Shoot & Scoot

[RADO]

The issue at hand presents itself in any game that has an "I go" and then "You go" mechanism. What I have noticed in CS, which perturbs me the most, is the ridiculously long engagement ranges in the game.

The average engagement range in WW2 was under 1,000 yards but we see units, particularly German, knocking out tanks at some 2,000 yards. While on occassion this did happen with specialty ammo and very good optics, with normal AP, a German Pz IV L/48 simply did not knock out a KV1 at such long ranges, for example. In 1941, single T34's and KV-1's penetrated over 30 miles directly through German lines and were finally halted by direct artilelry fire. One example I read told how one T-34 had over 30 direct hits and was finally stopped when it threw a track. Another example shows a Russian KV-1 holding up over 50 German tanks for almost an entire day (in one of Kenneth Macksy's books).

The shoot & scoot tactics are possible because of the movement allowance of units and shooting range of same within the same time scope (one player's turn). Reduce the movement allowance and the shooting ranges, and it will significantly reduce the amount of scoot & shoot one sees,

My 2 cents worth.

- Greg

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I still remember my first PBEM battles here in the blitz. I didn’t know about that kind of “tricky” tactic like shoot & scoot. It was disaster. I didn’t even knew what is happening. It was like taking candy from a baby :).

After all the games I have reported I could not tell you who uses shoot and scoot against me. I simply do not watch the replays.
Early on it was a matter of time to play and the volume of games that I did play.
I use tactics to overcome shoot and scoot. Though, they not are always successful they do work to a point where I am slightly ahead of .500 in win/loss. :smoke:

I do not think my opponents were "tricky". They just used the equipment as they felt they had to within the scope of the game.

I do understand your early frustration. It surely is the experience of most newbies.



Ed

[K K Rossokolski]

The issue at hand presents itself in any game that has an "I go" and then "You go" mechanism. What I have noticed in CS, which perturbs me the most, is the ridiculously long engagement ranges in the game.

The average engagement range in WW2 was under 1,000 yards but we see units, particularly German, knocking out tanks at some 2,000 yards. While on occassion this did happen with specialty ammo and very good optics, with normal AP, a German Pz IV L/48 simply did not knock out a KV1 at such long ranges, for example. In 1941, single T34's and KV-1's penetrated over 30 miles directly through German lines and were finally halted by direct artilelry fire. One example I read told how one T-34 had over 30 direct hits and was finally stopped when it threw a track. Another example shows a Russian KV-1 holding up over 50 German tanks for almost an entire day (in one of Kenneth Macksy's books).

The shoot & scoot tactics are possible because of the movement allowance of units and shooting range of same within the same time scope (one player's turn). Reduce the movement allowance and the shooting ranges, and it will significantly reduce the amount of scoot & shoot one sees,

My 2 cents worth.

- Greg

A good point that is worth further critical examination. What about Sov infantry being cut to pieces by a PZ IV platoon at 9 hexes?

[Hawk Kriegsman]

The ranges in the game are fine. It is a simulation and a game.

The majority of the scenarios actions (desert excepted) generally have their action take place at 1000 to 1500 meters. It is an LOS issue.

Seriously all this stuff that people want to do to the game is really creating a new game.

Just because you lose a tank SP does not mean it is a burning wreck. It could be that you detracked it, it could be that your 2000 meter shot hit near by and a fragment killed the unbuttoned tank commander or the crew bailed at the mere prospect of even being hit from that range, the concussion of a near miss (a very real probability verses 5 tanks in a 250 meter hex) could have shtter the optics. There are a myriad of reason a tank stops functioning in battle do to incoming fire that leaves the tank relatively intact. For the purposes of CS this is as good as a kill.

By the same token just because you lose an infanty SP does not mean 5 guys died. It more likely means that one guy got wounded and the other 4 had to get his a$$ to the aid station.

You need to think in terms of abstracts when you play this game.

I believe that many of the people that originally designed CS also worked on the original Squald Leader.

CS is just like Squad Leader taken to an operational level.

