Drawing opportunity fire actions - disreputable or part of the game?

[Mowgli]

Gent: 

"Well WP assaults can work. But it's risky and it needs proper preparation. If you use recon units in the "frowned-upon" way, a concentrated assault is a very viable and potentially decisive option for WP in our scenario (Schweinfurt H2H)." 

Never stated that WP assaults did NOT work.   Your "suggested" tactic (moving recon units back and forth) to trigger opportunity fire is not only gamey, but could be considered a form of cheating. One MC opponent I played did just that... I called him out... and he agreed to redo his turn minus the jitterbugging recon dancing. 

Another viable WP strategy was the one that I adopted in our game. WP conducted an unopposed river crossing in the south. Armor and mechanized forces quickly captured the southern 25 VP. Establish LOS positions to your units. Dig in my spotting units. Move artillery units into range. Shell and harass. Unleash WMD when you stacked up your NATO units. A WP Minor victory may be achieved without directly assaulting Schweinfurt .

Reminder - the "Draw" in our game was decided by only one point... AND after NATO had unleashed its WMD, I was able to close the point gap to one (1) by use of conventional weapons      

I think there is still some misunderstanding? Our draw was a very balanced draw. It was not a "1 point draw". The end result was 19 points for NATO and any result between 0 and 50 points counts a draw. I just re-reloaded the files and watched the replays. Warsaw Pact's WMD cut NATO's score down to -33 points, but NATO's WMD got the score back up to +23 points. Your shelling of my troops in the south then cut my points back down to 19. Actual contact between ground troops was very rare (except for artillery/choppers) and only happened in turns 5 & 6. So I'm sceptical if WP can win this without attacking Schweinfurt, going for only 1 out of 4 objectives (unless the NATO player commits major mistakes, of course).

I did not defend the crossing in the south because 1) I didn't know whether WP started the scenario with units on the western shore or not, 2) I didn't know whether WP had a supply source on the western shore or not, 3) the terrain was not suitable for a defence, 4) the terrain further north offered a much better defensive line - shorter and with more cover, 5) I didn't want to spread out my units so much - if you attacked me strongly in the north, I'd need to reposition my troops and get them to the city Schweinfurt as fast as possible.

I have never played the MC titles so I cannot comment on any of your discussion above, however many players consider that any tactic that the games engine allows you to perform is legal and hence cannot be considered cheating and I would urge caution in using that term in this situation, gamey yes but cheating no.

Many players lay the fault at the feet of the game engine and game designers as they have not taken steps to prevent such tactics being used once they have become common knowledge, others state that players should restrain themselves from using such obviously unhistorical tactics and not exploit flaws in the games design.

Some play these titles just a pure game where "anything goes" and there is no such thing as gamey play and others play these games as historical simulations where they expect their opponent to play as such.

So as there never has and there will never be consensus across the whole community on these subjects (and boy we have had some mega threads on what is/is not considered gamey for example) if you don't like how your opponent plays then best end the game amicably and don't play them again. 

If historical play is very important to you or a certain tactic makes your blood boil then it is best to discuss this before you start a scenario with a new opponent. 

I would definitively agree that "recon juggle" is not cheating. It might not be for everyone's taste, but if you do it, you're not manipulating the game, not absusing a bug or doing something which the opponent can't. And there are also tactics to counter it (use troops as a screen, put more units into a hex).

Has there ever been some "official" statement whether the developer and individual scenario-designers consider it as "unsportsmanlike" or see it as an integral part of the game? As I've mentioned, the way you have to do it looks rather inelegant, gamey and unhistorical. But in my personal opinion the actual effects are not even that implausible - in PzCampaigns' typical abstract way of thinking, that is.

That being said, I'm perfectly fine if my future opponents want to "ban" it. And in fact I'm not using it without first asking. I'm just interested in the discussion and see what's the community's opinion on it. "Immersion" is certainly a major concern, as is "balancing" and the question whether it increases/decreases the amount of viable tactics, makes the game more/less interesting to play. Also, if unwanted by the developers, then there are means to get rid of it? E.g. one could give recon units a smaller chance to trigger opportunity fire. And units could have separate counts/budgets of opportunity fire vs. air and vs. ground units (to make helicopters less effective for "recon juggle").