Re: [Epic] Net Epic (Titan point costs)

From: <duckrvr_at_...>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:18:45 -0600

At 03:56 PM 2/27/97 -0800, you wrote:
> I just don't see any justification for the 3 for the
>cost of 2 scheme (other than GW moneygrabbing, ie. you still pay $$ for that
>third Titan).

How about the fact that nearly every company card is the same price as 3
detachments or even less. In return you get the command group and a special
card slot. While 3 for 2 may be too much, you certainly need something.

>> There's a second reason I like battlegroups... I feel that
>>all-titan forces should be easy to make under the rules.
>
>Me too.

I dont' understand this feeling. Big war machines are never fielded without
support. Starting with seige engines in the middle ages, through
battleships, carriers, and armor companies of today, there have always been
support units. It is impossible to win without infantry, and smaller units
(i.e. less expensive units) are necessary to protect the effort and money
put into large units. A carrier is great, but if a good air strike makes it
past the frigates guarding it it is little better than a big anchor. Even
tanks are vulnerable to well equipped infantry in most terrain. They need
support to keep pesky little stuff off of them.

In short, it's always been that way, and barring some pretty sophisticated
AI and some high speed mechanical engineering, it will stay that way for a
long time.

>Why would Titans
>always work in groups of three?

Just make it SOP. Marines wouldn't always work in squads of five, platoons
of six squads, or companies of 90. But for game purposes it makes it much
simpler.

Temp
Received on Fri Feb 28 1997 - 15:18:45 UTC