Re: [Epic] Rants. Was SM/TL vs E40K unit costs

From: J. Michael Looney <mlooney_at_...>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 16:07:46 -0600

Stephen Sheldon wrote:
>
> Holy crap Chric, that was quite the rant. All you had to say is it's a
> game, If it was real warfare over a tactically important piece of land,
> then tactical missile strikes would have softened up the enemy to the
> point where it can no longer be considered a fair fight. The short ranges
> and close combat, are to make you think how to play the GAME, not fight a
> real war. The banners and bright colours make the game look nice, a game
> with all camo'd marines looks really REALLY dull.
> Steve

1) My name is not Chric, and it was my rant.
2) If you want to have pretty looking colors and like that, fine, if you
want to have "command" elements that can eat my lunch by themselves AND
are immune to be shoot at, what sort of a game is that.

Alexander the Great was the last commander in chief to lead from the
front rank of the army. Even the medieval kings tended to be back a bit
from the bleeding edge. The whole of the history of warfare is that
leaders lead, fighter fight. Most war games, at least those not made by
GW, (and E40K, for that matter) reflect that. As a general rule
officers over the rank of Captain (at least in the American Army) are
not even given a real weapon, the general thought being that if the
extra fire power of 1 more rifle is needed around the command element,
you are in deep sh*t any way.

The problem is, at least in my view, that the "commander" of your army
is not acting as the commander, he IS the army. And of course no mere
grunt can shoot him. This does not make for a good game, at least to
me.
Received on Wed Mar 04 1998 - 22:07:46 UTC