On Thu 08 May, Erik Rutins wrote:
> Sean:
>
> I appreciate your detailed reply. Let's see if we can get a discussion
> going, as I definitely like some of your suggestions but (at the
> moment) disagree with others.
>
You welcome, I am slightly addicated to setting up and running
campaigns, so I just couldn't resist replying :-).
>
> > --------------------------------------
> > Reply:
> >
> > How do each players territories link up? Could you supply an example
> > of a map please.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
>
> Okay, I was thinking of things in a fairly abstract manner for the
> whole campaign system. Assume territories 1-9 are for player 1, A-I
> are for player 2. Here would be the arrangement:
>
> 147ADG
> 258BEH
> 369CFI
>
> So 7-9 and A-C would be the first lines of resistance. It's more
> symbolic than anything else. In a more detailed world, 7,8 and 9 could
> be on separate continents, but in each case they would represent a part
> of the initial forward line of contact. Hope that makes sense.
Yep, thats very clear thanks! I may need to make the map like deeper though,
or the campaign maybe over very quick.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I hadn't thought about aircraft much because, as a new player, I only
> have 1 Thunderhawk and my opponents have a combined 3 Thunderbolts.
> <ahem> So airpower is not a big factor for us. I like your ideas,
> though. Since no one in the Epic universe seems to have specialized
> scouting planes (like the SR-71) it definitely seems like flak and
> intercepts should play a part. How's this for a first shot at air
> rules?...
>
> - Aircraft missions
>
> Aircraft may perform one of three mission types during a turn. These
> mission type must be declared at the start of the turn for each
> detachment, before scouting and movement.
>
> Combat Air Patrol (CAP): Aircraft on this mission may intercept enemy
> aircraft during the scouting phase or the movement phase. For each
> Intercept attempt, roll a d6 and add the lowest Intercept value of the
> CAP planes. Now roll a d6 and add the lowest intercept value of the
> planes being intercepted. If the CAP roll is higher, fight out a one
> round interception between the two forces.
>
> Aerial Reconaissance: Aircraft detachments on recon orders may act in
> the scouting phase just like ground forces with the infiltrate ability,
> except that they may scout any territory instead of just adjacent
> territories. A maximum of three aerial reconaissance missions may be
> flown over each territory per turn. Recon missions may be intercepted.
> Recon missions may also be shot by flak. The recon mission may only
> be shot by flak in the territory they are scouting, as they otherwise
> will be flying too high and fast to be targeted. Each detachment in
> the target territory that has a unit with the flak ability gets to roll
> a d6. On a roll of 6, the recon aircraft have strayed too close. Roll
> one die per recon plane. If the die roll beats the armour value, the
> plane has been downed.
>
> Attack/Transport/Battlefield Support: This combination mission means
> that the detachment is eligible for any and all normal actions
> involving movement, attacks and responses during the turn. These
> detachments are also susceptible to interceptors.
>
> > ----------------------------------
> > Reply:
> >
> > What about giving aircraft the ability to scout as well. Of course
> > you should then allow the oppent a chance to shot the aircraft down
> > with AA or intercept it with his aircraft. I would suggest that this
> > can be carried using the normal rules. Aircraft would only be allowed
> > to make one scouting mission per turn and if they are on interception
> duty
> > they can't be used to scout.
> >
> > Make it easier to spot detachments which have warengines in them
I suggest you make it simpler.
1) Aircraft can fly recon missions. but enemy aircraft detachments
ever territory they fly over may intercept them, as per the rules
in Epic 40K. No friendly aircraft may come to aid of aircraft flying
recon missions, by attempting to intercept enemy aircraft that are
intercepting the aircraft flying a recon mission.
2)The recon mission may only be shot by flak in the territory they are
scouting, as they otherwise will be flying too high and fast to be
targeted. Use the normal rules to resolve this.
2)Air detachment may fly only one mission a recon mission or interception
mission (attempting intercept enemy recon aircraft) each turn. Flying
a recon or interception mission means an aircraft detachment inavailable
battlefield ground support or interception mission later in the same turn.
3)The only limit to the number of recon missions that maybe flown is the
number of aircraft detachments a side has.
4)When a aircraft is in the territory that it wishs to recon roll a 1d6 for
every enemy detachment in the territory. On roll of 1 a detachment
must fully reveal its composition, on a roll of 2 a detachment only
reveals what warengines (if any) are in the detachment, the type and
the number of each type.
5)Treat transport missions in the same way as recon missions.
> > ------------------------------
> > Reply:
> >
> > What about making the side which rolls higher with a 1d6+strategy
> rating.
> > This Gives the side with a lower strategy rating chance.
> > -----------------------------
>
> This is a reasonable suggestion and one which I'll adopt for my first
> set of revisions.
>
> > --------------------------
> > Reply:
> >
> > I disagree with the adove. On the basis that one man walks just as
> > fast as another. Strategy represents your ability to out
> > think your opposition, not the ability to move faster than the
> opposition.
