Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Jason Robinson <ewing_at_...>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:23:19 +0200 (EET)

On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Peter Ramos wrote:
> 1-Bring back the voluntary fall back orders? if so please define why
> this would be a good addition and what would make this different from
> just charging backwards.

 Charging is attacking the enemy. When a detachment charges, they
 will run forward head long against the enemy, with speed as their
 only cover. Fall Backing is a whole different thing. These troops
 are making a tactical retreat (or just a retreat if they failed
 a check :)) into better defensive positions. They will be heading
 away from the enemy, dodging by whatever cover there is. I think
 there is a big difference. Charging backwards sounds a bit weird
 to me, who do they think they are attacking?
 I think adding a voluntary fall back counter (and maybe renaming
 the old "Rout" counter, or something similar) would add more tactics
 to the game. When retreat into better positions comes easier (the -1
 to hit), it will make more sense too. In war, only the stupid fight
 to the death, but in current epic it is very hard to make any kind
 of retreat.
 Ok, the difference of Fall back, Charge and Rout counters:
 Fall Back: These troops have to move away from the enemy (advance
         minimum, charge maximum?), cannot shoot, cannot claim
         objectives (they have been told to retreat!) and shooting
         at them is done with -1 to hit. They will be retreating
        away from the enemy using all possible cover. These troops will
        have to make a morale check if assaulted in close combat. Failing
        this will give them a root counter. The fall back can be
         removed normally in the order phase by giving the troops
        another order. A fall back order can be issued to troops
        that are out of command.
 Charge: These troops are charging the enemy into close combat, so
        they run forward at top speed, dodging enemy fire mainly
        by speed. They have little regard for their safety as their
         only concern is reaching the enemy line and kicking the hell
        out of the defenders. They cannot shoot.
 Rout: These troops have just failed a morale check and are retreating.
        (not necessarily in total panic, but disorder) They will have
         to move away from the enemy, as in fall back. They cannot shoot
        and will fight close combat with -2. Shooting at them is done
         with -1, as with fall backers. They cannot claim objectives
        and will have to pass a morale check in order to get rid of
        the counter.

 Just a few constructive (?) ideas. But I do think it would add
 more tactics to the game.
 
> 2-broken refers to a unit that has suffers casualties in excess of the
> breaking point, by the opinions thus far I gather that it is desired
> that these units move as before in the movement phase and these units
> may still hold on to objectives. For those who agree with this premise,
> what is the difference between a broken unit and one on fall back orders
> and why do the former get to hold to the objectives and the later.

 I don't think broken units should behave any different than before,
 except when they fail that morale check! Then they will be on fall
 back (or rout, as in my example above) and shouldn't be allowed to
 claim objectives. If neither side has troops not on fall back on an
 objective, and the other has a routed unit, neither should get vp's,
 IMHO.
 
        - Jason
Received on Tue Feb 11 1997 - 22:23:19 UTC