
> Transport rules are ok as they are, as is the unit coherency (about the only
> thing that would be a useful change would be discriminating between vehicle
> and infantry unit coherency, but is unecessarily complicated).
>
> Well, there are my thoughts on the movement thing, so comments would be
> welcome. The initial response to my idea was non-existent, so I am suprised
> someone mentioned it. To tell you the truth, I would have sent this anyway,
> but thanks Ryan.
>
> Tony Christney
> acc_at_...
>
>
Colin P
9404237p_at_...
Received on Wed Feb 05 1997 - 17:51:54 UTC