Re: [Epic] Flyers are Vehicles too ... Revisited and Revised

From: Alun Gallie <gallie_at_...>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:08:24 +0930

>An argument against reloading and refueling is that if flyers need to
refuel and
>reload why don't whirlwinds or battlewagons need to? Flyers certainly don't
>need more ammunition then other vehicles and if they needed more fuel, then
>things like Gargants would need a even larger amount.
>
>
>These arguments aren't really that strong, I'm sure that they're some holes
>in them somewhere, but they show that there is some justification for both
>a conventional flyer system (missions, across the board in a turn) and the
more
>generalized system that I have presented before.
>
>In conclusion, (just in case you skimmed or something) I really don't have
>difficulties with the current system on a practical basis (except for some
>little problems here and there), but in the theme of Epic 40k (simple,
general,
>and simple) I think that a more unified approach is more fitting.
>
> -Donald Nguyen
>
I see where you are coming from but I feel the flyers are indeed very
different beasts to the other vehicles. As a former naval aircraft
controller I can tell you that the scale speed of flyers (being able to
cover a whole board in a turn that if you work it out on vehicle movement vs
scale probably represents around 10 minutes of real time is very realistic ,
modern fighters move out big time let alone something that is that far in
the future. As for the elder flyers and skimmers having the same engine
technology, well I can quote numerous vehicle types that have internal
combustion engines or numerous types with jet engines and yet the difference
between these in speed, performance,etc in chalk and cheese.
As for the refueling/ rearming that is exactly what happens in real life, a
plane comes on task , performs its mission, bugs out RTB, and then
refuels/rearms before returning on task. This is the principle behind
rotating CAP's (combat air patrols) from carriers, to allow refuels
(hopefully not to many rearms these days !!). In contrast ground units do
not refuel rearm in the midst of a battle, they do so behind the lines at
refueling stations or ammo dumps in between battles. The flyers turn
refueling/rearming can also be thought of as representing the distance it
must travel to and from its base. During the Gulf crisis strike aircraft
where operating from bases out of Italy !! Whilst recon and AWACS type
aircraft where on task from the UK, Germany and Alaska. Flyers burn a lot
more fuel than ground vehicles do, a jet starting its engines will burn more
than your average APC in a day and its payload is generally small in
comparison to its fuel usage. More weapons = more weight = more fuel burnt =
shorter range = less time on task.
Anyway enough waffle, suffice to say in my experience and IMHO the Flyer
rules are much closer to reality than many of their other rules. ( The
weapon ranges are absolutely ridiculous, but this problem exists in most
modern wargame formats, put it this why if ranges where true to scale my
Goliaths would be lobbing shells four houses down the road (35km range
converted to 1/300 scale = 116m) )
Cheers
Alun
Received on Wed Dec 17 1997 - 00:38:24 UTC