Re: [Epic] RGMW Newsgroup.

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 23:50:52 -0700

> -----------> they're both shuffling toy soldiers around a tabletop. Paint it
> any way you want, but if you're thinking that beating the 15 year old from
> down the street or the 29 year old loudmouth from Texas makes you a great
> general, let me awaken you from slumber..."challenge" is what you make of it
> as is "fun". "Tactics" is fine to discuss within each edition, but they are
> completely different games. Is Battleship a realistic naval simulation? Is
> it a fun game for some people? How about Monopoly? How about Illuminati as a
> simulation of office politics? Epic is more complicated than many games,
> true, but guess what?More rules don't neccessarily make it more realistic
> _or_ a better game. ASL is damn complicated, and apparently produces many
> results which correspond to reality - it's a bitch as a game to play for a
> few hours of fun, though. Battletech is far more playable, but the physics
> do have problems, so it's less realistic. Star Fleet Battles is a game
> where it's really impossible to judge a level of realism as the subject
> matter is entirely fictional, yet it's about as complex as ASL. Why would
> anyone put up with that amount of rules when realism is impossible to
> determine? Some people just like it complicated...doesn't make it right or
> wrong, it's just different.
> (and yes, people talking about realism in AD&D and other games drives
> me up the wall too. 'That's not realistic" is guaranteed to prompt a big
> time response)
>
> Chris Miller

C'mon, Chris, be realistic.....


There is a difference between tactics and realism, so don't let the last rant
confuse you. Let my rant do it instead.

Tactics is about maneuver more than anything else. In this regards, 3rd ed.
comes up way short of 2nd, though still way ahead of 40k and WHFB. In second
edition, the great variety of units gave a flexiblity in army design that
promoted more tactical thinking. You had to worry about lines of sighting
between units, you had to prepare your units for CC, and you had to come up
with a battle plan without knowing what your opponent was thinking each turn;
the hidden order counters are sorely missed by this gamer. While luck could
help, the sheer volume of dice being rolled usually assurd that luck would
balance out by the end of the game, and superior tactics would win that game.

I don't like designing the "ultimate" detachment. I'd rather spend my time
playing the game. That's my biggest problem with GW's other fare; the battle is
2/3 decided by the time the mini's have been placed on the table. E40K isn't
nearly that bad, but maybe 20% is determined soley by detachment selection. In
SM/TL, there were a few real loser armies that you could build, but almost any
army had a reasonable chance of winning or losing if played well.

I liked the old VP system. It greatly encouraged manuevering, as grabbing a key
point on the field could put you 1/6 to 1/8th closer to winning the game; if
you focused soley on attrition, there was a good chance you were going to get
beat. In contrast I NEVER worry about achieving objectives in the new game,
because they are almost worthless in terms of victory. I'll take them if
offered, but I won't sacrafice a unit trying to do it.

The old system had lots of complementary units which encouraged tactics. The
new system's units are largely generic; you can play with 10 cm disks which
have the detachments total stats on them.

The old way of issuing orders was fantastic. You had to plan, issue orders,
then stick with them. Now, you get to completely see not just what your
opponent plans to do, but how he has actually move before you even have to
decide what your units are doing.

I did like not having to posistion every LR just so, but why should they be
able to fire through two other detachments of LR's. Though realism is a scary
thing to bring into the debate, every commander worries about catching his own
troops with friendly fire on the ground. You can have a line of tanks on a
road, all of which can fire at another line of tanks directly ahead on the
road. Hell, if you can fire through an imperator, why not a building.

OK, so there was only the "meeting engagement" scenario in the 2nd. ed. rules
system. All of the new scenarios can be played equally well with the old
system's rules, so that is not an improvement in the game system. The new
objective system is irrelevant to victory, so they certainly cannot count
towards "varied" scenarios.

OK, the old system had some rules conflicts, which we managed to work out quite
well. The "brain trust" at GW surely should have been able to do so as well.
OK, there were 10 pages of unit statistics: play thenm more than once a month,
and you learned them. The only people I know who had trouble keeping the units
straight were the White dwarf guys, who would suddenly feel guilty once every
two months about ignoring the game and try to do a battle report.

The difference is like becoming a good chess player, then suddenly having only
checkers players around. Sure there are tactics in checkers, but do they really
compare?

In closing, people have a right to be angry about playing a lobotomized game. I
do have fun playing it, but not as much as I used to. So all of you E40K
supporters are just going to have to deal with a few of us crusty old SM/TL
players whining about the good old days and how you younger folk don't know
what a good game is.

Thane
Received on Tue Feb 24 1998 - 06:50:52 UTC