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

FWC vs Epic:A
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=13773		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Calico_Bill [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
I liked playing BKC and I'm thinking of getting FWC. Is FWC better though than Epic:Armageddon, a game I also enjoy. My question really is, which would you prefer to play? Which is more fun, and why? Thanks.
Author:  Dave [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:14 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
I haven't played FWC but I have played Warmaster.  While the order system for Warmaster suits the fantasy/historical setting I'm not sure if the order system is the best fit for modeern/future battles. The system can also get very frustrating at times when you get unlucky with the rolls.

I'll be picking FWC up but I don't anticipate on playing it much. It's hard enough to find Epic gamers. :p
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
Saying that the WWII and Cold war guys I know love it.
Author:  Mephiston [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:03 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
IMO they both have different good points.

Epic A is a fantastic tournament system with a nicely designed tournament scenario.

If FWC plays like BKC/CWC, and I see no reason why it wouldn't then it plays far better as a scenario driven game. The few times I've played meeting engagements the game bogs down with neither side willing to push to break the opposition fearful they will get broken themselves.
Author:  Legion 4 [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
I have not got my copy of FWC yet, but from what I've heard it sounds superior to E:A and I can say the same for DRM/SoW rules. At this time ... I'd say E:A IMO, pulls a (weak?)third ... SoW = 1, FWC = 2, and E:A = 3  But, once I get get FWC that may change, but I still see E:A as #3 ...    The fact that E:A is good for Tournaments is of little use to us since we don't play "Tournies" ...  8v)  See my previous post about Vegas !! :laugh:   Of course similar to what Dave said, with the responsibilities of modern life makes it hard to find time to set 4-6 hours aside for gaming ... :sad:
Author:  pixelgeek [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
Quote: (Dave @ 15 Oct. 2008, 06:14 )

I haven't played FWC but I have played Warmaster.  While the order system for Warmaster suits the fantasy/historical setting I'm not sure if the order system is the best fit for modeern/future battles. The system can also get very frustrating at times when you get unlucky with the rolls.

The two systems are really dramatically different and I think that it makes them very difficult to compare.

Epic is primarily a game of weapon system delivery. Each unit has a very detailed weapon listing and the weapons have additional details added to them.

FWC has no real weapons and the units themselves have attack values that are not linked to any specific weapon.

Epic has an initiative system but no real command and control. FWC is very much focused on C&C.

Epic is a fantasy game with sci-fi weapons and really doesn't focus on technology so much. FWC has a particular focus on the differing effects of technology levels and specific technologies. This is something that makes a race like the Tau a lot more interesting in FWC IMO.

The games also play quite differently and I think that Epic players will need a few games before they get a feel for the system and get used to how to command units and lead assaults. Assaults are very different in FWC and are not the mass piling in of troops that Epic has.

I think both games are a lot of fun and people are really going to need to try the game a few times to see what they think

Oh, and leave your expectations about how your "marines" or "orcs" play at the door. The rules have stats for Epic armies but they are not 40K based armies and work differently.

I'll be picking FWC up but I don't anticipate on playing it much. It's hard enough to find Epic gamers. :p

Given the wide range of minis that you can use in the game and the fact that it has a point system to build armies you may have better luck with FWC than Epic.
Author:  Legion 4 [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:44 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
That's good intell PG !  THanks !
Author:  pixelgeek [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
One other thing that gamers will need to drop from Epic is thinking of formations in terms of blocks of similar units.

In Epic you tend to use a formation to soften up an assault target and then assault with other troops. In FWC you can soften up the target as part of the action for the "formation" so its often better to build blocks of assault forces that have their fire support as an organic part of them

So instead of one formation of tanks you'd have those tanks as part of the formation of infantry and IFVs. The tanks shoot as the IFVs move into assault and so you get the same effect but in a more realistic fashion
Author:  primarch [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
Hi!

From the point of view of tactics and combined arms approach, I think FWC is the frontrunner.

Oddly enough for me, I actually think FWC and the way it applies its rules and command and control the rules can actually make the diverse armies of the epic universe BEHAVE like the fluff suggests.

Space marines,besides their superhuman traits, do have superior command and control as compared to say IG. Epic rules have never really delved into that aspect very well. In FWC space marines are better lead and it will show in how the army responds.

Also by altering hits, saves and weaponry you can get a better palable difference in the resilience of marines versus IG.

The FWC take on tyranids and how a hive works is probably one of the best I've seen. The rules really make it function like a swarm.

Artillery, air superiority/strikes and how they function are definitely better in FWC and clearly linked to command control (as it should be).

Even abilities from the epic universe like tunnelers, teleport units, snipers and others just work better than the epic analogues.

Both rule sets have a different take on how to represent this scale, so its ultimately a matter of taste which you'd like.

I prefer mechanics tied into command and control with a layer of details to make armies function differently during play. I believe FWC delivers this.

Primarch
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
Pardon my ignorance. What does FWC stand for?
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
Future War Commander :)

And yes the warmaster system is all about command and control - and is I think the best ruleset for capturing that to date - at least the most elegant, other systems having such mechanisms but making it damn complex at the same time.
Author:  pixelgeek [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
Quote: (Dwarf Supreme @ 15 Oct. 2008, 12:00 )

Pardon my ignorance. What does FWC stand for?

You are in the Future War Commander topic area. This might be a clue :-)
Author:  Tertius [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:46 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
since we're comparing.. Is there a comparison between FWC and SM2/TL / NetEpic?
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
Quote: (pixelgeek @ 15 Oct. 2008, 15:41 )

Quote: (Dwarf Supreme @ 15 Oct. 2008, 12:00 )

Pardon my ignorance. What does FWC stand for?

You are in the Future War Commander topic area. This might be a clue :-)

I didn't want to assume.
Author:  Legion 4 [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:56 am ]
Post subject:  FWC vs Epic:A
That FWC C&C sounds better all the time ... as I said with every version of Epic, C&C didn't cut it, IMO ...
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/