Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Would Epic:A work for WW2

 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 9:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:16 pm
Posts: 48
Come to think of it, I think the Flames of War WW2 rules would work perfectly, just use 6mm miniatures and keep the ranges exactly the same. FoW was originally designed by guys from GW and so shares many of the design philosophy with 40K and Epic. With some house rules regarding alternating activations, initiative ratings, morale, commanders and how armour damage works you have a very similar engine.

I stopped playing FoW because it had too many fantasy elements that didn't feel like WW2 for me, essentially it was to much like 40K set in 1944. Furthermore, all the stats and OOBs are already done for you which would be the majority of the work.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
beelzemetz wrote:
For me, a good start would be to define the range bands.
I would propose the following distances.
Close Combat: touch to 50m
Fire Fight: 50m to 200m
15cm: up to 200m
<snip>
and so on...


Really like that idea. I think CC can be an important part of the system if you move away from the "rifle butt to the face" line of thinking and instead focus on point blank combat with submachine guns, grenades and pistols, mostly happening in dense terrain like urban combat, jungle warfare and especially tanks getting ambushed by infantry.

edit: You wouldn't even have to rename it. "Close Combat" is really this kind of fighting, not hand to hand melees.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8971
Location: Manalapan, FL
What you're describing is Firefights in EA. If the cc mechanic is funky simply make CC and FF have the same values for infantry (AV actually need that different to represent how vulnerable they are to infantry(think the sticky bombs in Saving Private Ryan). Playing around with these core definitions is fine but be clear, you're not playing Epic Armageddon anymore (which is totally ok!)

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Disagree. Firefights is anything involving infantry that's not firing heavy weapons, but firing rifles and being close enough to use flamethrowers is something else.

_________________
- Ulrik


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Modelling tank vulnerability to infantry is the most important element of CC. We agree here.

_________________
- Ulrik


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 4:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8971
Location: Manalapan, FL
I think we're actually talking the same thing and running into semantics. Basically JJ in the designer notes pointed about the CC mechanic is that it's everything up to around effective grenade ranges (which is, baring all star quarterbacks on your team ala 101st Charlie company :)) a pretty close deal. The FF mechanic was everything farther out (though still pretty damn close). I was reading you as saying sub -machine guns == CC.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:14 pm
Posts: 479
Location: Galicia, Spain
Tried some years ago and played perfectly, just one change: merging CC and FF.

And yes, paratroopers just self-planetfall.

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:39 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:09 am
Posts: 93
Location: Toronto, Canada
Just out of curiosity, why all the comments about discouraging hand to hand? Every major nation in WW2 based their standard infantry tactics around close combat as the end result of maneuver and supporting fire. Find, fix, flank and finish. Hand to hand in Epic represents hand grenades and clearing out fortified positions at point blank range just as much as it represents chainswords and claws.

In fact, close combat was the only way for infantry to take out enemy tanks in WW2 until 1942, with the debut of the PIAT in Sicily and the Bazooka in North Africa (prior to that, anti-tank rifles were incredibly unreliable weapons for disabling enemy vehicles).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Rifles (15cm) Small Arms
Grenades (base contact) Assault Weapons
Flamethrower (base contact) Assault Weapons, Ignore Cover
Sticky bombs (base contact) Assault Weapons, Armour Piercing* (aka MW)


*I'd imagine a system where infantry only gets cover saves, vehicles can be Light Vehicles (rules as now), medium (normal vehciles) and Heavy. All Heavy vehicles have Reinforced Armour (Simply called Heavy), and Macro Weapon is replaced by the weapon ability Armour Piercing - negates the Heavy save reroll, but does not replace the to hit value of the weapon like MW3+ etc does).

edit: reading up on the PPSh on wikipedia I'd imagine that rifle armed troops would have something like FF5+ CC5+ while SMG armed troops would have it to FF6+ CC4+, or something like that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 740
Location: San Francisco, CA
Hand-to-hand wasn't all that uncommon, especially if you include hand grenades. Some of the Spanish troops in the Blue Division report battles in which it was too cold for guns to work, so most of the fighting was done with grenades and some of it with knives. There were even cavalry charges, with swords: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of ... buscenskij

Late-war infantry should have strong CC against tanks, representing panzerfausts and bazookas. When close enough, infantry were very dangerous once those weapons became common. Earlier in the war there were some troops with anti-tank rifles but they weren't organically included in infantry platoons.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:13 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
I think the key is that there needs to be a range band where infantry have the upper hand over tanks. Some of what we call close combat here (grenades, short range fire, panzerfausts) can also be considered firefight attacks - but if we place them in that band tanks can only use their secondary weapons (like tower mounted machine guns) in firefights. Some thoughts:

- CC is where infantry can really hurt tanks, and where the tanks struggle to hit back. It's also the range of close quarter batles in buildings, trenches and bunkers. Effective weapons: Grenades, flamethrowers, submachine guns, pistols. Tanks use defensive weapons like pintle-mounted machine guns.
- FF is tanks manuevering around each other in a desperate attempt to get a flank or rear shot without getting hit in vulnerable areas themselves. It's also infantry bringing their rifles to bear, like in normal EA. This would be where shermans and T-34s try to get to take out enemy Tigers
- Range is the domain of the main gun on tanks or infantry heavy weapons, like normal EA. Suggestion: In EA Jervis used the varied weaponry of 40k tanks to replace the need for range bands, like how the Russ can use Battle Cannons up to 75cm but need to get within 45cm to use lascannons. Replace this with actual range bands: 88mm cannon 75cm/45cm AT4+/AP4+ Armour Piercing means that the gun fires once out to 75cm, but twice within 45cm (and ignores armour like an MW shot). A third band (75cm/45cm/15cm) fires three times on the shortest range.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Would Epic:A work for WW2
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5467
Location: London, UK
And don't forget the pacific theatre with attacks on fortified positions . . .

Indeed, I suggest that trenches, bunkers and pill boxes probably ought to have defined fields of fire rather than being able to shoot 360 degrees, together with additional constraints applied for assaults, which would not happen for the E:A rules but fine for the kind of thing being discussed here.

On ranges, don't forget that E:A uses an "elastic" range mechanic that works on a form of logarithmic scale. something like the following
15 cm = 150 yds
30 cm = 1 mile
60 cm = 5 mile
120 cm = 15 mile


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net