That Broken formations shouldn't be able to move closer to the opponents board edge seems logical and like a good idea.

The +1 to Hit for Indirect Firing artillery is one thing i didn't get either. It makes no sence. WW1 showed that prolonged artillery barrages aren't more effective than controlled aimed shots.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

WWII shows barrages to be deadly. Remember WWI was mostly hype regarding the bombardment. Check out the British boasts over the somme WW1. Germans were terrified by US arty as they would call in some guns and then steadily more - so things could only get worse.

But I agree, artillary is unrealistic in Epic, it should be far more deadly.

When modeling fire and movement, what era of warfare are you referencing? Should their be different rules for infantry and self propelled fighting vehicles?

The opponenets board edge only makes sense if that is concealing more enemy. What happens if the marines have dropped all over your deployment zones? What is there is more danger behind you, but a loverly wood a mile further into enemy territory.

Seen and unseen enemy - in spearhead the distance to spot stationary infantry is from memory 6 inches. This is because every 15cm square area of the board contains the terrain of a 40k table, its not the praire (well it could be, but you get the point).

Finally, who is up for a game of challenger 2000?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

It's not about if barrage is effective, it's about the rather strange +1 for aiming, when you anyhow need to prepare to be allowed to shoot barrage.

If the enemy line is in the middle, then there it is. So what did you say about board edge? I didn't, I said "enemy lines".

No, I didn't get your point about the prairie. And that one isn't flat anyhow. And it was about how to stop broken units from moving into position for when (and if) they feel better.
Then 60/30 cm from the player's perspective seem sensible.

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

or for that matter, for cunning players to abuse anyway.

/Fredmans

_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636

Anything can be abused. So you say that because it can be abused it shall not be made better. I don't agree with that reasoning.

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

How is this abusing if you push fleeing enemy units in a deadly crossfire, down a cliff, etc? If there is no room to flee because of obstacles, board edge, enemy troops, etc then the broken formation is doomed to stand and die.
It happened in history (apart from the board edge )

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Well, maybe that was because I did not present any reasoning to begin with

I can only take it that your definition of "better" probably is based on a disapproval of how the present withdrawal rules are written, where the direction of withdrawing is your concern. It should be towards your own "home base" or "away from the enemy". Withdrawals towards the enemy is therefore your definition of "abuse".

If a rule is written to prevent forces from moving towards the enemy (or towards a table edge), a cunning player can auto-kill formations by setting up assaults (with the assistance of nearby formations). This is another kind of "abuse".

The first abuse comes with a risk. You might not rally. Rallying troops cannot contest objectives. Broken formations running around risk auto-kill if assaulted and take extra losses. There are many penalties already for broken formations. The second abuse would render formations dead with no penalties involved at all. This is the "abuse" I am afraid of. I am quite sure the current penalties are due to the fact that writing watertight withdrawal rules is difficult. Instead, they make it a gamble (and a rally penalty as well).

As withdrawals work now, it also adds a tactical element to a often-three-turns-game. If a formation becomes broken, you ask yourself what it can achieve if it rallies (or possibly not) and act accordingly.

If we discuss reality, then what if the best cover was towards the enemy rather than away from the enemy (say some abandoned fortifications). It is just as silly to forbid enemies to approach the enemy if that would be better as it is to not do it. Besides, formations do not always have the bird's eye view of the table that we generals do. If 15 cm is a 40K table, 60 cm in a battle zone is quite a long distance.

/Fredmans

_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636

Well, compared to 40k it might be just fine. Compared to Epic5, SoW and FWC it might not be so perfectly fine...

_________________

Something else to comsider - a 28mm skirmish game rout (like say 40k) is already part of the assault, casualties aren't often dead in Epic. Take a look at a WWII tank division, if it lost 20% of its tanks to combat, breakdown, mishap etc over a short period of time (1-3 days maybe) it would be deemed combat ineffective and withdrawn.
Breaking in Epic is not always fleeing, it could be a controled re-deployment, a mass move by the ranks with the officers following trying to keep order. If your marines break they most likely have not suffered a loss of morale but have decided they must relocate tactically in a greater hurry than normal, then attempt to re-order and maybe receive fresh ammunition, power cells and other consumables via drop pod resupply (which I imagine constantly happening in a marine battle) at a new location.
Epic is a 6mm abstracted game, not something that tries to model everything. Each action represents a wide range of battlefield activities and ways of operating.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Yes, as I've previously mentioned, being "broken" in epic represents disorganisation. The equivilent of 40k's "broken" is hackdown after combat and deaths due to BMs while broken. These represent troops running for the hills etc, which is why fearless units are immune to hackdowns but still get broken as normal.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Umm, this restriction on the direction of broken movement assumes that opposing forces are effectively resident in their own table halves, which is often not the case. Consider air-dropped marines that break an enemy formation deep inside it's own table-half, or a formation that breaks with enemy formations around it as some considerable distance.

