Re: [Epic] Net Epic - Movement and Initiative

From: Tony Christney <acc_at_...>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:49:15 -0800

>Chris Swearingen
>tall-guy_at_...
>
>"my brain hurts!"
>"well,... it will have to come out then!"
>
>----------
>> From: Tony Christney <acc_at_...>
>> To: space-marine_at_...
>> Subject: [Epic] Net Epic - Movement and Initiative
>> Date: Tuesday, February 04, 1997 9:51 PM
>>
>> 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.
>
>basicly close to 1st ed SM

Is it? I have never seen SM 1st Ed.

>>
>> 2. The movement phase would be done in an alternating style similar to
>> the combat phase.
>
>sounds good, any experience from DSII re unbalancing factors and other
>hidden quirks?
>(i've never seen the DSII rules)

Not really. About the only problem I've had with DS II is trying to have games
with Epic races relatively intact. The main difference is that tanks are
good against tanks, infantry is dependent on numbers, and infantry are
very hard to kill with anything. Also, sometimes units like artillery
can do nothing for the whole game, while you pay high points costs for them.
And when they do shoot, the results can be less than impressive :(.

Oh, and a note to people who have recently bought DS II and are wondering
how to "convert" their Epic units to DS II. If you want the races to act
like they do in Epic, then it will take much more than simple conversion!
DS II is based upon a relatively near future Human-Human conflicts. All
of the weapons are based somewhat on current technology. We tried playing
Space Marines vs. Orks, but the game just didn't capture the differences
between the two forces. Just my opinion though...

>>
>> 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 a good idea

Thank you! In DS II, the idea of artillery targeting an opponent directly
has apparently been abandoned. You have to request fire with another unit.
I still like the Epic system that allows artillery much more flexibility
in this respect.

> 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.
>
>really good stuff ... all from DSII or your own system?

It all feels like it came from my head, but the subconcious works in strange
ways. I did consiously take the words "direct fire" from DS II though :).

>>
>> Tony Christney
>> acc_at_...
>>

BTW, I don't want anyone to think that I don't enjoy DS II. In fact I think
that it's a great game, it just doesn't seem very suited to the quick pointless
warfare of the 41st millenium... However, for a campaign with the Scandanavian
Coalition invading New France, it is perfect...

Tony Christney
acc_at_...
Received on Thu Feb 06 1997 - 22:49:15 UTC