The more things you try to straighten out the more you stare in the face of an overy complex nearly unplayable game.

ASL anyone?

Please stop trying to make a new game out of CS.

Thanx!

Hawk

[RADO]

What I did in my miniatures game (different period and scope) was to relate activity to leadership and battlefield conditions. I know that someone out there has the ability to do the programming on a game such as CS, but certainly not me.

If one programs movement and therefore combat ability by what I shall term "initiative", this can be done by "command" in the game of CS. Take into account leadership (command structure) and conditions in the field by command (disrupted units, eliminated units, and so on) so that each command relates to the program a value. This value relates which command will move first, second, third, and so on. You might have a command from side A move first, and then a command from side B move second, and then two commands from side A move third and 4th, and so on, until a turn is completed.

A turn would take longer, but the scope of a game could be changed to accomodate that as well. In any event, the I go : You go scenario is eliminated, which IMO, has never produced a historic simulation with any degree of accuracy.

As it is, I enjoy CS. It is a good game, but gamesmanship rules the day! It is not (IMO) representative of actual combat in the period. By this, I mean it is not a historical simulation.

It is a game, and a darn good one, even with all its faults!

- Greg

[K K Rossokolski]

The ranges in the game are fine. It is a simulation and a game.


Thanx!

Hawk

Exactly so....it is a simulation. A simulation fails if and when it becomes unrealistic. That is what this discussion is about...whether the effective range of a given tank is realistic.
Are the "bombers" that sit on the airfield and project their bombs by some supernatural agency realistic? I think my views on that fiasco are well known.
Is the recent three fold increase in truck values realistic? I don't think so, but it has happened, on the quiet, it seems.

It seems to me that change in CS now has a momentum all its own. At least here, players can air ideas and concerns, and hopefully encourage the changemeisters to move in a direction that is broadly acceptable.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Exactly so....it is a simulation.

And a game.

A simulation fails if and when it becomes unrealistic. That is what this discussion is about...whether the effective range of a given tank is realistic.

Correct and I am discussing them. The ranges of the the units is fine. By in large LOS interms of terrain and visability conditions determined the engagement ranges of any given encounter.

The scenario designers job is to limit the encounter ranges. It is not the job of the weapons file.

Lets look at the 75mm L70 shall we?

APCBC-HE
Designation: Panzersprenggeschoß 39 (Pzgr. 39/42)
Type: Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap High Explosive
Projectile weight: 6,8 kg
Round weight: 14,3 kg
Round length: 893,2 mm
Muzzle velocity: 925 m/s
Penetration, Rolled homogenous steel armor plate at 90° and 30° angles from the horizontal
0 m: 167/133 mm
450 m: 149/121 mm
900 m: 133/110 mm
1350 m: 118/99 mm
1850 m: 104/89 mm
2300 m: 91/79 mm

APCR
Panzergeschoß 40 (Hk) (Pzgr. 40/42)
Type: Armor Piercing Composite Rigid, tungsten core
Projectile weight: 4,75 kg
Round weight: 11,55 kg
Round length: 875,2 mm
Muzzle velocity: 1120 m/s
Penetration, Rolled homogenous steel armor plate at 90° and 30° angles from the horizontal
0 m: 230/197 mm
450 m: 198/154 mm
900 m: 170/123 mm
1350 m: 145/99 mm
1850 m: 122/80 mm
2300 m: 103/65 mm

So yes it can blast a a T34/85 (90mm armor) at 11 hexes.

Are the "bombers" that sit on the airfield and project their bombs by some supernatural agency realistic?

No they are not.

I think my views on that fiasco are well known.

To which I agree.

Is the recent three fold increase in truck values realistic? I don't think so, but it has happened, on the quiet, it seems.

It seems to me that change in CS now has a momentum all its own. At least here, players can air ideas and concerns, and hopefully encourage the changemeisters to move in a direction that is broadly acceptable.

Yes and I have the right to advocate that some things not be changed.

The game is good and does not need to be changed radically.

Tweaking ok.

