>Objectives have been rendered irrelevant in favour of a shootfest
(sounds
>not unreasonable in a war game, but it's not exactly conducive to
>"tactics"...) It would be fair to paraphrase Patton with "victory goes
to
>the side with the biggest (in this case "baddest") battalions". Army
choice
>is about it as far as "tactics" go.
A fair point..
>
>E40K is disliked because of the marketing strategies and because it has
>removed flavour from the game. It is liked because it is "simple"
"quick"
>and "easy". Some people have suggested that it more accurately
simulates
>real warfare (and Patton seems to agree) but is this a good thing in a
>wargame set in thye year 40,000?
>
>
>If you want a real challenge, try playing a dozen games of SM/TL using
the
>random army generation charts posted a few weeks ago. Winning a game
with
>what are usually considered "useless" units IS a tactical challenge I
assure
>you...
>
I agree with you to a point, but I have to confess that I like the
subtle changes on a simple theme, that makes E40K, it is less emphasis
on the unit and more emphasis on the army, and army selection plays a
large role. I think it is a great improvement, but it is comparing
apples to oranges....
Steve
--
If you choke a Smurf, what colour does it go?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Tue Feb 24 1998 - 21:00:32 UTC