Re: [Epic] Epic 40K Facts

From: Howard Liu <h2liu_at_...>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:56:05 -0800

>>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.

Hm, I was probably wrong in the last example, at least. Mea culpa. I
think that artillery and long range weapons played a major role in World
War I, and I'm all but certain about Gettysburg.


>>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.

Yes, but everyone, not just infantry, uses the same rules for close combat,
don't they? That's what I found weird in Epic and Epic40K. If anything,
I'd imagine that tanks would have a harder time hitting targets at 20-30
meters than they would at maximum range. Taking and holding ground is the
job of infantry; but that doesn't mean that everything should be treated as
an infantry unit.


>>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.

An unfortunate abbreviation on my part. I realize there are ways in real
life to take down tanks, but Epic and Epic40K use very open terrain, with
little allowance for fortifications, traps, etc. City blocks can be
leveled in the span of two turns or so (in Epic, at least; I don't know the
rules for knocking down buildings in Epic40K). The battles are
effectively being fought on killing fields. The terrain featured in White
Dwarf is the pits as far as cover goes - a hill here, some buildings there,
maybe a stand of trees or two. In the context of a normal game of Epic,
infantry standing in open ground, pulling a straight charge, can take down
armor too easily.

I'm also a little over-critical here because of the rules in Warhammer 40K
for infantry against vehicles, where troops simply run up to a moving tank
and place charges on it with little fear of anti-personnel charges (bought
as extra wargear), flechette defenses, or even being run over. The only
thing that stops them is an electric hull (also extra wargear). The most
bizarre part is that infantry armed with a sufficiently powerful
hand-to-hand weapon can simply _punch_ the tank, or hit it with the
axe/sword/rod and blow it up. Weird. I've been assuming that that's what
their Epic counterparts do, except on a whole new scale.


>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.

Still sounds questionable to me. Multiple suppression markers shouldn't
have any additional effect on armor, if this is the reasoning, and I'm not
sure I buy the idea of tanks having to drive more slowly and carefully
around craters and all, either. The long and short of it is that I think
Epic 40k is based on the idea of infantry in well-fortified, defensible
positions fighting in more terrain than is actually represented in the
game, and that armored units are unfairly drawn in the same light,
especially when it comes to close combat and light weaponry.


Howard
Received on Mon Mar 31 1997 - 17:56:05 UTC