And of course make everything optional.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Adolf Vahringer]

IMHO, if you do not like and/or think that the "shoot and scoot" tactics are "gamey and unrealistic", then make them part of your ROE and find like opponents who agree. I do not think any changes need to be made to make this part of the "game", even as an option.

Just my 2 cents.

Gavin

[Jason Petho]

Are the "bombers" that sit on the airfield and project their bombs by some supernatural agency realistic? I think my views on that fiasco are well known.

The airfield bombers originally came about before the addition of on-map bombers as a way to represent localized air support.

Since the on-map bombers were included, it made the airfield bombers obsolete. Unfortunately, the attack values from the airfield were to be revised to 0 in the weapon files for the intended purpose could now be served by the on-map bombers. The airfield bombers will remain on the map, but for more a VP collecting item than an offensive weapon. (capture an airfield and collect the VP's for destroying the aircraft still remaining, for example.

The weapon factors will be revised for the 1.05 UPDATE.

Jason Petho

[RADO]

Exactly so....it is a simulation.

And a game.

A simulation fails if and when it becomes unrealistic. That is what this discussion is about...whether the effective range of a given tank is realistic.

Correct and I am discussing them. The ranges of the the units is fine. By in large LOS interms of terrain and visability conditions determined the engagement ranges of any given encounter.

The scenario designers job is to limit the encounter ranges. It is not the job of the weapons file.

Lets look at the 75mm L70 shall we?

APCBC-HE
Designation: Panzersprenggeschoß 39 (Pzgr. 39/42)
Type: Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap High Explosive
Projectile weight: 6,8 kg
Round weight: 14,3 kg
Round length: 893,2 mm
Muzzle velocity: 925 m/s
Penetration, Rolled homogenous steel armor plate at 90° and 30° angles from the horizontal
0 m: 167/133 mm
450 m: 149/121 mm
900 m: 133/110 mm
1350 m: 118/99 mm
1850 m: 104/89 mm
2300 m: 91/79 mm

APCR
Panzergeschoß 40 (Hk) (Pzgr. 40/42)
Type: Armor Piercing Composite Rigid, tungsten core
Projectile weight: 4,75 kg
Round weight: 11,55 kg
Round length: 875,2 mm
Muzzle velocity: 1120 m/s
Penetration, Rolled homogenous steel armor plate at 90° and 30° angles from the horizontal
0 m: 230/197 mm
450 m: 198/154 mm
900 m: 170/123 mm
1350 m: 145/99 mm
1850 m: 122/80 mm
2300 m: 103/65 mm

So yes it can blast a a T34/85 (90mm armor) at 11 hexes.

Are the "bombers" that sit on the airfield and project their bombs by some supernatural agency realistic?

No they are not.

I think my views on that fiasco are well known.

To which I agree.

Is the recent three fold increase in truck values realistic? I don't think so, but it has happened, on the quiet, it seems.

It seems to me that change in CS now has a momentum all its own. At least here, players can air ideas and concerns, and hopefully encourage the changemeisters to move in a direction that is broadly acceptable.

Yes and I have the right to advocate that some things not be changed.

The game is good and does not need to be changed radically.

Tweaking ok.

And of course make everything optional.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hawk,

But here, you are talking actual thickness of armor penetration, and not a ballistic protection value. The 47mm frontal armor of the T34 was sloped at sixty degrees, giving it an effective thickness, as it relates to ballistic protection of 169mm thickness. (see R.M. Ogorkiewicz - Design and Development of Fighting Vehicles).

You list two specialty ammunitions for the 75mm L/71 but the standard AP had significantly less penetration ability. The APCBC ammo, even according to your figures above will not penetrate the T34 hull armor at any range, and tungsten core ammo was in very short supply in the German army.

Actual armor thickness at the horizontal increases as the metal is angled but the ballistic protection value of the armor increases much, much more, which is called "effective thickness".

I agree that a number of changes mentioned do in fact create a whole new game, but that is the nature of attempting to create a historical simulation.

- Greg