So, with Big out of the way, time to raise my favourite question/s - how to keep Epic on an epic scale (episcale) of conflict.

I don't know about you fellas, but I play Epic (and 6mm in general) 'cause the possibility to actually manoeuvre my forces and have a strategic feel to it.
With the current movement rules I have a hard time seeing this happening.
No, this is NOT about the absurd "n individual moves" of double and march.
This is about being able to act and counter-act on the battlefield. And perhaps also adjusting some shooting modifications.

I don't really mind Double, more than it's the no-brainer move order of EA with only a -1 toHit.

I also don't really mind March, more than it's the no-brainer jump ahead into enemy territory order of EA with no restrictions at all as to where your soldiers feel comfy with putting up their feet and rest while transported in a seriously vulnerable way.

Would these suggestions offend you Gents?
Double - either no shooting or -2 toHit.
March - no capture or contesting of objectives and no marching within 60cm of any enemy unit.

With these changes the battlefield will be more open and each order more of a thing to ponder. Battles will (hopefully) be longer than three rounds of mad dashing towards objectives too.

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

This "issue" actually seems to be about the Tournament Scenario, which is *designed* to be a "mad dashing towards objectives", since it's supposed to be a "decisive" game for playing in tournaments.

If you want to change things up, please take a look at the scenarios I'm developing for "EPIC: Total War".

If you want "the possibility to actually manoeuvre my forces" take a look at "Meeting Engagement" where both forces have to move onto the battlefield as the battle begins.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I'm with Chorma on this for the tournament scenario. The idea here is to give a good, challenging game that can be completed in 2-2.5 hours, and it does it well IMO.

I think no shooting on the double is a little extreme but the no march within 60cm's and -2 is something that could be worked into a different scenario with different objectives. Give it a go if you get the chance and report back.

How is adding serious penalties to maneuver going to increase the presence of tactical maneuvering?

In any case, it would throw a wrench in the balance of pretty much all armies.  IG and other firepower-oriented, sit-and-shoot forces would become much more powerful.  An army like Eldar that's intended to use "scoot and shoot" would lose a huge chunk of their firepower and become effectively unplayable.

_________________
Neal

Erik: You crack me up. Half the time you're calling for fixed, unchanging rules, and the other half of the time you're proposing crazy rules changes that would completely change how the game is played

I'm against this idea of course, as it penalises movement far too much and turns the whole game into a gunline. One of the best things about epic is the combination of short shooting distances and fast manouverability, leading to interesting tactical choices. Under your proposal it basically turns the game into 40k-style "walk forward and shoot".

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

Don't be nasty Zombo, I've known you to lament about units tripling to contest objectives from time to time y'know...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Sorry Erik, but I am with the others here in so far that the game generally played is the "tournament game" under section #6, where you get the definitions of objectives and contesting them etc. Meph is spot on in pointing out that these games are set for ~2.5 hours and 3-4 moves.

However, to achieve what I think you are aiming at, you merely need to introduce the air-transports move to all troops; requiring them to be inside 15cm of a given Objective for an entire turn in order to contest it.

Equally, you could try applying this thinking to some to some of Chroma's excellent scenarios and see how you get on

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I'm a bit late but I've always been in favour of saves being written as 4+/4+ (Leman Russ with RA) 5+/- (Chimera) etc etc. MW then becomes lose first save, Lance lose second. Always you to do odd things and also have differing saves like 3+/5+ and stuff for balancing out the odd unit. RA would of course be removed as a special rule and the wording on lance and MW changed slightly

Yes yes, I know, change for changes sake.

Hit allocation. Having played a lot of games with Ignore Cover FF units I see no reason to disallow gameness. It has always been fine with me. It hasn't come up much and the general AP/AT allocation has been alright with it.

I do like MWAP and MWAT shots. Likewise I favour abolishing the current MW4+ - notes TK(1) etc and just making it TKAP/TKAT. So Guns can be AP/AT/AA, MWAP/MWAT/MWAA, TKAP/TKAT/TKAA, BP, MWBP, TKBP, or any mix thereof.

_________________
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 quite like both of these, allows for a wider variety of weapons and armour.

The only issue is that it would boost all the current MW carrying units, assuming they'd be switched from "MWX+" to "MWAPX+/MWATX+" as they'd be able to selectively target, which they haven't been playtested/balanced for.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

That's a very good suggestion.


No, this is about core rules, not about add on specific scenario rules.

In that case I've seriously missed showing what I want. I want good rules that also are dependable (in which sensible/ is a great part).

So, mad dashing it is.  

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

Oh and CAPing galore has never been that tricky. I think its works out at ground flak, last aircraft squadron to activate attack target formation it intercepted, 2nd to last and so on until every formation has fired, with appropiate defensive fire beofre each round from that target squadron, then resolve ground attack.

So for example marine thunderhawk ground attacks. Nightwing1 intercepts, Thunderbolt1 intercepts them, Nightwing2 intercepts them.

So first Hydra fire at everything in range, likewise any eldar flak, as per normal.
Then you resolve intercepts.
Nightwing2 intercepts Thunderbolt1. If in the arc of any defensive AA would get that first at Nightwing2.
If it survives or doesn't jink Thunderbolt1 attacks Nightwing1. If in the arc of any defensive AA would get that first at Thunderbolt1.
Then if Nightwing1 survives it attacks the Thunderhawk. If in the arc of any defensive AA would get that first from the thunderhawk at Nightwing1.
If the thunderhawk survives it gets to land or shoot as per normal.

_________________
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

"Capturing objectives" is purely a "specific scenario rule", specific to the Tournament Scenario.

It's not a "core rule" at all... the way objectives are held in the "Training Scenarios" is completely different, as it could be different yet again in other scenarios.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I have always liked the idea of different armour stats as well. As for splitting the MW into AP and AT fire, I am not sure that this would have too much of an effect - usually you get a mix of AP and AT hits, and at a pinch you could set the wording to work in the same manner as before.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Yes, but you could have weapons that are only MW against a specific target type that has little effect on other targets.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Chroma and others, the effect on objectives are just symptoms and indications.
If EA is to be episcale then you have to be able to manoeuvre, not just simple act/re-act.
Right now we can basically change "Move n cm" into "Move 2n/3n cm". And also remove any chance of playing anything smaller than 4'x8'.

In my first battle I hadn't really grasped the "three turn mad dash" and tried a circumventing manoeuvre with a blitz brigade. No use. The fighting was over before they got into position. How epic is that?

BUT I can see the 3h restriction.
So I'll leave this query at that.
(I don't agree on your estimate on balance Neal, 'cause then there could be NO other (balanced) scenario in EA than Tournament.)

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