Shoot & Scoot

[Hawk Kriegsman]

It seems to me that shoot and scoot was not a very effective tactic pre-extreme assault.

It is not an effective tactic now either if you are on the offensive. it is more used in my experiences by a defender to pick off incoming attackers.

In general one was better off shooting until the defender was disrupted and overrunning, thereby capturing the enemy or pushing his LOS back and thus hiding your own forces. Thus, those extra APs were more often used to close and overrun not run away.
However, extreme assault has had the (perhaps) unintended consequence of promoting tactics associated with direct fire effectiveness, and thus shoot and scoot is promoted.

In actuality direct fire is even more important with the extreme assault rules as now you have to disrupt the unit and then start to reduce his morale. Those AP's are not spent on moving away but in fact on more direct fire. In the 10 years I have been playing the game the level of shoot and scoot I have used and have had used against me is pretty constant.

However, to counter this unintended consequence with as minimal impact on other aspects of the game as possible could perhaps be achieved by changing opfire as below:
1) Instead of all SPs of a defender firing opfire at once only a portion do per opportunity (perhaps half)
2) the AP cost to opfire is calculated as (APs to fire)*(SPs firing)/(SP of unit)

Why not all SP's firing at half FP and have it cost half the normal fire cost?

This way there is no issue with odd SP units (1SP, 3SP, etc) not getting half fire.

In this way the total volume of opfire is not increased, but it becomes more difficult to drain opfire and predict when it will happen.

I believe half SP at half cost would be the same.

There are two effects:
1) Opfire becomes slightly less effective overall (because the attacker fires first his chance of inflicting loss or disruption on the defender before all the defender SPs have opfire is higher)

Would it not be the same as now? The attacker still fires first at all the SP.

2) Shoot and scoot becomes less predictable as an attacker cannot know with certainty how much opfire face him.

Not really though. Assuming you keep the same opp fire percentages the same an attacker will only face a max of 4 opp attacks from a unit (6 from those units with a 33 action point cost to fire). Most likely will lead to even more gamey tactics like having ATR's, scout cars and other low value units moving back and forth between two hexes until the defending unit expends his Opp fire.

Thanx!

Hawk

[umbro]

In actuality direct fire is even more important with the extreme assault rules as now you have to disrupt the unit and then start to reduce his morale. Those AP's are not spent on moving away but in fact on more direct fire. In the 10 years I have been playing the game the level of shoot and scoot I have used and have had used against me is pretty constant.

As I said, direct fire is more important with extreme assault ON. You are wasting your time trying to reduce morale. The only units that you need to reduce morale on are the ones with high morale, and thus the ones that, by definition, are too difficult to reduce morale on. You will have shot them to pieces before you reduce their morale. Units with low morale you can simply assault without having to reduce their morale. Just be prepared to assault more than once.

Why not all SP's firing at half FP and have it cost half the normal fire cost?

Because that is not the way that the CRTs are built. They are built so that every time a unit fires each of its SPs gets a separate shot. To distribute those shots requires breaking up the SPs not the firepower. Logically you can only have a portion of a unit executing opfire, what is the rationale for your AP round to only penetrate half the armour thickness?

This way there is no issue with odd SP units (1SP, 3SP, etc) not getting half fire.

It doesn't have to be half, it can be any fraction. And the "odd" SPs would fire like any other - remember direct fire as it is is based on one shot per SP.

There are two effects:
1) Opfire becomes slightly less effective overall (because the attacker fires first his chance of inflicting loss or disruption on the defender before all the defender SPs have opfire is higher)

Would it not be the same as now? The attacker still fires first at all the SP.

The difference arises because the attacker gets to attack with more SPs before the defender gets to attack with all his SPs. Results are not applied simultaneously, the attackers results are applied first, and thus there is a chance that the defenders effectiveness will be reduced. Because the defender takes longer to expend all his opfire the attacker will have a greater chance to reduce the effectiveness of the defender before the defender is out of opfire.

