Remember we are talking about a clipping assault, where the majority of the defending formation are NOT coming under any fire at all.  Which is why the quantity of disruption would seem more in line with shooting attacks.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

I don't wish to argue over the specific case of Alvin York further.  As to do so could seem disrespectful to the achievements of a veteran of the Great War.

I think the discussion has gone too far into the realm of small arms versus close combat.  And that isn't the core of my argument.

It is whether it is reasonable that when only a portion of a formation comes under attack should that have the same effect as all of the formation coming under attack?

That's exactly my point.

Those poor buggers out on the fringe are taking *all* the fire from an enemy that's asaulting them, so it's concentrated and scary looking to those not in the thick of it.  If the fire was "dispersed" over the entire line it wouldn't seem as bad.

But on the comms you'd be hearing those "fringe" units screaming about being massacred and overwhelmed and yet, you don't see anything happening!

It's the "fog of war" uncertainty that causes the route.  Recognize that for a clipping assault in the classic sense, that is "target has Blast markers" and is probably in support range of attackers, "disruptive" effects have already taken place:  The target formation has been shot at, enemy elements have moved up, and now something is giving hell to your flank... and you can't do anything about it.  Then the comms go silent... that could be a bit unnerving.

Additionally, the troops "on the ground" don't have the "god's eye" view of the battlefield that the players have.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

As would seeing members of your unit panicking and running like hell away from the front line.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

All of which Epic handles fairly well.

The target being prepped by some shooting, supporting formations taking position etc etc.

Right up to the point where the attacker starts measuring where to stop his attackers so that *just so* many defenders are in range.

Right up to the point where the attacker starts measuring where to stop his attackers so that *just so* many defenders are in range.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Thats a good point E&C.

Personally I also like the less uncertain tactics that come with pre-measuring.  It just in those assaults that its seems off to me.

I also like the way ZOC and other things is part of the abstraction of *exactly* where a unit is on the board.  But the situation I am describing is one where the exact position of a unit on the board is terribly important.  Those two concepts don't co-exist nicely in my mind.

A lot of battles turn on the mental state of the combatants and also the general's perspectives. The assault resolution is intended to present the overall state of each side in the local engagement, while Clipping reflects a tactic employed to gain the greatest advantage over a small part of the enemy formation.

If I understand your intentions correctly, you question whether this is a reasonable representation or tactic. Well the overwhelming answer is that attacking the flank or rear of enemy forces has occurred time and again and at all levels. In all cases it represents the focusing of forces on a single point with the object of causing a cascade failure in the opponents forces, and most importantly using the size of the enemy against himself (ie preventing the majority of forces from being able to fight).

However, I think you are trying to distinguish between major assaults (like the Battle of Gaugamela or the battle of Tannenburg) with smaller engagements like those discussed earlier which are effectively the same thing, but on a much smaller scale.

Epic also produces the same effects where a number of formations crumble and break under sustained attack over a period; or in the single formation clipping attack.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Ok, I've been thinking about this so here's another shot at it.

I was thinking of what could be done to remove the offending situations without the kind of arbitrary rule that I came up with in the first place.

So, what would the effect be of changing the counter charge rule so that all units could counter charge 10cm?

My point is is whilst E&C is correct many of the examples of "snipers" taking on large numbers of enemy successfully were whithin EA "assault" range so could indeed be clasified as "engages".

Quite true Rug, I consider Warhammer 40,000 / Epic Sniper Rifles as more analogous to modern day Sniper Rifles than the scoped weapons of previous years.

This is due to their presentation as generally having longer ranges and greater impact/killing power than a standard 'rifle' from their respective armies.

Its worth noting that casualties in Epic havn't necessarily been killed, they could have just run off.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Just a ballpark/without much thought/off the top of my head/idiotic idea.

On an engagement, move the chargers, move the counterchargers, roll 2d6+8, that being the firefight engagement distance. That'll stop the "8 Swooping Hawks 14.9cm from those three Orks", and would represent smoke and other obscuring effects on the 'clear' tabletop.

In cover, minimum range is also minimum LOS, and the average die roll of 7 nets you the current standard of 15cm. Which means in most full assaults, you'll get supporting fire out that far, but micromanaged clipping assaults become a bit more problematic. But still retains pre-measuring which I feel is important. It also means that Engagement based units have a chance in the 16-20cm distant capacity.

I've had 3 hours sleep, so I haven't thought it through, and it's probably got a hole an Imperator can walk through.

I go sleeps now.  

Morgan Vening

Thanks for that Morgan.

While its not a perfect solution it does address the issue nicely.  Perhaps that might help illuminate the point to some of the other folks better than my attempts so far have done