Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Transport Question

 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 5:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
I see your point about that Macro vs. Mirco.  But I'm not talking about elevation differences, I'm talking about an AFV behind a wall (like the ruin bit that comes on the base sprue) or something like that.  But your point about micro vs. macro is an interesting way to look at it, I never considered that.  But that would be another reason why I'm not "hot" on the whole E-A system.  I'd like to read Gandalf's reply, but it did not download for me. This has happened before. Pixzel, maybe you can "quote" it for me, the quotes seem to come thru ?  Good discussion guys, this is what the forum all about.   :)

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 6:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Quote (Legion 4 @ 04 2003 May,21:43)
But I'm not talking about elevation differences, I'm talking about an AFV behind a wall (like the ruin bit that comes on the base sprue) or something like that.

Interesting point.

Not sure how that would effect the game. I'm trying to think back to what I've read about tank combat and I can't really think of anything that is applicable.

Typically the firing unit is either trying to hide behind the wall or get next to the wall to fire over it :-)

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 6:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Quote (Gandalf the Grey @ 04 2003 May,20:52)
Well said Legion, very well said. ??If a Leman Russ represented, lets say, 5 Leman Russes, then I could see us ignoring cover and what not. ?So long as I move one mini at a time, and are concerned where it is on the battlefield as a unit, it is more a tactical game than a strategy game.

I feel like sometimes Jervis is trying to make a 'Command and Conquer' game where you give a general order to a group of units and they go off and battle on their own. ?Trying to simulate that using minis just doesn't work for me. ?If Jervis can quote his favorite authors, point one out to me that stated that units couldn't fire at two seperate formations at once. ?Actually, in doing so, that would mean the unit would be able to distinguish seperate formations in a body of mixed infantry and tanks, which is about as unlikely as you can get. ?

I think some sort of hull down rule should go into effect, just to give me more to think about as I am moving minis around the board.

So long as a single Leman Russ mini represents a single Leman Russ tank, much of what Jervis is trying to do and get us to ignore just isn't going to happen.


I don't think he is getting us to ignore it so much as he is just not factoring it.

I'll agree that the game still models single vehicles and people but  the firing system doesn't take individual lines of fire into account. If my formation can draw a line of fire to a target then the entire formation can fire. Its a level of abstraction above a game that has single units firing at other single units so unless you want to start adding more complicated firing rules you might have to do without vehicle cover.

I feel like sometimes Jervis is trying to make a 'Command and Conquer' game where you give a general order to a group of units and they go off and battle on their own.


He is. Units break (although in a fairly predictable way), you can't target units your opponent allocates the hits and your suppression is handled outside your control. There is quite a lot outside your control.

Its still damn fun and it still has a lot of tactical opportunities involved, you just don't have the same type of control as you do in other games.

I think some sort of hull down rule should go into effect, just to give me more to think about as I am moving minis around the board.

You could always bring this up on the EpicA board and see what the reaction is. It isn't a very large change to the game so it might be conceivable that it could be added.

Aside from that, there isn't anything stopping you from adding it yourself. House rules are always a good thing :-)

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 6:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
Well based on my experiences, with previous games and real armored vehicles, it seems "unrealistic" to me. ?Cover provides additional survivability. ?I've been trained to use Anti-tank weapons and have looked down the site at targets, the less I can see of him the harder it is to hit. But maybe I'm just used to most other systems, that take cover into consideration. ? It works for us ... :)

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 6:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
Thanks Pixzel, I can read it now, weird how that happens ???.  Yes, Gandalf, you and I see it as more of a tactical game at almost it's lowest level.  I think Jervis was trying to keep things "simple" to a point, so he chose to ignore or simply just left things out.  I command a Mech Co. attached to a Tank Bn. much of the time and we spent a lot of time staying under cover, for obvious reasons.  In SM1, if you fired at a unit under cover, the roll to hit got a -1.  Simple, made sense ... it worked.           Troops and vehicles move from cover to cover and try not to stay out in the open too long.  Just like your point about dividing fire and Pixzel's about macro vs. mirco, there's a point where the two are at odds with each other.  And as I said I have to go with my previous experiences on the gaming tables and in the field as a Grunt...   :D

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 7:12 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Quote (Legion 4 @ 04 2003 May,22:21)
I've been trained to use Anti-tank weapons and have looked down the site at targets, the less I can see of him the harder it is to hit.

Guess it depends on what you're firing :-)

I'm assuming that a DU round or a APFSDS round would punch through most cover but any sort of guided system like a TOW or Dragon would suffer from cover.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 3:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
Yes, that is somewhat true. But remember not only does hard cover ,like a wall, stop or deflect the hit of some rounds - Shot, HEAT, HEP, etc., but concealment, like thick vegetation, won't stop a round, but you can't hit what you can't see. ?So by having a general rule for cover and concealment, it "covers" :;):, both contingencies. A well concealed vehicle, won't be visible until you're almost on top of it, sometimes. ?I know, it happened, in my experiences of the past. ?Again, I think it's up to you & your gaming crew, what rules to use. In SM2 they had a rule that a flank shot was a -1 to the save and a -2 to the rear. ?A pretty reasonable rule, but with a d6 system, sometimes too many modifiers, become ungainly. ?So again, use what works for you. ?:)

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 6:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
A well concealed vehicle, won't be visible until you're almost on top of it, sometimes. ?I know, it happened, in my experiences of the past.