2) Shoot and scoot becomes less predictable as an attacker cannot know with certainty how much opfire face him.

Not really though. Assuming you keep the same opp fire percentages the same an attacker will only face a max of 4 opp attacks from a unit (6 from those units with a 33 action point cost to fire).

As I mentioned, the portion of a unit that opfires does not need to be half, simply some fraction of the defender.

Most likely will lead to even more gamey tactics like having ATR's, scout cars and other low value units moving back and forth between two hexes until the defending unit expends his Opp fire.

Unfortunately this does happen already, my suggestion was an attempt to make it less predictable.

umbro

[junk2drive]

The only memorable S&S I had was vs BigDawg in Heavy Metal Thunder. His German tanks had longer range than my US and I could not figure out how to defend against this. Lack of experience vs a master rather than something wrong with the game.

As stated before, I would like a random chance that the defender would opfire first, even if out of AP.

Of course the new hidden guns may have changed things a bit already.

[Gordons HQ]

Yes Hawk I know topics tend to drift and that's why I was trying to get it back on track.

This is true I only have my own experience to judge by, but that has often been that S&S is used all the time to an excessive extent and with so many units doing it sometimes it becomes totally laughable.

I think I have stated S&S is a tactic adopted by some units in WWII, but I certainly disagree with you that it was commonly used and certainly not on the East Front.

You must surely have seen documentary films of the Russian masses of T34's and soldiers charging the German defences. If not you must have read a book or two or even seen a war film.
Are you telling me the same charging Russians upon seeing the Germans took a shot at them and then turned around to find cover, before the Germans could open fire upon them. LOL

The same can be said for many other battles one that springs to mind is Operation Goodwood.

Honestly I'll be laughing all the way to my grave at this rate.
At least show me some proof of this widely used tactic, other than a few tank destroyers in the Battle of the Bulge.

I think the reasons many do not post here is the total rubbishing of a persons ideas just because it does not conform to a few comfortable and entrenched views here.

I don't think there now is any other tactic in the game I don't like, thanks to the great efforts taken by the beta brigade to improve this game.

Anyone who thinks he can stand in the way of progress usually gets run over.

Hail the rulers here in this froum:bow:

Gordon

[Hawk Kriegsman]

This is true I only have my own experience to judge by, but that has often been that S&S is used all the time to an excessive extent and with so many units doing it sometimes it becomes totally laughable.

It appears to me that you have an opponent issue not a game issue.

I look at the ladder and see that you have reported 25 CS matches against about 12 opponents. You state that you have an issue with your opponents using shoot and scoot.

I on the other hand have reported 1143 matches against 74 opponents. I have not seen any shoot and scoot abuse.

Who is correct?

What I do know is that your issue can be corrected with ROE quite simply.

I think I have stated S&S is a tactic adopted by some units in WWII, but I certainly disagree with you that it was commonly used and certainly not on the East Front.

It is a tactic used by most units on all front.

You must surely have seen documentary films of the Russian masses of T34's and soldiers charging the German defences. If not you must have read a book or two or even seen a war film.

I have indeed.

Are you telling me the same charging Russians upon seeing the Germans took a shot at them and then turned around to find cover, before the Germans could open fire upon them. LOL

If have read all of my posts you would understand that I stated it was a primarily a defense tactic, not an offensive one. Applying you logic to the Russians when they out numbered the Germans 3,4, 5+ to 1 does not make a lot of sense to me.

The same can be said for many other battles one that springs to mind is Operation Goodwood.

So during this battle no platoons moved from cover took a couple of shots and moved back into cover? Really?

Honestly I'll be laughing all the way to my grave at this rate.

Could you try to be a little more condesending towards me please?

At least show me some proof of this widely used tactic, other than a few tank destroyers in the Battle of the Bulge.

Scoot and shoot was used in just about every battle in WW2. If a unit when from cover to cover and took a shot in between then it used shoot and scoot.

I think the reasons many do not post here is the total rubbishing of a persons ideas just because it does not conform to a few comfortable and entrenched views here.

