Shoot & Scoot

[umbro]

In the game the chance of a Panther knocking out a T34/85 at range 11 is 10%.

Presumably this accounts for a shot fired from the front quarter hitting an area of the target not protected by "effective thickness" armour that it would not ordinarily penetrate (turret, gun, mounting ring, drivers viewport, tread, etc), or as has been stated elsewhere on this thread some other reason that the tank was made inoperable (commander killed, crew panicked, etc.).

Given these scenarios, 10% seems completely reasonable, IMHO.

umbro

[FM WarB]

Interesting thread, and not sure where I come down on the issue. I'm not even sure if what follows is a suggestion, as I've been a happy user of shoot and scoot myself (try surviving without it in such scenarios as Prokorakova as Germans).
I think a unit that has moved should have some op fire ability in the following enemy phase, even if it has used up its shots. Two shots for tanks over a six minute turn seems rather restrictive. Perhaps units that move should fire with less effectiveness than those which remain stationary.
Shoot and scoot is good when done from terrain you dont want to hold, or is in no jeopardy of being occupied by the enemy.
Its part of the price we pay for IGOUGO and less file transfers by PBEM. I do not know how much coding would be required for change, or if such coding could be made optional.

[Gordons HQ]

This is all very fine guys and a great discussion, but I think we are getting a little off track and should be dealing only with one issue at a time.

Just a reminder, the issue I was bringing up was the overuse of shoot and scoot in PBEM games. Thus making the games an unrealistic simulation of what occurred on the battlefields of WWII.
There have been some good ideas put forward which may discourage the overuse of this tactic.
Although I have no idea whether any of these are able to be designed into the game, or indeed if that is what others would like to see done.
However it is giving us food for thought and perhaps Jason could answer that for us.

IMO I think it would improve the game and it seems I am not alone in this thought. Exactly how many others agree we may never know unless you add your comments and thoughts.

I think any discussions on the ranges of vehicles and other aspects members want to discuss then please could they start a new thread.

Cheers
Gordon

[Hawk Kriegsman]

snip

Thanx!

Hawk

[Herr Straße Laufer]

"the issue I was bringing up was the overuse of shoot and scoot in PBEM games. Thus making the games an unrealistic simulation of what occurred on the battlefields of WWII."

Once again, how does one know what is realistic to the World War II battlefield unless one, was there, reads individual action reports and sitreps, or interviewed participants?
And, once again, this is a game that plays quite well as a simulation/game. I know some may not like it but, that is how it is presented and, I believe, how it survived as a game for so long as others fell by the wayside (including many "realistic" games).

I know that Hawk has posted of his findings on shoot and scoot in previous posts. I wish he was able to share that again here. I know that I have read about the ability of fast AT/SP that used the tactic along with other armor on various scales.
I do not see the need for making the changes you propose. Maybe simply playing those who conform to your personal ROE's is in order, instead of changing the game for a possible majority of players who may not see it your way?

As with the original assault, surround, and capture tactic, developing tactics to counter the shoot and scoot may make it a more enjoyable game for you than to make a major, fundamental, change to the game as the developers did with extreme assault.
I do not see shoot and scoot as being terrible unrealistic.

Unrealistic are the scenarios where the sides are roughly even when most attacks were launched from a three, four, five or more advantage. Yes, some specific cases had fewer troop numbers attacking larger numbers but, overall plans were to have superior numbers.
And, if you want realism in play you may want realistic scenarios? Would you call for throwing out any hypothetical scenarios or those based on history but not as historically accurate to be "real"?

As with many of these discussions "real" and realistic are subjective ideas?
Most "realists" concerned with the use of HT's, trucks, etc have personal ROE's that govern their PBEM games. Most are simple and straightforward. Why make fundamental changes to a game, for all those who play it, over something that could be solved through a personal ROE?

I will be interested to see what Jason might say.
I also wish I knew what Hawk wrote. :smoke:

RR

[Glint]

I think we all have to realise this is a game and improvements can hopefully be made where required, but remember, it's still a fun game to many. If we strive for complete realism, maybe we have to wait for technology to develop automated robots that can fight each other on our floor carpets, lol!
I just think that, what we have is what we've got. A heck of a lot of work went into improving it and some will be happy, some won't. Best perhaps to try use the tools in the best way possible, until a list of improvements are formulated and ok'd as being able to be done by the programmers?
regards
Peter

[Gordons HQ]

It would be nice to think that this issue could be resolved by ROE, but I could see some problems there. One would only have to move a unit out of the LOS after firing for some reason and you have a problem.

