Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh...

[Volcano Man]

Why can't the game engine be programmed to fire on attackers just like I would if using MDF?

There are lot of reasons and I won't go into them here.

Well gee why not tell us a few? Not trying to be antagonistic, just wondering. jonny :conf:

Trying to make the AI "smart" in this situation is impossible -- given all the conditions and variables involved in a situation where opportunity fire is finite. The current non-phased mode opportunity fire is actually trying to be intelligent: it does NOT shoot at everything despite the exaggerations. Naturally it is hit or miss, but it is usually pretty good about saving a shot.

Some examples: I was moving some field guns around to a higher position the other day and my opponent's field guns, which were 4 hexes or so away mind you, fired on my guns and knocked out one of them. I moved them again and the same result happened. Why restrict such fire? I personally would fire on such a unit in travel mode. Another instance was where I had a stack of two gun units in a single hex, firing on the enemy and, to my amazement, they returned fire and killed two of my guns. Rhetorical question: Why would you restrict such firing when it can be effective at times? However, it is true that sometimes the AI's selection of said fire will make you scratch your head in bewilderment, but I for one would not want to play F14 if the guns and MGs never fired back unless the enemy moved up to assault them. A lot of times the units moving up to fire or assault are disrupted by distant field guns -- it has happened to be quite a bit lately. :( Stopping the assault or depleting it to the point that not so many units can participate as the attacker likes (thereby ending up very bloody for him), is just as important as saving all opportunity fire to use point blank into the enemy. The reason for that is, field guns and MGs often stop assaults on other hexes or in places where the enemy is only forming up to assault. Often times my assaults, going on across the valley for example, are getting harassed by field guns and occasional disruptions are breaking up the attack or the constant fire is usually knocking me into the next fatigue level, which also brings down the quality of the entire assault. This is good. The same can be true in PzC and MC as well.

As I already said, my personal view on the matter is that I am fine with current behavior because it goes both ways. Say the enemy saps fire with movement and moves in to assault, you have the ability to do the same thing; it is not one sided. As a matter of fact, arguably the game is more mobile with the current behavior because if the AI's behavior was such that it refrained from firing field guns/MGs until the enemy was point blank, then I seriously doubt there would be any forward progress at all in the places were the units are located. I also do not see why sapping fire is not something that would not occur in real life; on the contrary, it DOES occur in real life. The Army phrase I so often heard "move out and draw fire" comes to mind here.

The only way I see a change ever happening here is if there was an optional rule to allow the ACW infinite, albeit reduced strength, opportunity fire with full strength one time fire before getting assaulted. Other than that, nothing will change with non-phased play, we have phased play with ADF on if it really bothers someone. That is all that really can be said on the matter without repeating everyone's same views again and again.