Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Abstract vs Detail
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=26900		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  KTG17 [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Abstract vs Detail
So how gritty do you like it?

I absolutely love AT/SM1. I love the detail, the options, everything. However, I played a lot of big games and they took DAYS to play out, mostly due to the speed it took our units to get into the fight. I first balked at SM2/TL because if simplified things (Like I even hated that Rhinos only had a sngle bolter that could shoot 15cm, where in AT/SM1 they had 2 that could shoot up to 24cm). But having gone thru those time consuming games, and the desire to keep playing bigger and bigger games, I eventually accepted it, but missed the grit in the earlier edition.

Obviously the driving force behind Epic 40k was to play big games over a big area in a quick amount of time, and for that a lot or detail had to be stripped and that pissed off a lot of people. And in small games, Epic 40k is kind of a ridiculous game to play. But in large games, there is no equal. The problem is, who wants to play a huge game all the time? And the detachment sizes in large Epic 40k games just felt like huge mobs.

Not sure how Epic A is with big games. I've only dabbled in about 2000 point games. I wasn't a huge fan of the game to want to try it out. But I am a fan of detachments being made in more manageble sizes. If any or you have played some 5000 or higher def chime in.

So the point of this is, where do you think the emphasis should lie? I think trying to sell any 6mm game as a game of huge sweeping battles is ridiculous because these are simply not large armies being played. And I think hex and counter games are for that. To me its about the level of detail in a managable space, and the realistic choices you can make in that space.
Author:  Dave [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
We've played a couple of big games, here and there. Here's a good selection:

https://picasaweb.google.com/1120104994 ... aBattleDay
https://picasaweb.google.com/1120104994 ... idgeTooFar
https://picasaweb.google.com/1120104994 ... os20111029

The bigger games are fun. You get more stuff and it's easier to justify taking the big formations as they aren't a 1/4 of your army. I like the balance that EA strikes between special rules and abstraction. It is not a Titan on Titan game however, war engines are fairly simplified in comparison to AT or TL.

That being said, I still think you can field a big force on what appears to be an appropriately sized battle field. The 40k games I see have a good portion of what's in my EA armies, but when you play them on the same table as an EA game it just looks silly with 40k. 40k is more squad vs squad in my mind, yet it tries to be platoon vs platoon (where EA shines).
Author:  fredmans [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
Personally, I began playing tabletop games with Space Marine, and was hooked throughout the SM/TL era. My biggest beef with E40K was not the more abstract unit stats and combat rules, but as you say yourself, the rag-tag feel of your formations. Even Space Marines felt like Ork Warhordes, a little of that, a little of this mixed together. It just felt odd.

I am a huge fan of the EpicA rules set, and think of it as something like regimental action. A couple of companies with support battling it out. I find it the perfect size to go with 6mm, since it allows for manoeuvering and also is small enough for air forces and artillery to be played somewhat properly.

I have not looked back to SM/TL, even though I loved it, because frankly I mostly remember the table being packed and everything firing at everything for VPs, rolling loads of dice and consulting loads of tables and special rules. It was the forerunner to what eventually happened to the other GW core games.

I am more and more intrigued by the possibilites of 2mm, but am somewhat daunted by the small minis. I love painting and modelling, and spend a lot more time on painting than gaming nowadays. 6 mm sci-fi and 10 mm historical is what I do for the moment.

For grand strategy, I love the old NATO symbol board games with "important hexes", odds tables and logistics. The bigger, the better (World in Flames, Pacific War). I think board games generally have a bright future if they port to iPad or Android equivalents. I would love playing all those amazing designed games, without the hassle of setting up and storing the games in between sessions, and worrying about cats or wives or whatever.

/Fredmans
Author:  Apocolocyntosis [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
I like the level E:A works at in general. That said, some of the army lists are too detailed for me. A lot more could be abstracted there, I don't personally feel the need to see every land raider variant represented, nor every chapter have its own list. But lots of other people really enjoy being able to add that extra level of flavour, so if one ruleset can accommodate both why not.

Picking up on the 2mm comment, I agree! If epic and all the minis involved there in could instantly become 2 or 3mm i'd be very happy :spin
Author:  Mattman [ Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
2mm could be interesting, games would truly live up to the name "Epic". Maybe someone could poke Deacon and see what he could come up with at that scale ;)
Author:  MephistonAG [ Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
Big games don't necessarily need to just be lots and lots of models, you can come up with clever scenarios to get multiple players involved, like this one maybe?

http://epic-uk.co.uk/batrep/OpMG/opmgmain.shtml
Author:  Legion 4 [ Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
We liked the SM1/AT1 rules too ... but we added activation way back in '91 ... it only took GW over a decade to figure that out. SM2 was their bid to sell more models and play ACW with high tech weapons ... Both E40K and were improvements, but needed a little fine tuning even as SM1 did ... The SM1/AT1 Random Scenario system and TO&Es[Army Lists] were both great and we still use them ...
Author:  primarch [ Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
Hi!

AT/SM1 had a lot of good things going for it, but as a combined game where titans and non-titans shared the table it was terrible. The two unit types worked on a separate set of assumptions and bringing them together was time consuming and clunky.

Second edition, at least for me was epic at its "grandness". The sheer amount of stuff you could feel made the game feel truly epic. But that came at a cost of repetitiveness (no random scenario generation and fighting over objective counters gets stale very quick) and little or no maneuver (predominance of long range fire static play). Also the "air war" was tacked on at the end and never made viable or workable. That said, later versions of the game looked and played little more than skirmish games with a thin veneer of epic scale, so suffice to say I still am in search for the "right" combination.

Primarch
Author:  kyussinchains [ Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
I really enjoy the abstract nature of the E:A rules, they capture the overall feel of more complex fiddly systems like 40k very welll for the most part, they allow me to field lots of tanks and swarms of infantry and play a decent-sized game in less than 3 hours, I think the alternating activations mechanic keeps you engaged and allows you much more tactical flexbility to react in real-time

I played SM2/TL loads and loads back in the day, it was my favoruite game right until I started playing E:A, which took most of the feel of the old epic system and streamlined what could be a clunky and sluggish game at times

I've never looked back really, and the last time I tried playing Warhammer Fantasy, it felt like the game was on rails, with stuff only moving tiny distances and having very little in the way of tactical play, it was much more around list building and fiddling with combinations of magic items and spells before the game even started, as we set our stuff up, I could tell who was going to win, and that's basically how it played out

I'd rather play Epic or Warmaster than any more complex game these days, the rules work really well, and don't get bogged down in the minutae of which dude has which kind of magic axe....much more satisfying!
Author:  The Bissler [ Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
I'm with Primarch. I love the detail of Net Epic, but I can understand why some people might want the system streamlined. If only someone could design a system that retained the flavoursome armies of NetEpic but could somehow speed up play. I dunno, maybe you could call it something like Net Epic Evolution... :whistle
Author:  kyussinchains [ Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
I'm not sure E:A lacks 'flavoursome armies'.... I mean the whole remit for the E:A ruleset was to create strongly themed armies based on particular regiments/chapters/craftworlds/generals/etc it's why we have umpteen different lists for every faction with (mostly) strong themes which encourage certain playstyles and tactics, as someone developing a list, I'm really trying to create a balance between preserving the overall theme of the Imperial Fists (stauch siege-defenders) while making it playable in a variety of different manners to suit varying opponents and tactics

I'm not sure of the updates of SM2/TL covered in NetEpic (and I'm sure there are so many it's barely recognisable) but what I like about E:A was the elegant way formations degrade taking prolonged shooting, how units become suppressed and can't fire, how this becomes a part of the tactics of the game, jockeying for position, trying to lay suppressing fire to stop AA units shooting your attack craft down. How formations mutually support each other in assaults, and how you have to carefully choose where you attack a formation to give you the best odds of beating it

I also like the army selection, being able to add upgrades to formation, like extra stands of infantry or tanks, or snipers or commanders, you can really make a customised unit, not to the silly degree of E40K, but you can fiddle with the formations in a really organic way

it's not perfect, nothing is, the air rules leave something to be desired, and the barrage table can be frustrating at times... but overall I think they knocked it out of the park with E:A by streamlining the SM2 rules a great deal with E40K, but bringing back a lot of the SM2 flavour, you get the best of both worlds IMO :)
Author:  Steve54 [ Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
kyussinchains wrote:
I'm not sure E:A lacks 'flavoursome armies'.... I mean the whole remit for the E:A ruleset was to create strongly themed armies based on particular regiments/chapters/craftworlds/generals/etc it's why we have umpteen different lists for every faction with (mostly) strong themes which encourage certain playstyles and tactics, as someone developing a list, I'm really trying to create a balance between preserving the overall theme of the Imperial Fists (stauch siege-defenders) while making it playable in a variety of different manners to suit varying opponents and tactics

I'm not sure of the updates of SM2/TL covered in NetEpic (and I'm sure there are so many it's barely recognisable) but what I like about E:A was the elegant way formations degrade taking prolonged shooting, how units become suppressed and can't fire, how this becomes a part of the tactics of the game, jockeying for position, trying to lay suppressing fire to stop AA units shooting your attack craft down. How formations mutually support each other in assaults, and how you have to carefully choose where you attack a formation to give you the best odds of beating it

I also like the army selection, being able to add upgrades to formation, like extra stands of infantry or tanks, or snipers or commanders, you can really make a customised unit, not to the silly degree of E40K, but you can fiddle with the formations in a really organic way

it's not perfect, nothing is, the air rules leave something to be desired, and the barrage table can be frustrating at times... but overall I think they knocked it out of the park with E:A by streamlining the SM2 rules a great deal with E40K, but bringing back a lot of the SM2 flavour, you get the best of both worlds IMO :)

+1
Author:  Athmospheric [ Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
I think the detail level of E:A is great. The List design philosophy is IMO a tragedy.
Author:  primarch [ Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Abstract vs Detail
Athmospheric wrote:
I think the detail level of E:A is great. The List design philosophy is IMO a tragedy.


Hi!

I don't play E:A, but out of curiosity why is the list design a tragedy?

Primarch
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/