Re: [Epic] Epic 40K Facts

From: <duckrvr_at_...>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:41:09 -0600

At 05:57 AM 3/29/97 -0800, you wrote:

>> Realism - suppressive fire (by adding blast markers).
>
>Granted. Suppressive fire wasn't handled at all in 2nd edition Epic.
>
>>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.

Actually, you have this backwards. The Persian Gulf War is a prime example.
We carpet bombed entire regions, but the troops were still in place. Sure,
significant casualties were inflicted, but in the end, the infantry had to
go in and capture the enemy troops. My point is that artillery catches a
few people off guard and busts an occasional fortification, but overall, it
kills relatively few people. Same thing with long range automatic weapons.

>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.

As are the infantry, but it doesn't kill that many folks. I would much
rather use an M-60 at 1100 meters than at 50, but I'm not going to hit
nearly as often, or penetrate as much cover/armor. There is a reason that
these games are infantry-centric. Combat is infantry-centric. Look at what
a small group of poorly armed and trained guerillas with no support can do,
and it's not hard to understand.

>The idea of swarming over a
>moving tank and planting charges on it sounds like a load of hooey to me.

It is hooey in the wide open battle fields frequently used in Epic. It's
not hooey in real life. There are a number of ways to channel and
immobilize tanks that require little more than an axe, a shovel, and
determination. Tanks are also pretty easy to hide from, so you channel them
where you want them to go, slow them down, and hide in the bushes to wait on
them.

>For that matter, I'm not sure that non-infantry units should be subject to
>the same rules for suppression and all - are they? 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.

Well, tanks receiving fire have to "bottle up." They have terrible
visibility, they're cramped quarters, and most of the tie they like to tun
around with their heads sticking up (a la Rommel), as it solves both
problems. Locking down the hatches forces them to move more cautiously.
No, it's not equivalent to the grunts huggin the dirt, but it does have an
effect.

Temp
Received on Mon Mar 31 1997 - 15:41:09 UTC