Re: [Epic] 2nd Ed Campaign

From: David Knowles <link0031_at_...>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:04:35 +0000

At 11:36 16/06/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 02:55 PM 6/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>>I forgot to mention that commanders can retreat 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 retire 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 practically nothing. I just feel
>>that there should be a final cut off points somewhere where one player wins
>>and the other loses.
>
>I agree that it could get horribly long, but in most cases, I think a
>commander would want to preserve his units during a campaign. What are your
>rules for rebuilding units between battles? Perhaps harsher restrictions on
>that would make it more desirable to cut and run, instead of sticking it out.
>
>Temp
>
>
The campaign is being fought over a 20x20 grid, about one eighth of these
sectors contain territories that give resources, thus the more territories you
control, the more resources you get. Each turn you must spent so many
points of resources to re-supply your army, otherwise your troops die of
starvation or
become useless as they run out of ammo etc.
The rest can be spent on restoring broken army cards to full strength, buying
new army cards or fortification cards, (there are a couple of other things they
can be used for but I can't remember them all right now).

To be honest the restrictions on rebuilding armies could already be too harsh.
(Only playtesting will tell). Whether they are or not, I just can't see me or my
opponent giving up any territory that gives resources easily. In a normal
battle
retreat could be a favourable option, as could retreating from attacking a
valuble terrain feature to get reinforcements. But the army defending a
valuble terrain feature would probably never choose to retreat, and I think
that having
the attacker hunt them down to the last man is a bit harsh. After all there must
come a point when men just give up no matter what their commander says.

I agree that in many cases people would want to cut their loses and withdraw,
but for those cases where neither player is willing to retreat I still think
that there should be some sort of cut-off point.

                                DSK
Received on Tue Jun 17 1997 - 16:04:35 UTC