Is this gamey?

[tbridges]

Is it considered gamey to fire away with a fixed artillery unit, if a spotted target comes within range before the guns themselves get released? Or is "Fixed" status really intended to mean no movement AND no firing until release, even though the game allows it?

[FLG]

I would say probably not. It would depend on the reason the unit is fixed. If they are awaiting historical orders to enter a battle and the enemy moves up to them, then it is reasonable to assume they can act to defend themselves.

If the designer really doesn't want to the troops active until a given time he can arrange for them to arrive as reinforcements. This is done with the artillery units of the Stalingrad Front in the main Stalingrad campaign. The Stalingrad front didn't enter the battle until a day after the Don Front. The designer has positioned all the Front units except the artillery pieces which arrive as reinforcements a day later.

[Peter777]

Fixed Units are just that Fixed. They can still fire just not move.

Many scenarios have fixed Guns / unit some like N44 even have guns that have no movement but they can all fire as much as they like.

Peter777

[Dog Soldier]

It totally depends on the scenario in question. there are many different designers who created the PzC scenarios and game titles. Over time, the same designer changed techniques depending on the needs of the title.

IMHO, if one is doing so well as to get shot at by fixed units, which are usually located deep in the enemy rear, then you deserve the "gifts of lead".

Defending fixed units is a priority of a commander even if they represent units that enter the battle at a later date. No WW2 commander wanted to be cut off from their base of supply or from meeting with reinforcements being rushed to the front.

We, as players, have too much information. That said,one should expect their adversary to drive down a board edge to cut off fixed units etc. so plan accordingly.

Dog Soldier

[Glenn Saunders]

Is it considered gamey to fire away with a fixed artillery unit, if a spotted target comes within range before the guns themselves get released? Or is "Fixed" status really intended to mean no movement AND no firing until release, even though the game allows it?

Nope - I'd say fire away. There was some discussion abouyt German Arty on the Map edge in France 40 a while ago and that might be a case where the units were placed on the map because they were just easier to track, release and issue AI Orders too. But even there, the effect or impact those guns would have wouldn't have much if any impact on the final result.

So as someone else said - FIXED only prevents movement.

Glenn

[Marquo]

I spent many a long night when designing the Flashing Sword of Retribution trying to figure out what to do with the Totenkopf division which arrived on train from Paris west of Kharkov. Rather than having it arrive on a specifc date and time (historical), I placed it fixed on the map, with a release scheduled for the historical moment. I figured that if in a game the Russians moved faster than what really happened, then the OHK would have probably sent the TK to the front sooner. The easiest way to do this is to allow it to release sooner if the proper conditions prevail.

Another way of dealing with this issue is a bit more complex, but seems to work. You can add very low value units with no mvt to the fixed division's oob. These can be placed far forward as recon trip wires and when spotted, will allow the fixed rear units to release. This has been done in a revised Kursk, where the large Russian reserves otherwise would sit helplessly in place, while the Axis units steam forward. The system can be tweaked to allow some flexibility in terms of releases (acting as reinforcements), but it can de done.

Marquo :)

[Dog Soldier]

Marquo,

You have a point about historical releases. Rarely does a game follow "historical" timetables. After all, as commanders we are trying to do something different. It would follow that a flexible reaction to the release of reinforcements mechanism of some kind would benefit many of the games. The subjective part would be simulating the grand strategy outside the scope of the battle in the title.

In Kursk, the Russian grand strategy was to ruthlessly ride out the German attack and not commit the reinforcements until the Germans were sufficiently worn down. The Russian command did not want to only stop the German attack, but achieve a decisive defeat upon the cream of the German mobile forces in the east. The Russian command was willing to exchange their fortified infantry and AT units to accomplish this. How many gamers would have the "sang froid" to try and hold one more day with only the forces at hand? To easy is the temptation to commit reinforcements early to stop the other player in most games.

The destruction of the German mobile forces in that battle was to influence the rest of the war in the east. The Axis were never able to to effectively counter a Russian offensive after that battle due to the lack of mobile forces. The disaster at Minsk the next summer is a good example of the direct result of Kursk. For the German army in the east,after Kursk, it was just one long fighting retreat. Meager mobile forces were used as "fire brigades". There was just not enough left to do anything but delay the inevitable defeat.

Dog Soldier