Shoot & Scoot & Pet Hates

[Askari19]

I have to chime in here, in agreement with Gordon's original post. Let's call the game tactic what it really is, to strip away the comparison with valid real world tactics. In CS, it's "scoot-shoot-scoot".... and it works so well because opportunity fire in the game is so undependable. If we wanted realism, we should expect that units in defensive position, or in an overwatch mode -- stationary, searching for targets -- would detect and fire upon the "scooters" far more often than happens in the game.

(I suppose if we were designing (or re-designing) the game, we could enhance the probability of performing opportunity fire for units that haven't moved, or which are oriented toward a restricted field of fire, or in accordance with other factors... and thus restore some balance.)

It's easy to confuse the scale and apply tactical concepts that are inappropriate. Some apologists for the tactic seem to be referring to the perfectly valid technique of a tank laying in wait, turret down or concealed, then pulling forward a few feet or yards to a hull down position (e.g. on a ridge crest) to engage, and then reversing down again, perhaps to seek an alternate position nearby. Fine. But that's not what the game tactic is portraying. In the game, we have an entire platoon moving a nominal 250 yards (one hex) or more, from an unspotted position to one with LOS to their target, engaging in unison with perfect synchronization and effect (or as perfect as the game system ever allows that platoon to be) and then (usually) moving the same distance, out of sight and out of danger, before any of a potenital legion of waiting, watching enemies can detect any of the platoon and place fire upon them. Strains credibility, for me anyway.

Neither does "shoot & scoot" by artillery units avoiding counterbattery fire bear any relation to the CS game tactic, which is used by platoons of armor within LOS of direct fire-capable enemies. The resemblance is only in the name.

I could just as easily point out that an individual soldier or cop, properly trained, will not pop over or around his cover twice in the same place, unless he wants to get ventilated... and someone would probably say, "see, there you go -- shoot & scoot!" But at least in the real world, that guy (a) is much less likely to shoot effectively himself, compared to someone in a good position with a continuous view of his AOR, and (b) he does quite often get shot at least the second time he rolls out -- in a CS game, you can scoot forward out of the same hide an infinite number of times and the enemy is no more likely to engage you; and your own fire is not degraded at all by your movement (except, in some cases, for a reduction in ROF).

I won't go on so much about the "surrounded close assaults," but yep, they annoy me too. A silly artificiality of the game system.

Bottom line is, that's the way our game works, and if you're going to play it you have to "suspend disbelief", learn the tricks of the game, and use them to succeed. But we really shouldn't justify them as in any way realistic.

Bill Tallen
(BT)