Re: [Epic] EPIC40k Rumor (Control)

From: <duckrvr_at_...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:13:30 -0600

At 08:50 AM 2/14/97 -0800, you wrote:

>> >that. You die in droves. Period.
>
>ok, have to ask (and probably get a flae rave started...)
>what military are you with?

U.S. Marine Corps. No raves here, though. I do think the Marines are the
best at what they do, but the Corps is designed as a shock force, so there's
a lot that it can't do.

>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?

Infantry assault consisting primarily of short range fire (less than 50m)
and _occasional_ hth. HTH definitely does NOT win battles.

>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...

Not exactly. It depends on what area your unit specializes in. There are
different types of infantry. The majority of the training I did was in Low
Intensity Conflicts (LICs - guerilla wars). This relies much more on
maneuver, persistance and quick reaction time than firepower, and LIC is
getting much more emphasis now than in the past. Of course, no matter what
the tactic, it comes down to the infantry (which is why they're known as the
"Queen of Battle"). The final attack on a defended position usually
involves combat at less than 50 meters before it becomes decisive.

By the way, airborne aren't particularly trained for close combat, at least
no the guys I know.

>trench warfare charges went out in WWI, let it die there...

In modern warfare static _is_ dead.

>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.

Exactly my point. If it lives up to the way it sounds it will be a good system.

>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,

There's a big difference between an organized fall back using protective
fire etc. while your enemy is at substantial distance and trying ot bug out
once your are being assaulted. The difference is best illustrated by
rections to ambush (which I'm sure yo are familiar with if you're military).
In a close ambush, there is no choice, you have to fight your way out or get
cut down trying to run. Close combat in Epic is at these kinds of ranges
(6mm = roughly 6 feet, so 10 cm = 30 m). Organized fall back would consist
of being on advance orders, moving away from the guys trying to swarm you
and shooting them up during advance fire.

Check your history. It's pretty hard to find a position that was
successfully overrun that didn't result in massive casualties for the
defender (unless they abandoned it while the attacker was at range). It's
just as hard to find an assault that broke against the defense that didn't
get decimated (Gettysburg always comes to mind - Pickett's charge and all).

>just my (military) input...

What branch?

>Chris Swearingen
>tall-guy_at_...
>
>"my brain hurts!"
>"well,... it will have to come out then!"
>
Received on Fri Feb 14 1997 - 18:13:30 UTC