Re: [Epic] EPIC40k Rumor (Control)

From: Chris Swearingen <tall-guy_at_...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:50:02 -0800

> >>The losers will break, but not die ? Obviously I am missing something,
but
> >>not quite sure what it is. Could you clarify it to me more.
> >
> >I have a problem with not killing them. You see, in modern combat (what
> >this is based on) assault is a deciding factor. Either you overrun the
> >enemy, causing massive casualties, or one of you retreats, and takes
massive
> >casualties. You don't fall back and simultaneously prevent casualties.
You
> >don't fall back and maintain any sort of unit cohesion. It's too late
for
> >that. You die in droves. Period.

ok, have to ask (and probably get a flae rave started...)
what military are you with?

also, do you mean by "assault" a close in infantry battle,or are you
stating (in the whole GW mentality) that HTH combat is what wins
wars?

there are some US army units that are close in trained (airborne, spec ops,
etc)
but by far most Army, and the USMC in general, are based on the idea of
pouring on the firepower (air, artillery, ship, heavy weapons) and then
sending the
infantry in to make the final push...
trench warfare charges went out in WWI, let it die there...

the new GW close combat rules (from rumor control) actually made more
sense to me; you have a close range fire-fight with lots of short ranged
lead throwing, grenades, etc and near by units can assist.

also, retreats are not necesarily the massive death marches your letter
seems to make them... there are far too many examples of organized
retreats and fall backs, just as there are tons of examples of the final
push in leading to the total destruction/surender of opponents

just my (military) input...

Chris Swearingen
tall-guy_at_...

"my brain hurts!"
"well,... it will have to come out then!"
Received on Fri Feb 14 1997 - 16:50:02 UTC