RE: [Epic] Q&A suggestion: (was] Cheddar & Edam)

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:55:51 -0600

> I am familiar with this, and it makes sense to me. It prevents
> something
> like a troops in a vehicle getting out and moving further (total) than
> the
> vehicle could have gone if they had stayed in it. But someone else
> pointed
> out recently that this reduces the value of transports, and we'd have
> to
> decide whether those transports had been underpriced before (and so
> are
> now appropriate), or reduce the price to reflect it.
>
> I didn't mind this rule in SM2, but it is hard to explain. If you
> aren't
> too picky, it doesn't slow it down too much, either.
>
> andy
>
---------> My suspicion (based on years of GW-idis) is that they played
it the way we have suggested, and it never occurred to them to "chain"
the moves, making the cost of transports argument moot, but of course,
we don't KNOW. Has anyone reviewed the battle reports to see how they
play?I think the advantage of transports could be stated as
1) better movement than foot troops
2) better armor than foot troops (most of the time - not always)

if the points are based on "how much better" the movement is, rather
than a flat rating for being "better"(i.e., "transport" has a fixed
point value, or is based on number of troops carried), then we do have a
problem. If not, then we don't. I would still be willing to bet that the
points cost for "transport" is figured more on how many troops are
carried than on how fast the transporting vehicle is.
        Most transports have double the movement of the troops they
carry, so that value isn't going to change a great deal even if it is
figured in.

Chris Miller
Received on Thu Jan 29 1998 - 20:55:51 UTC