At 09:10 16/06/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:52 AM 6/16/97 +0000, you wrote=
:
>> For example in a game 3000pts vs 8000pts,
>>
>>a) 8000pt army needs =
65 VPs to win and 3000pt army needs only 40VPs.
>>b) Both armies need a to=
tal of 53 VPs to win. (average of each armies
>>individual total.)
>>
>>I c=
an see advantages to both methods, though I prefer a). Any opinions on
>>th=
e matter are welcome, including any other methods that I may have
overlooke=
d.
>
>What about letting the commanders decide when to retire? That way th=
ey can
>cut their losses if it is going badly. Or a heavily damaged unit c=
ould
>simply move off the board before it is wiped out. That way a force c=
an
>fight a delaying fight without having to be completely sacrificed, or i=
t
>could be a small force dedicated to a single purpose (frex, kill that #$=
*$$
>Reaver titan before it gets any farther) that can run after it complet=
es its
>mission.
>
>Temp
>
>
I forgot to mention that commanders can retrea=
t after any turn of a battle.
Thus forces can fight delaying actions etc if=
their commander so wishes.
It's just that if neither commander wants to r=
etire from the field and give
up that territory then the battle could go on=
for many hours, perhaps even
reaching a stalemate as armies dwindle to pra=
ctically nothing. I just feel
that there should be a final cut off points =
somewhere where one player wins
and the other loses.
You know what might =
be interesting is have some rule for the 'leftover' troops. That's one thin=
g I notice about e40K. You tend to have little bits and pieces of detachmen=
ts
left. No one wants them to be wiped out, so they go and hide in cover or=
something.
How about detachments at 25% strenght or below may band togethe=
r with others in a similar situratino to form a new detachment. This repres=
nts someone taking command of leaderless troops and directing them in a fig=
ht for survival. Anyway, it's
an interesting concept.
--------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------
"Your incorrect assumptions are threefold."
"You assume law=
still reigns in the Five Galaxies"
"You assume that we would be bound by p=
recedents and precepts from the last 10 million years."
"But your most inco=
rrect assumption of all is to assume that we care."
-David Brin, Inf=
inity's Shore
-----------------------------------------------------James Nu=
gent----------------------------------------
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Mon Jun 16 1997 - 16:07:16 UTC