Re: [Epic] Epic 40K Facts

From: Richard Dewsbery <dewsbery_at_...>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:50:57 +0000

Howard Liu wrote:

> >Realism - long range fire isn't particularly devastating, but short
> >firefights can break a detachment.
> >Realism - to really do high casualties, you have to close with the enemy
> >and mix it in combat.
>
> I don't think these points are entirely correct. They add realism,
> assuming that you're using the Chechen engagements as your point of
> reference, instead of Gettysburg, the World Wars, or the Persian Gulf War.
> Long range guns played a major role in the final push by the Confederate
> troops at Gettysburg (Pickett's Charge? Can't remember, it's been a while),
> inflicting major damage and annihilating a good portion of the army, not
> just suppressing them. If I've got my terminology down, the Chechen
> engagement was a example of siege warfare, in a city, which is generally
> not what is represented in Epic. Engagements of the Persian Gulf War and
> those in Chechenya were made under very different circumstances.

I cannot think of any major battle or engagement in history where
artillery caused the most casualties. Even in WWI, where artillery was
at its zenith, the main causes of loss of life were disease and machine
guns, IIRC.

Artillery does not kill masses of troops - it's too inaccurate for that
unless massive barrages are employed. What it does do is disrupt enemy
formations, causing troops to keep their heads down and damaging chains
of communication.

If an infantryman wants to avoid artillery,ne nides in a bunker. The
only way to clear a man from a bunker is to knock it down, or to assault
it with infantry. By and large, artillery is topo innaccurate and too
expensive to make the first option viable, so it's time for the PBI.
>
> It also seems like a very infantry-centric point of view. From my
> understanding, close combat is the province of foot troopers; tanks and
> other vehicles are generally content to blast away at the limits of their
> gun's range.

Epic is representing so much during CC. The infantryman's antitank
capabilities consist of well-placed grenades. The tank tries to keep
them away with short range MG fire, but is restriced in LOS and weapon
arcs. Rather than model every one of a myriad of factors, epic just
gives inf and vehs an assault factor and you roll a die. Some tanks can
mix it in CC, but the bigger its guns, the wiser it is to stay at
range.

> Epic doesn't do enough, in my opinion, to differentiate
> between tanks and infantry. Dirtside II does a more capable job, where
> tanks aren't good at killing mass numbers of infantry, and infantry needs
> heavy support weaponry to take down tanks. The idea of swarming over a
> moving tank and planting charges on it sounds like a load of hooey to me.
> For that matter, I'm not sure that non-infantry units should be subject to
> the same rules for suppression and all - are they?

Yes.
> Somehow, it seems that
> psychology should be different when you're in a fully enclosed vehicle than
> when you're wandering around the battlefield with nothing but a flak
> jacket, a lasgun, and a few grenades.

It's not just psychology. With tanks , it can be rationalised as losing
tracks or other significant but not major damage, the difficulties of
advancing across a field when craters are erupting all around, etc.

> >Realism - minor details dont's matter.
>
> "It's the little things." Seriously, I'm a little miffed that some
> characters seem to be finding their niche on the Epic battlefield (most
> notably the Harlequin ones, also some in the Chaos list), while other
> details (Titan weapons, various troop types) didn't.

Which characters, exactly? Yes, some of the more esoteric Eldar
infantry gets bonuses like saves, hero status etc. But no "special
rules" - they play by the same rules as everything else. And you pay
for the bonuses.
>
> Finally, I'm not sure how this comment holds true, in general. In many
> ways, it seems to be at about the same level of complexity, it's just that
> the details got shifted around. Which minor details, exactly, no longer
> matter, besides Titan weapon fits and specific psychic powers?
>
> Howard

I disagree. The whole game has become much easier to play. At first,
the basic rules don't seem any less complex, but you soon realise that
adding in the more esoteric unit types doesn't require an extra set of
damage tables, special dice rolls, exceptions to exceptions etc etc.
IMNSHO, the game is now much simpler to play, and instead of just
demanding you know the special capabilities of every unit on the
battlefield, the overall picture is at least as important. OK, you
still should employ the right unit to do the right job, but the
non-specialists like the tactical marines now have their uses. Proper
planning and tactics is better rewarded than under the old system.

Richard
Received on Sat Mar 29 1997 - 15:50:57 UTC