If some of the op fire solutions mentioned earlier in the game were able to be implemented and perhaps made optional I can see no great impact being forced upon the game.

These are doable in HPS PzC and Steel Panthers, a game I believe which is older than this one.

It wouldn’t stop one shooting and scooting, it would just mean there would be an added risk involved.
I really can’t see how this would be bad for the game, it would be more realistic and at the same time give a bit more added excitement to shoot & scoot, which at present can be very predictable.

I really don’t believe anyone can defend the present situation in some PBEM games and pretend that is what happened on the battlefield.
We are very lucky these days there is a wealth of evidence available for anyone to see and to disprove the excessive use of this tactic.

We even have The Military Channel documentaries now, thousands of books and films on the subject. I’ve seen most of them as I am sure many members have.
What I’ve never seen is over a hundred tanks and other vehicles like halftracks with some kind of weapon, coming into the line of sight in 6 minutes, shooting and then disappearing.

Prove me wrong, point me in the right direction, where can I see this, it will truly be a wonderful, sight.

Seriously my only agenda here is I would like to see if it is possible this made the best game of all time.
I believe it's good now but it could be better, slow progress surely there is nothing wrong with that.:)

Cheers
Gordon

[Jumbo]

With regards to various weapons systems (tanks & AT guns) being able to inflict damage or losses to certain targets at long and even short ranges from time to time does seem quite unrealistic and not historically accurate to me. But as Hawk previously mentioned. A Tank being killed in this game does not necessarily have to mean it's armor has been penetrated. There are positively other ways to render a tank useless. However first and foremost the ability for a given weapon system to kill any given tank in this game should be it's ability to breach or smash apart that given tanks armor IMO. In this game I believe I'm seeing to many tank commanders being killed and tank tracks being hit so to speak. IMO Part of this problem with so called long range kills comes from what I believe the original designers either overlooked or intentionally did in order to not bog the game down to much. What the designers overlooked was that given attack values should also proportionately drop off as range to given target increases because of actual combat accuracy attacking gun. What we have now with many weapon system is just the attacking values dropping off because of the guns penetration performance over given ranges. Here's just one example.

Present German Panther tank Hard Attack Values:
Range in hexes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (range)
36 35 34 32 30 28 26 23 20 17 15 13 (attack value)

Now the actual accuracy of the 75mm L/70 is as follows:
Range in meters
500m 1000m 1500m 2000m 2500m 3000m (range)
100% 97% 72% 49% 29% 18% (accuracy)

Penetration performance of 75mm L/70 vs armor plate set at 30 degrees
100 meters 500 meters 1000 meters 1500 meters 2000 meters
138mm 124mm 111mm 99mm 89mm

Now if actual combat accuracy was factored in with penetration performance. This is what might expect to see instead.
Range in hexes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (range)
37 35 33 30 25 20 16 12 9 6 5 4 (attack value)

A possible revised value that might be considered.
Range in hexes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (range)
37 35 33 31 27 24 21 17 14 12 10 8 (attack value)

This is just a formula and I'm not saying that attack values should be changed. Only that the TS original designers as outstanding as they are. Just seemed to have missed or intentionally missed a few minor details with regards to attack values IMO ... Not to mention a good number of defense values.

Comments are appreciated

[FM WarB]

Again, I will say that I am unsure where I stand on this particular issue. I will observe that any game that players use ROEs, or dreaded "Gentlemens' Agreements" to play must have something those players do not like.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Again, I will say that I am unsure where I stand on this particular issue. I will observe that any game that players use ROEs, or dreaded "Gentlemens' Agreements" to play must have something those players do not like.

Exactly correct. It is a matter of personal use and "feelings" about the game.
I see shoot and scoot as a valid tactic, in appropriate situations. To take away that ability based on personal desire to remove it is not a valid reason.
Off the specific topic but relevant to the general discussion; I think Cavalry should have dismounted horses move at one or two hexes, due to the fact that one man is holding the reigns of four or five other horses, while keeping them "in formation". But, the riderless horses can move their full movement often creating a "stampede" which some players use for drawing opt fire. Personal ROE's are then necessary to keep the game somewhat "real".
Similar to the use of non-combat transports, personal ROE's to not use them to spot, draw opt fire, or block are often in effect. I personally do not play opponents who use them that way.
They are all on the map and capable of doing "unreal" things. But, to have the game engine changed to restrict it is so far down on my "wish list" that I believe "personal ROE's" are enough to "fix it".

If anyone does not like shoot and scoot they will eventually end up playing only those who do not use it?

It's a quite simple fix that could "please all the people, all the time"?

RR