The point is that situations could easily arise where the broken formation has to move in an unpredictable direction, or worse, is not permitted to move at all. The result could well be more inequitable than letting the player choose the direction and distance that a broken formation moves.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

There was a lot of various confusion to handle here.

I fail to see relevance of 40k=60 gives Epic=15. I am looking at Epic, how 40k works doesn't enter.

I'm not calling the use of the current rules abuse, merely pointed out the what and if's of rules.

Thanks BL, that was what I partly was looking for. Nowhere to run equals stand and die. Not run in to a potentially battle winning position.

No, I don't define abuse as withdrawal towards the enemy. I could possibly define silly that way...  

"As withdrawals work now, it also adds a tactical element to a often-three-turns-game. If a formation becomes broken, you ask yourself what it can achieve if it rallies (or possibly not) and act accordingly."
Indeed, as in move up to a objective and hope to rally uncontested. Ok, I can see the problem with a formerly broken unit last a full round to be of use objective-wise. Moving to tactically better position while "disorganized" is still an awkward concept.

No, you wouldn't move into (potential) enemy fire to get cover if you're broken. No way. Fearless or not.

Bird's eye concept is to stop the player from acting on behalf of the troops.

Comparing systems was to point out that comparing 40k and EA isn't valid. Just as yo point out yourself.

By "slowing down" movement you have to consider each move more careful and can't make mad last turn dashes hold. There's life after turn three, but time stops there, in EA.

Not "a part move"; it's "part of the move", just as in E5, where it's half a move (or some such). As it's now it's a "scope up move" by the transport. Not a "climb aboard" move by the infantry.

On one hand I want "better" rules (citation as better is subjective, to say the least). On the other hand I want stable rules that is easy to access in all matter of ways. "Rocking the boat" with rule changes doesn't help there. Not easy...  

It's correct that Epic abstracts a lot, and shall so do. But not in absurd and  demusing ways, pretty please.

An airdropped unit is a partly off the chart happenstance. But the 101st etc still considered the allied forces geographical place their "home base", right?
And Epic is very much about lines, usually. (Dark) Eldar raids perhaps the most non-"40k Universe" there is.

Not being able to move in whatever way you want with a broken unit will result in more of them actually dieing on the spot. Which is what happens to units that break while having burnt their ships, standing with their back to a (cliff) wall and surrounded by enemies.

Did I miss something?

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

I think the biggest thing you missed is that broken is not fleeing, routing etc. It is still a strategic level move, not the localised moves that are assumed to be occuring all the time with the models showing the battlefield disposition to a HQ not an NCO.

Just go and have a look see at some of the stuff mauled, wary and disheartened units did in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I can only take it that this is directed towards me.

First of all, withdrawals under the current rules cannot be used to "charge" the enemy. End up within 15 cms and you are dead. Exception: fearless. I do not propose any change to that.

Edit: the_real_chris beat me to it

I cannot help but think that part of the problem is that we conceive of withdrawals differently. You think "fleeing" troops, I think "withdrawing" troops. You want withdrawals to be un-controlled (like for instance WHFB, away from the enemy). I want withdrawals to be tactical. Retreat/advance to that position ('cause we can't stay here).

As the_real_chris and zombocom points out, hack-down hits are "the fleeing" part of disengagement. Withdrawals are about taking up new positions, that in my own (silly) opinion should/could be advantageous.

So, basically, you want formations that loose assaults in proximity to several enemy formations (sort of surrounded) to die.

I would really like to hear your own whats and ifs of your proposed rules' change. Here is one...


What if:
Remember that it is possible to win the assault and lose the resolution. With possible auto-death, I see a discouragement to "adventurous" assault (terminators teleporting straight into the heart of the enemy, thunderhawks dropping from the skies). To many players, that is Epic:A (or at least Space Marines). I think the current system promotes movement and close engagements.

Then what:
To prevent "unfair" auto-deaths (and I play WHFB, so I have seen a lot of those), perhaps the assault resolution rule would have to change. If the assault mechanics would change, formations would have to change their costs. One tweak forces new tweaks, and at the end of the day, one suddenly realizes why the rules were written the way they were.

I am not saying that rules cannot be written elseway, but when one suggests a rules-change, its ramifications, whats and ifs, have to be considered. In the end, one has to consider if it becomes the game one wants or not. I am not convinced.

/Fredmans

_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636

The +1 to Hit for Indirect Firing artillery appears to have been taken into account in the barrage table as really some of the bigger artillery pieces should have a better to hit rate, those pieces that are assumed to almost always fire with +1 to hit.