As I mentioned to Gandalf, maybe someone needs to bring this up on the EpicA messageboard. Are you on it?

In SM2 they had a rule that a flank shot was a -1 to the save and a -2 to the rear.


EpicA has the Crossfire rule that gives a -1 to hit on fire in similar circumstance.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 6:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:23 pm
Posts: 789
Location: Tampa, Florida
Well based on my experiences, with previous games and real armored vehicles, it seems "unrealistic" to me.  Cover provides additional survivability.  


This is the one thing that really annoys me in 40k.  If I have a Space Marine firing at a Dark Eldar in cover, there is no modification to my hit roll, and all it does is garantee that the Dark Eldar gets an unmodified save.  This has to to with affecting aim, not jumping ahead to damage.  There is no -1 to hit (although some claim there is, but you won't find it in the rulebook).  I guess I should be happy that I can roll a 5 or 6 to save the Dark Eldar, as opposed to a Marine going from a 3+ to hit to a 4+, but it is just a weird rule.

I think Jervis is making EpicA a little abstract, which means you are alienating a sizable group of players that want to play the game as they see it on the table, and not imagine that there are 'things' going on.

Remember Firefights in Epic40k and how units didn't need LOS to fire? I hated the rule.  Even if units could move during the phase, their actual position in the game didn't change, so they could still advance from their position.  I know there is a lot going on in a firefight, but in terms of positioning in the game, I could do without the rule. The more abstract, the less important things are on the board, but that is what everyone is looking at, not imagining what is going on in their heads.

_________________
Please check out my website: http://www.system17.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 6:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:23 pm
Posts: 789
Location: Tampa, Florida
Oops.  I forgot to mention that I found the -1 for side attacks/-2 for rear attacks sometimes to clumbersome.  I love the crossfire rule in EpicA.

_________________
Please check out my website: http://www.system17.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2003 4:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
No Pixzel, I'm not, but please feel free to quote me or forward my comments here or on any other post to Jervis. ?The Cross fire rule does have the -1, and that is certainly a step in the right direction. ?I believe I e-mailed him about this rule when he first published it, and the way it was written up then, your unit would suffer a lot of friendly fire casualties. ?So maybe he changed it because of that ? ? ? ? ?So again I base my observations not only on my reading of history and watching the History Channel but the "been there, did that" point of view ... ?:)

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2003 5:13 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
And Gandalf, there's a lot of reasons I don't play 40K and you just mentioned some of them. ?The rules are a bit ... well, they don't just work for me. ?And I still think some of the E40K and E-A Fire Fight rules need a little fine tuning but again, are moving in the right direction ?Close Combat rarely came into play in our Epic games. We understood the concepts of Fire and Movement, and Maneuver Warfare. ?G/W rules have a predilection for 18th century sword and bayonet fighting. ?Their rules for indirect fire and CAS are like an after thought. ?SM1 came close to getting that right, amazingly, we still use?modified rules based on those. ?So as I said, use what works for you and don't be afraid to experiment. ?I don't mean to be critical, it's just my opinion ... :D

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2003 6:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:01 am
Posts: 7823
Location: Sydney, NSW
>We understood the concepts of Fire and Movement, and >Maneuver Warfare.  G/W rules have a predilection for 18th >century sword and bayonet fighting

I totally agree and have a similar opinion.  I guess thats the difference between a game and a simulation.  I think EA is a nice balance between the 2.  If I want ultimate realism, I'll go for something different.

And in the end, how can you possibly simulate what things will be like in another 38,000 years... :cool:

>I don't mean to be critical, it's just my opinion ...

thats how things get improved.  If you are in the hobby, your opinion counts, even if its just as a consumer.  As a former infantry officer, your credibility speaks volumes

_________________
Tas
My General blog: http://tasmancave.blogspot.com/
My VSF Blog: http://pauljamesog.blogspot.com/
My ECW Blog: http://declaresir.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2003 6:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:01 am
Posts: 7823
Location: Sydney, NSW
>We understood the concepts of Fire and Movement, and >Maneuver Warfare.  G/W rules have a predilection for 18th >century sword and bayonet fighting

I totally agree and have a similar opinion.  I guess thats the difference between a game and a simulation.  I think EA is a nice balance between the 2.  If I want ultimate realism, I'll go for something different.

And in the end, how can you possibly simulate what things will be like in another 38,000 years... :cool:

>I don't mean to be critical, it's just my opinion ...

thats how things get improved.  If you are in the hobby, your opinion counts, even if its just as a consumer.  As a former infantry officer, your credibility speaks volumes

_________________
Tas
My General blog: http://tasmancave.blogspot.com/
My VSF Blog: http://pauljamesog.blogspot.com/
My ECW Blog: http://declaresir.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Transport Question
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2003 6:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
Thanks Tas, I don't want to offend anyone, but like I said I base some of my comments on my past experiences, and you were an Infantry officer too, so you may have similar incites.  We base our hybrid rules on a melding of Sci-fi and reality, which sometimes is hard to do.  But certain things should remain constant, whether Orks or the IJA are doing it.  And I think Epic has a strong WWII feel, with Sci-fi thrown into the mix.  So mounting & dismounting vehicles, infantry and vehicle movements, airstrikes, artillery, etc., etc., would be similar, regardless of what force is doing it, Nazis or Eldar ... :)   So I hope my comments are contructive and maybe someone might think they could use them to improve how they play the game.  So thanks again, Tas, and in the end everybody plays the game with rules that work for them. :)

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net