You mean as you have done to me so eloquently in your post?

I don't think there now is any other tactic in the game I don't like, thanks to the great efforts taken by the beta brigade to improve this game.

I am skeptical of this, but if you say so.

Anyone who thinks he can stand in the way of progress usually gets run over.

The Edsel was a progressive car for its time. How did that work out?

Thanx!

Hawk

[Valor]

You must surely have seen documentary films of the Russian masses of T34's and soldiers charging the German defences. If not you must have read a book or two or even seen a war film.
Are you telling me the same charging Russians upon seeing the Germans took a shot at them and then turned around to find cover, before the Germans could open fire upon them. LOL

And that was why Russians suffered such heavy losses during the war, that's probably why Germans (among others) were able to slow them down for so long.

As Hawk said, CS is a game, game not historical recreation.

Why I must be forced to use the same suicidal tactics, while I can conduct the battle in my way? Not saying that better, just different.

What I really liked in CS was the flexibility of the system. You could do D-S-C tactics if you wanted, you could jump from cover to cover if you'd liked, you could just call for Ney's or Picket's style charge with all armor available.

I would not support changes in OpFire settings. Now you have carefully plan your attack / defense. How many units use in your move for moving and shooting, and how many units use for OpFire to fight back any counterattack. With no AP for OpFire all will be thrown to the wind. Just use everything you can, the OpFire will do all for you. Why plan anything, when you can post one Tiger platoon in open space, no one will be able to get close enough to do any harm to you (just an example).

I saw that system in HPS Napoleonic system. One arty battery could do real well stopping movement of entire division. But arty ammo was very limited, so you couldn't do it for to long. You wouldn't be able to use your arty later on. Here in CS that is no problem. In that system, above mentioned Tigers would be out of ammo (action) just in few turns. In CS they will be killing machines for the whole game.

Best regards

Slawek

[Gordons HQ]

Quote: As Hawk said, CS is a game, game not historical recreation.

Now we know it's a GAME not an HISTORICAL RECREATION
--------------------------------------------------------

and so It's a game tactic in other words GAMEY

I really hoped there could be some sensible discussion here, that's indeed why I stared this thread, I seriously thought there were some serious wargamers here who wanted historic wargames, how mistaken one can be.

No further discussion is needed from me, there are more historical games out there.

Cheers

Gordon

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Quote: As Hawk said, CS is a game, game not historical recreation.

Now we know it's a GAME not an HISTORICAL RECREATION
--------------------------------------------------------

and so It's a game tactic in other words GAMEY

I really hoped there could be some sensible discussion here, that's indeed why I stared this thread, I seriously thought there were some serious wargamers here who wanted historic wargames, how mistaken one can be.

No further discussion is needed from me, there are more historical games out there.

Cheers

Gordon

RR

[Jason Petho]

No further discussion is needed from me, there are more historical games out there.

In all fairness.

While yes, it is a game, there are those of us who do try to make the most of what we have to make it the "best" historical simulation for platoon level tactical combat.

This is apparent in the countless hours that are spent on map making, scenario design and playtesting. Scenarios from such designers as Don Fox, Huib Versloot & our Mr Guberman a ranked high in historical accuracy and playability. I recommend them to anyone and everyone.

Is the game perfect?... No.

Are there flaws?... Yes.

Are there better ways of doing things?... You bet.

Does it matter to those that have spent a decade trying to keep the series alive?.. Not at all!

Like all things, it is what you make it. Some like it as a beer & pretzels game, some like it as a tool to recreate battles they studied or are interested in. Others like a combination of both.

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Is it so misunderstood? :chin:

Beer & pretzel player? Hardly
"Realism" above all else including playability and fun? Absolutely not.

I believe that may be the disconnect between the players, of all styles, and the developers?

I would fall back to my Squad Leader -- Advanced Squad Leader examples, but I do not want to ruin the shoot and scoot thread by going off on a tangent. ;)

Ed