Re: [Epic] Re: [EPIC] Epic 40k stats/pre-sale

From: Joseph Michael Looney <mlooney_at_...>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 22:43:53 -0600

Jason Stephensen wrote:
> Oh, so the threat of the Tyranid, chaos incursions, ork invasions and
> traitorous world leaders only have teeney tiny armies so that the marines
> can make a difference? My opinion of the battles, the real battles are of
> enormous numbers of troops. The novels suggest huge numbers. The Imperial
> fleet is said to be able to block out the stars from it's size. Why would
> the battles be of a smaller scale in the future? And why would they suddenly
> become personal? Just to justify GW's beleif that Close Combat is the be all
> and end all of future war? Most warfare at present has less personal contact
> then ever, why would it reverse so much?

To flog a dead horse again:

Because the morons^H^H^H^H^H^Hgame designers at GW only write rules for
re fighting Waterloo has a lot to do with it. The whole concept of
small arms fire have about the same range as tank guns, much less
artillery is flawed. With some thing like modern small arms you are
talking 500 meters or so. With modern (Gulf War figures here) support
missiles (TOW, Milan, Sagger etc) have a range of 3000-4000 meters.
Tank cannons have about the same range. Field artillery has a range of
12 km for the smallest guns rangeing up to 40 km for the MRLS systems.
The idea that a commander has to worry about his batteries being
attacked by hordes of infantry charging the guns means that you are
wearing you hat sideways and have your hand over you navel.

Regardless of what you claim the scale in epic is, it has a problem with
comparative range.
Received on Thu Mar 06 1997 - 04:43:53 UTC