You're just misunderstanding it. It isn't twice as fast, it's twice as much time spent driving, hence twice as much time spent with the vehicles, hence twice as much time to get in and out of them, at the expense of time spent laying on the ground shooting.

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

The logic, it goes in circles.

Yes, but who's logic?
Sorry, had to get that of my chest.

Try to make the appropriate time slices and perhaps it clears?

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

The thing is, an "activation" isn't a "slice of time", it's an abstraction of combat actions to facilitate game play; it has no defined standard time... and there's no need for that either.

You might as well be complaining that everything doesn't go all at once since it's silly that armies would allow their enemies to "take turns".

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

If a turn is split into 3 x 5 min segments,I see it like this

Advance=
5 min. driving at average speed of 45 mph with time to load or unload troops not both (using this speed as ErikM. mentioned it).
2 x 5 min. periods acquiring targets and firing (hence no to hit modifier).
3.75 miles covered.
Double=
2 x 5 min. periods driving at average speed of 45 mph with time to load or unload troops,once in each period spent moving.
5 min. acquiring targets and firing (with less time to target and fire so -1 to hit modifier).
7.5 miles covered.
March=
3 x 5 min. periods driving at average speed of 45 mph with time to load or unload once in each period spent moving.(no firing allowed as all periods spent moving)
11.25 miles covered.
Sustain Fire=
3 x 5 min. periods spent acquiring targets and firing (hence +1 to hit modifier).


The 3 activations with movement all averaged the same speed (45 mph,whilst they were moving)but moved different distances according to the number of periods spent moving.

This is how I and most others see how the distances covered differ  from advance,double and march activations.
We don't think of it as 45mph,90mph and 135mph for 15 min. but as 45mph for 5,10 and 15min. periods.
I hope this helps show why most don't see any problem with movement rates or need for changing things.

Just to throw another confusing spanner in the works I think the Activations are way more abstract than that. Armies don't take turns killing each other, and soldiers on the advance don't march right up to the enemy and then at the 'end' of their walk start shooting.

Sustained Fire- Easy, the formation is fixed in place, MG's set-up, everyone opening fire on the enemy.

Advance- Troops moving cautiously, from cover to cover, section by section, one unit opening fire whilst another moves, then reversing.

Double- As Advance, but at a run, with less stopping to shoot, hence less rounds downrange and so less firepower in game.

March- Full pelt run.

And so on.

The only place I can see a little contention is Transports, but even that is not a problem.
Most vehicles can move pretty fast, compared to infantry on foot, laden down with weapons, body armour and packs.
A lot of armies use them for this very reason...

The same logic still applies.

Advance- Transport firing whilst picking up/dropping off troops, perhaps sporadic firing whilst on the move, moving cautiously and to provide a more stable firing platform.

Double- As Advance, except not as cautious and less and inaccurate firing, suprisingly able to cover more ground when going 40mph straight line, rather than 15-20mph from cover to cover.

March- Foot down, hang on.


Other's have explained it better, it's just how I see it above.

The 'time' of an activation is somewhat elastic (so rather than 15mins, 00seconds- it's around 5-20mins), and the 'order' of the activation is more fluid (so rather than soldiers walking 10mins, pausing and shooting 2 min, walking 10mins- it's a fluid action of sections moving whilst sections give covering fire).

sorry but i think you ae making way too much of this. what's the next topic? the rate of fire on a bolter is much faster then a volcano cannon, so why are they rolling the same amount of dice?

I must agree with the bunch of guys Erik. I have no problems with move-aim-shoot, move-move-shoot, move-move-move. I can see that the embark/disembark thing is a problem logicwise for you. But frankly I think it is purely a game mechanic, and it is a very simple one when you think of it. One move = one dis-/embark. That is east to memorize and from a game point of view I don't have a problem with it.

Why this focus on how "real" it is? There's also genetically modified super warriors, planetfall, helium(!?) cores in bolter shots... I realize that you'd like to be able to relate to the game, perhaps especially the mindset of the rules designer. And to an extent I agree with you, there are plenty of grey areas in the ruleset that aren't always straight and clear. Can't say I or anybody I taught the game had any problems with grasping the activations though.

Surely you've played WFB some time in your life? I'm thinking of the more recent editions. In 6th edition and perhaps even earlier (I wouldn't know), you could charge an enemy, fight them and win combat and the overrun. That meant that instead of moving your normal marching move distance you'd be able to move three times that with lucky dice and fight in combat in between. GW-games are all "alike" I suppose.

To sum up, I see where you're coming from but disagree. I think the rule one move = one dis-/embark is good because it's easy to grasp. I am not bothered with the implications of what happened in the timescale during the turn.

_________________
http://diceatdawn.blogspot.se

Ok, let's leave it as a game mechanism then.
And no, I have no problem with genetic engineering and daemons, not even the warp. They don't change the physical laws as we know them.
And yes, I see a problem where you first use all available time to get from A to B and then, all of a sudden, also have time to get cargo loaded, unloaded and even loaded again. Yes, I see a credibility problem here.

Not so much that it would make the game unplayable or some such. But it tells us that there's no ground rules for how the rules are expected to work in other instances. If the logic is broken here, and yes it is, then it will be broken elsewhere. And that leads to having to return to the rulebook all the time. 'Cause there's no way you can keep everything in your head, especially as the rules are spread over various very different parts. And are also found as implications in other rules.

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

Well Rug, I haven't looked at as that. If it's fifteen minutes or an hour isn't a concern. But I do think that each soldier try to fill his time with activity (yes, in some cases this is doing, apparently, nothing, but such isn't covered by these rules) as his opponent does it.

I also think that the level of abstraction is about right in EA. Thou I feel it has to be the same level over the whole line. But as my system engineering fiancée says "leave it be, it's to much work to change what's in effect".

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

What takes time is to find a good spot to stop, brake to a stand still, un/load the troops and then (in this case) start of and get up to speed again. And still get from A to B exactly as effective as if not having done that detour.

But as mentioned above, the game has this game mechanism. I'll live with it. I may not like it, but I also want to get playing...  

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

This can happen and I can see where you think this is stretching the time or cramming more activity into a single action or whatever.

I would say that even though all the actions are roughly equal, they aren't exactly equal.  There are a lot of things that shouldn't be exactly equal which are treated the same because it's close enough.  For example, infantry move the same speed in jungle or crossing a river as they do in the open, which is clearly not true in the real world.

It all comes down to where you prefer your games to fall on the simulation-versus-playability continuum and which "realism" you're willing to part with.

_________________
Neal

Thanks Neal, it's good to hear I'm not totally out on a limb with to few indians in the canoe.
My belief is that also abstractions must be weighted against each other, especially when you add in even more to of it's parts. I'd say it's already full in it's basic shape.
Anyhow, game on! (And Karegak... get well, we're a game down.)

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