Re: house rules (was Re: [Epic] General Enquiry)

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:31:44 -0700

Elias Tiliakos wrote:
>
> At 05:53 PM 3/27/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >So maybe the final solution would be to make BM morale loss temporary;
> >add and subtract morale as normal due to breaking units and objectives
> >(still doubled); then calculate the effect of BM's, but dont write BM
> >affects down in a permanent manner. Thus each turn, you can use BM's to
> >put you "over the edge" of victory consditions, but suppression affects
> >from previous turns will not accumulate.
> >
> >Thane
> >
>
> I think this is a great idea. It would definitely make the games more
> interesting. I just have one question, why double the morale loss for
> objectives?
>
> Elias

Two reasons. You would likely need to break ~75% of all detats before
the BM morale loss would push the game to victory. The current VP rules
don't add or subtract enough to to influence the total morale very much.
Secondly, because the current morale change due to acheiving an
objective is so low, no one takes any chances to acheive them.
Technically, things called "objectives" should be goals of the battle,
to be fought over and defended. If you played 2nd edition, you may
remember desperate gambles over objectives, coupled with the tension of
figuring how you were going to defend the ones you had, since they
influenced the outcome so much (so thought too much). Increasing the
value of objectives would bring some more meaning to the battles,
instead of the total attrition-based nature of most of them (though BM's
can sometimes make attrition irrelevent as well).

Thane
Received on Mon Mar 30 1998 - 06:31:44 UTC