Ahoi,

as the topic suggests, I am currently thinking about the rason for limited game turns. In Epic: Armageddon the standard scenario is limited to 4 turns, Warhammer limits most scenarios to 6-7 turns, even non-fiction games like Cold War Commander or A Fistful Of TOWs have scenarios with restricted length.

I mainly thought of nightfall as battle-ender during my Warhammer and Warmaster gaming, for modern and scifi games this definitely is no big deal. Troops getting tired and refuing to fight also seems odd to me (e.g. Space Marines don't tire the same rate as ordinary humans).

Is the main reason people only playing battles and not wars, so the life and death of their soldiers only matters during ONE battle and withdrawing surviving troops after a presumably lost battle is not of importance? Instead we tend to throw in our reserves and just hope to force a draw!

What do you think? Could/should ther be scenarios which include the preparation for battle and the ordered retreat after the battle is lost, as long it is no cataclysmic defeat? Share your thoughts with me, fellow generals!

Regards,
K

_________________
My tabletop-blog (in German): http://menofleadandplastic.blogspot.co.at

The movement ranges in EA are a lot bigger than 40k, that's likely why they're only 3-4 turn compared to the 6-7. There's plenty of scenarios in the EA rulebook, and I've tried a few Epic 40k, 40k, FoW and Dirtside II scenarios as well. Most work with only a little bit of tinkering.

The tournament scenario strives to be chess-like. Hence the mirrored conditions and ways for vastly different armies to win. So while the scenarios your raise in your questions might be fun, it's really hard for them to meet those two criteria.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I don't think the higher movement distances have any influence on the number of game tuns. An Epic: Armageddon turn equals roughly 10-15 minutes - time enough for an intense fight between two formations during an engagement to finish each other of to set up and execute a devastating bombardement.

The tournament scenario thus is about 40-60 minutes. Plenty of time for a bunch of guys with heavy weaponry to kill and destroy, I persume.

My main point was only to think about the reason for limits? Even in FoW scenarios games are limited in number of game turns, arn't they?

-K

_________________
My tabletop-blog (in German): http://menofleadandplastic.blogspot.co.at

Main reason is do that the game can be played at club nights and tournaments. If games are open ended then it becomes difficult to have pick up and go games

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

For gaming in reasonalble short periods of time, that might be true, yes.

Armies beeing wiped out would be the "normal" case, if their commanders left them in the thick of battle too long, not if some deity chose to limit the time of their battle... So the limit is mainly for gaming reasons!

Has anyone tried to play a "full" battle, that is playing the act of setting up the troops, playing the fighting and playing the withdrawing of the army afterwards?

_________________
My tabletop-blog (in German): http://menofleadandplastic.blogspot.co.at

Loss of stands/units in EA does not always represent a casualty/hard death, but can be the removal of stands because they can no longer fight effectively. So armies that look wiped out are not wholly killed, a part of the seeming 'casualties' may have withdrawn themselves already.

No, I haven't played a game like you describe, but given the movement speeds in EA i think everything would just march off table?

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

As I currently enjoy reading a book by Archduke Charles of Austria, Duke of Teschen, about commanding battles in the early 19th century, these thoughts came to my mind. I did not play a game like that.

Thinking about the March action, I would say it is some kind of non-combat move which in reality would leave troops in a delicate condition - they are just marching and not ready to fight. A Fistful of TOWs has some rules for a thing called Strategic Move. This corresponds to a high movement rate at the disadvantage of suffering terrible losses in case of attack (so this is only to be done in the absence of enemies).

Withdrawing should be done under controlled conditions, covered by other troops, not in a rash action of running away (and be cut down by musket, bolter and chainsword)!

Once again, thank you all for your interesting comments - keep on posting!

_________________
My tabletop-blog (in German): http://menofleadandplastic.blogspot.co.at

Turn limits force more aggressive play. A game without turn limits can sometimes result in two armies dancing around each other without engaging fully. Why move forwards into the enemy guns if you can hang back and move a bit to the left and see if that helps next turn?

Turn limits mean that if you are sitting on the objectives in turn three, you will win, so neither side can afford to hang back and getting beaten to the punch.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Curiously, I feel that that's actually a weakness in games. I enjoy the 'dancing around' as it offers additional layers of strategy, bluff and counter, rather than variations of one massive bloodbath in the center of the table (which far too many of GWs games tend to devolve into).

Broadly, I agree with you... But there is a limit. I like the dance and feint aspect of wargames - which is why I prefer 6mm over 28mm, more room to move around - but if you spend four hours and have only managed a couple of casualties from each side because everyone is hugging cover, hiding behind buildings and still at extreme opposite ends of the table.... it pushes it too far. I agree that most GW games end up as a big furball in the middle of the table, and that is just as bad, but that is an issue of how many turns are set as the limit, I think, rather than if turn limits themselves are any good.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

It worth noting that the game Epic A itself doesn't impose a turn limit, it's the Grand Tournament scenario that imposes a minimum of 3 turns, 4 and possibly more if the dice allow. It does this to allow a game to be complete in around 2 to 3 hours, a gaming evening for the Gents that created the scenario.

If the GT scenario doesn't meet your needs then come up with one that works for you and your group.

The games police won't come around and confiscated your toys if you do!

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness

Clearly the main reason to have the limits in the game is for practicality. It is a tournament scenario after all. In terms of justifying that, I would choose to see the turn limit as simply the point in the battle where one side (or both) concedes that they will not win and retire from battle instead. It's just that the decision is taken out of your hands, and you don't actually play out the retirement.

I must admit, the end-game meta of Epic is the part that I least enjoy about the game, or more accurately it's the part that messes most with my suspension of disbelief. More often than not, the second half of turn 3 sees ragged formations screaming across the battlefield to "capture" objectives, suddenly ignoring the prospect of shooting at or hiding from the enemy; even marching right into their faces. They've spent the battle trying not to get killed, and now that they have dwindled in number all of a sudden their commander sends them scurrying up the battlefield to a piece of grass they have no hope of holding for more than 20 seconds.

Unfortunately I can't really think of a better way to emulate a more "realistic" representation of holding territory. The nearest approximation I would say would be that you only capture an objective if you've held it for a full turn- but equally you only contest it if you've contested it for a full turn. The reason is that, IMO, the problem I described above is mostly a result of the "single point in time" way that objective-holding is accounted.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Maybe orders from higher up now say destroy that objective to deny it to the enemy, and as their are no enemy in the way that can be accomplished by that combat ineffective unit?

This is always the issue when you try to apply to much 'realism' to what is a really abstract and arbitrary game.

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness