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

From: <oki_at_...>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 00:29:14 +0800

At 09:18 AM 2/28/97 -0600, you wrote:
>At 03:56 PM 2/27/97 -0800, you wrote:

>>> 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.
>
But Titans are not just battleships, neither are they just aircraft
carriers. Titans are supposed to be configurable - mobile and
variable-weapon platform. With gatling blaster, vulcan mega-bolter, a Titan
would be able to support a long-ranged, heavy artillery Titan.

While tanks need support in the form of infantry and artillery to fend off
enemy infantry and enemy fortifications, Titans with their variable weapon
mount can take on different roles.

I am pretty sure a Titan with two vulcan mega-bolter, gatling blaster,
multiple rocket launcher can do as good a job - as a Tech Guard regiment -
keeping those pesky infantry from assaulting a Titan with Barrage Missile
Launcher, Vortex Missile, Plasma Cannon (?), Quake Cannon.

Basically, what I am saying is that Titans with their variable weapon mounts
can take on different roles, unlike most tanks/units. One can designed a
Titan to be either Assault, Artillery, Support.... Titans. No wonder GW
called them battlegroup, a term used (I believe) also in the navy - carrier
battlegroup, battleship (?) battlegroup.

>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 - 16:29:14 UTC