> >
> > What about the following
> >
> > infantry on foot - move 2
> > (they use railways etc, off the battlefield)
> > Vehicles and Infantry mounted on vehicles - move 3
> > Aircraft, troops in droppods and aircraft - move 6
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, here I disagree - let me explain what I was trying to model...
> It's not walking speed, but the ability for an organization to respond
> (I think this is what strategy rating represents). For instance, the
> marines are a very flexible, rapid deployment-type force, whereas the
> Imperial Guard is a lumbering giant. This allows the Marines to
> out-maneuver the Guard strategically - while more moves doesn't
> guarantee you superiority, I believe it adds flavor. The tyranids
> would be the hardest hit, but since we allow them multiple supreme
> commanders, by keeping at least one in each line they can actually
> respond as quickly as anyone else. If you look at history, Napoleon
> often won because he was able to concentrate the various parts of his
> army much more quickly in a given area than his opponents could
> respond. He had a higher strategy rating, and by out-thinking them and
> pre-positioning supplies and such he was able to hit where he wanted to
> with what he needed more often than not. Mind you, it didn't help him
> at Waterloo...
I see your point, however I think this may make the game very unbalanced in
favour of armies with high strategy ratings. Also their is difference
between strategy (ie Rommel commanding his army in the desert) and Grand
Strategy (ie deciding whether it is better attack Poland first, and
then deal France)
>
> Anyway, I'm modeling logistics and organizational limits here (or at
> least trying to) more than anything else. The area of each territory
> is supposed to be huge, though abstract, so a move of an army from one
> to another is a pretty big undertaking. I just don't think most armies
> have the right structure to respond so quickly.
>
> I would only really consider changing this around if it proved
> unbalancing. So far, it hasn't, but we have a limited army selection
> and so I'm very interested to hear if playtesting reveals it to be very
> unbalancing in other army combinations. I'm still open, just it'll
> take playing to convince me.
>
> > ---------------------------------
> > My Reply:
> >
> > The problem with using strategy rating to determine everything is
> gives
> > to much of an advantage to armies with high strategy ratings.
>
> I'm not sure yet - see above, I'm hoping playtesting will determine how
> much of an advantage. We may end up doing something like everyone gets
> 5 moves +1 for every 2 strategy rating (rounded up). I just don't want
> to chuck this out the window without more testing, though.
>
> > Why not make that you can't attack an enemy territory unless you have
> > supreme commander with the force.
>
> I think this would be way too limiting, personally. The supreme
> commander helps organizationally and on the battlefield, but he should
> be able to allocate his logistics and attention elsewhere (by using his
> moves and attacks from the strategy rating) than his own territory if
> he so chooses. Besides, you'd then be using half your moves just
> scooting him around...
>
> > Aircraft I suggest should only be able to skip one line of
> resistance.
> >
> > e.g
> >
> > You - 1st enemy line - 2nd enemy line - third enemy line
> >
> > aircraft and droppods should only be able to attack the 2nd enemy
> line.
> > Also all AA guns in the first.
>
> I'm not sure I entirely follow why this should be the case. Fuel
> range? That makes sense... though for drop pods, it seems like they
> should be able to go anywhere. And you'd figure by now aircraft would
> have a nearly global range. Hm. Do you think aircraft are too
> powerful as is (including the new above listed aircraft rules)? If
> not, I would allow them to attack anywhere as long as it's also
> possible to intercept them, and of course fire on them during the
> battle.
>
My reasoning was that drop pods and air transported troops can't
survive as a organised force if they are isolated (i.e don't
have a ground supply line). Thats why I suggest that they should
only be able to land on the second line of resistance in.
So to use your map, I which I have pasted below. The drop pods and
airborne troops would only be able to be landed on territores 4,5 and
6. Then friendly troops would have take an adjacent territory to
open a supply line. Otherwise the drop troops and airborne troops
would count as isolated. Think of it as similar to the movie "The
Bridge to Far"
> Okay, I was thinking of things in a fairly abstract manner for the
> whole campaign system. Assume territories 1-9 are for player 1, A-I
> are for player 2. Here would be the arrangement:
>
> 147ADG
> 258BEH
> 369CFI
>
> So 7-9 and A-C would be the first lines of resistance. It's more
> symbolic than anything else. In a more detailed world, 7,8 and 9 could
> be on separate continents, but in each case they would represent a part
> of the initial forward line of contact. Hope that makes sense.
> > ---------------------------
> > Reply:
> >
> > Airborne should be able to be shot at by AA or intercept by aircraft
> > as they cross enemy territories.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Agreed - see way above revisions to aircraft rules.
>
>
> > Reply:
> >
> > Overall I think it is good, but just needs so fine turning. I will
> make more suggests at later date
>
>
> Looking forward to your suggestions. You've made some good ones and
> I'm interested to hear you elaborate on the ones we disagree on.
> Please let me know how playtesting works out, too.
--
Sean Smith
Home - Seans_at_...
--
Received on Thu May 08 1997 - 07:48:33 UTC