Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:33:55 +1000 (EST)

> 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.

But there is a big difference in voluntarily falling back to falling back
because you are afraid of the enemy and what they might do to you.

We have never had a problem with allowing units on Charge or Advance to move
AWAY from the enemy as this is still a logical thing to do in a battle.
Advancing away from the enemy (I know it sounds like a contradiction in
terms, but then so does Army Intelligence) makes sense as they are falling
back while providing themselves with ample covering fire to cover the
retreat. And Charging away is still viable as they are abandoning the
position as quickly as possible to take up a new position.

I people have a problem with this kind of thing then there needs to be a
distinction between Voluntary Fall Back and Forced Fall Back (Forced Fall
Back being troops on Fall Back orders as they have failed their morale test)
. Troops that voluntarily Fall Back should not be penalised by not being
able to hold objectives as they are still a very viable fighting unit. They
still have their morale intact. And I believe they still should be able to
shoot (they are covering their own advance as some of the troops stop to
fire as others move away).

I have always seen the movement orders as nothing more than indicative of
the speed the unit moves at rather than the direction it goes in however.
The only exception to this is Fall Back as it is used merely to indicate
troops with broken morale who are acting accordingly (moving away and
cowering wherever possible as those other guys with the guns are just too
scary to handle anymore).

> 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.

I still think Charging in Epic is merely moving as fast as is possible to
gain ground OR to engage the enemy with the good ol' bayonet OR to simply
move at top speed to get somewhere.

> 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.

No. The term Rout should still be reserved for units on Forced Fall Back
orders that fail another Morale Test forced upon them. Routed units are
destroyed. Simple.

To try and keep everyone happy I have a suggestion. Units on Forced Fall
Back orders cannot hold an objective unless they are the ONLY unit within
range that can hold it. They cannot be counted as a viable unit for
CONTESTING an objective if there are enemy units in a position to contest
the objective ("Sir, we have suppressed the enemy at the objective. Enemy
neutralised as they are no longer a threat. Objective may now be taken at
will."). Simple, effective and a compromise I feel. Comments anyone?


           "Two weeks ago I had it made.
             Two weeks ago I was dead."
          -Katchoo, Strangers in Paradise
          email: kx.henderson_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:07 UTC