Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Chris Swearingen <tall-guy_at_...>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:57:54 -0800

> From: Sean Smith <seans_at_...>
> To: space-marine_at_...
> Subject: Re: [Epic] Net Epic
> Date: Monday, February 10, 1997 3:33 PM
>
> On Tue 11 Feb, Peter Ramos wrote:
>
> >
> > The solution would be that when a unit with fall back orders much
> > retreat away from the enemy or to the nearest cover THAT IS NOT AN
> > OBJECTIVE! The rational is troops have been briefed where the
objectives
> > are, and if they are running and hiding from danger it is very
illogical
> > to state that they would run to a building that they know it is the
most
> > likely place the enemy is going to(if not there already).
> >
> > Thus fallback movement is as normal except that it cannot be towards an
> > objective regardless of distance. Opinions!!!
>
> I vote for your suggestion, it seems the best solution to me

agreed; this is the best interpretation from both the "tactical" and "game
balance/design"
standpoints...

i've also seen too many annoying opponents use this loophole to their
advantage
(in their only game with me...)

> > United we stand!
> > Peter
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Sean Smith
>
> Home - Seans_at_...
>
> --
>
Received on Tue Feb 11 1997 - 00:57:54 UTC