Game mechanics question: firing in stacks?

[Philippe]

Well or another good use might be so you can bring an ENG up to clear a minefield. I have done that also to draw fire so I can sneak an engineer into a diff adjacent hex to clear minefields.

I can see how these tactics would be effective, but isn't this referred to as "soaking off" and considered gamey? If our soldiers weren't digital, would we deliberately sacrifice real lives to accomplish these goals? I'm not sure how I would feel about ordering an infantry lieutenant to assault a dug in enemy positon so I could more safely deploy a couple of AT guns.

Am I being too critical? Are these simply tactics that the game engine makes possible and should therefore be used when needed due to the nature of the game? I've used these tactics myself, but now that I think about it...

I'm not completely convinced that it's gamey. It bears a little resemblance to creating a diversion with your regular troops or laying down covering fire so that you engineers can get the job done. But the resemblance isn't perfect.

You don't have to worry about this kind of issue in a WEGO environment, but, sadly, we're stuck with IGOUGO. Too many things happen in the order that a player tells them to, which is slightly more realistic than in WEGO in a few cases, but is just a game play convention the other ninety-eight percent of the time. Not being able to fire with the next unit, and the next unit, and then the next unit until your target is disrupted/broken will help a lot, so I'm looking forward to the next round of patches. My own personal bugbear is the lack of traffic jams at choke points, which are ridiculously easy to avoid in IGOUGO but are the bane of your existance in WEGO.

If I have to suspend my realism disbelief enough to accept the gaming convention that my opponent sits perfectly still while my units move (apart from the occasional opportunity fire), accepting that there's an acceptable shadow of in-turn sequencing and covering fire that would allow engineers to perform their task without bearing the main brunt of opposing fire doesn't seem that much of a stretch.

I don't like gamey tactics, but if there's a shred of realism to them (even if accidental), I'm willing to be tolerant. Especially since Rommel used gamey tactics (not sure about Manstein).

[Jim]

TB you might be overthinking it a little bit. I wasnt suggesting assaulting the position but moving in to fire on it. A prep fire situation distracting their attention away from your real intention. Many may disagree with me but I think this is a very realistic manuever to move in and fire at an enemy position to draw attention away from a unit that may have a more definite affect but is also more vulnerable while getting themselves in position. I dont see this as heartlessly sacrificing Peter to save Paul. I think it can be looked at as a viable tactic and all in a day's work.

[tbridges]

Hey Jim...I think you're pretty much right, these kinds of tactics are pretty widely accepted (by me too). As usual, it depends on everyone's definition of "gamey". But would I use the same tactics if the digital defenders didn't have their opportunity fire arbitrairily limited by the game engine? Probably not.

Ultimately, I guess it comes down to that never-to-be-decided discussion of whether these are/should be "games or "simulations".

Thanks for your analysis. :thumbs_up:

Tom

[Al]

TB you might be overthinking it a little bit. I wasnt suggesting assaulting the position but moving in to fire on it. A prep fire situation distracting their attention away from your real intention. Many may disagree with me but I think this is a very realistic manuever to move in and fire at an enemy position to draw attention away from a unit that may have a more definite affect but is also more vulnerable while getting themselves in position. I dont see this as heartlessly sacrificing Peter to save Paul. I think it can be looked at as a viable tactic and all in a day's work.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Nice to see you back around, Jim.

Al

[Jim]

Thanks Al. Long time no see. BTW will be in Council Bluffs Nov29-Dec 2nd