Other Periods
- Thread starter Ghost6
- Start date
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Hiromoon said:
you said "the wall" and I quite correctly pointed out there were two, I'm not making assumptions....
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Hiromoon said:
nope
127th Angry Angels
Mongoose
Let's all go play a nice game of BF:Evo and let it lie eh
cordas said:errr I have a nasty head cold and seem to have lost the plot....
What are we argueing about here :lol:
Also whilst I am asking awkward questions, Old Bear, what side of the original arguement are you on, you seem to be argueing both.... :twisted:
Well, I didn't for a moment suggest that the Evo rules engine was intended for use across all periods, but once it was suggested it definitely couldn't be amended to work that was a red rag to a bull. Clearly it can be.
I know with absolute certainty that i could take the core elements of the Evo rules and work them into any given period. I could even make it work for scales above skirmish level. Arguments that things like suppression didn't happen previously are laughable. if people want to believe such things, that's entirely up to them, but to me it's turning to semantics to cover up holes in an argument.
emperorpenguin said:
Don't they? Check out the firing rules, the morale rules, the melee rule and the movement rules and tell me where they differ. The differences are in a few rules pertaining to the period in question.
Same goes for the Piquet system. One core set with additional rules for each period. The fact that some people have converted (successfully) these rules to other periods should not be derided simply because they are not official. I rather imagine that if it suited GW they have the talent there to exceed well-meaning amateurs producing house rules.
Mongoose Old Bear said:
Ahh I agree with you, although I think working Evo into larger scale battles than Skirimish level might be more work than its worth, or that said it might be nice to take some ideas from Evo and try and work them into different systems (and possibly easier).
I love the basic premise of evo in that its 2 Actions (either of which can create a reaction), it just gives such an open feel to the game and a fluidity that most other game systems I have tried lack.
As for the suppression arguement its just plain daft......
with our ACW tests we have several figs to a base, each base of infantry (basic) gives a D6 dice so 5 bases wide gives 5D6 but represents around 25 men shooting.
so in a way its mass combat.
reactions and supression stay the same, as range is 15" but movmnet is 5" so you tend to stay at range from the enemy as what happens is you get hit and you can either fire back or move away out of range for their next shots. if supressed all you can do is give a bit of ground or hold your position and possably get shot again, it works damn well.
and you actualy achieve flanks moving and such or holding thei ground so cavalry can get in position. with reduced ranges you find pulling back out of enemy range is for survival, exactly what giving ground is about.
i think alot of people are moaning here without evan rolling a dice and trying stuff.
so in a way its mass combat.
reactions and supression stay the same, as range is 15" but movmnet is 5" so you tend to stay at range from the enemy as what happens is you get hit and you can either fire back or move away out of range for their next shots. if supressed all you can do is give a bit of ground or hold your position and possably get shot again, it works damn well.
and you actualy achieve flanks moving and such or holding thei ground so cavalry can get in position. with reduced ranges you find pulling back out of enemy range is for survival, exactly what giving ground is about.
i think alot of people are moaning here without evan rolling a dice and trying stuff.
cordas said:Just thinking about how to evoify Flames of War
simple balance weapon ranges and mobility to the theater of war.
fow mod actualy plays smoother so far, once it fully tested il release a few notes, fully tested means way more than 10 games
