Forums

Hello Guys.

I've a general question about that and I would like to know some oppinions about.

I've played a lot of games and with a lot of different players... I'm a regular player who try to use "correct" tactics in my games, although sometimes I cannot do that (due to opponent habilities... :rolleyes:) I try to play the battle from a historical way, using the units in the correct role but sometimes I find players whose the main tactical to use against the opponent is the assault.
Keeping in mind that disrupted units are easily eliminated by assaults independently of their valor strength.It is a good and effective way to eliminate a future treath for your troops...:cheeky:

So, this game effect has an important effect in the players behaviour that it is not very realistic... Players are continuosly moving and playing with the intention to surround your units, moving in dangerous and unusual places to get a successful assault and you cannot develop the normal use of your units in the battleground and simply you are trying to avoid this behaviour.:chin:

From a score point of view, every tactic will be good if it make you to be the winner, but from a different point of view, I've played many games where the combat action was a cat-mouse fighting and the VP hexes were an anecdotic thing...


Cheers.
Chema.

Remeber this is a game trying to create battles historic or not.The player uses his forces to his best advantage to win.Might not be historical but its a question of what if.

As a designer you can force the players to fight over the objectives. If a player manages to surround and capture an enemy before it could retreat disrupted units, he is probably playing well. I agree that it is not always realistic especially in engagements with a lot of armor. In urban fights the assault thing is quite OK I think.

Due to the scale of Campaign Series the assault function and even the units themselves can only be an abstract representation of actual combat. 250 meters is a lot of room and many assaults conducted in CS in real life would probably be close fire fights.
If my opponent is able to move a half track around my unit stack and assault my disrupted units from opposite sides I put that down to the enemy having numerical superiority in the area. Historically I doubt half tracks would help a close assault by driving around to the rear of a position while their infantry was engaged but if my flanks are not protected then either I didn't properly position my troops or the odds were very much stacked against me.
As for objective hexes I think they work best with the exit hexes. Either one side breaks through and exits the map or they don't. As for objective hexes in cities, crossroads, etc, I think they work well during game play as folks will maneuver to gain superiority there. I would say the objective hexes do lead to some "gamey" play the last couple of turns. For instance I might have overwhelming firepower overlooking an objective hex but my opponent is able to send in a suicide mission on the last turn to take that hex for the points. I also put the last couple of turns down to an abstract representation of real life. If my opponent is able to sneak in a lone unit on the last turn to a major VP hex then shame on me for not being able to protect it better or cover the approaches.
For true "historical" play I would just set up some ground rules before hand with your opponent. For instance Leto's Half-track rules are good:
https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...?tid=42435

In answer to Feldgeneral Hoth I understand when he wishes to play the game as historically as possible and I think the point he makes if you wish to play that way is valid.
This is one of the reasons I don't often play this game anymore and I imagine there are others like me. Other things I don't like includes all the shooting and scooting which goes on. It often appears to me that you are fighting a GHOST ARMY and that is historically incorrect and not how the war was fought.

However many people like to play this way, so you have to respect their wishes if they believe it's the correct way to play.

I think what you have to do is find someone who likes to play like yourself and set up some ground rules before you play that person.

For instance the ground rules I would set up would be....
1/ Ban the surround tactic
2/ Limit the number of shoot and scoot missions to 2 per turn per side
3/ No using trucks or the like to draw op fire
4/ No incorrect use of half tracks, these were transport to get men into the thick of battle only.

If you think you can play with these contact me and we'll have a game and see if we can make it a little more historic for you.

I think that anyone else who likes to play like this ought to post here and then people of a like mind may contact one another.

Regards,
Gordon

Gordons HQ Wrote:In answer to Feldgeneral Hoth I understand when he wishes to play the game as historically as possible and I think the point he makes if you wish to play that way is valid.

I think what you have to do is find someone who likes to play like yourself and set up some ground rules before you play that person.

That is why every player should have an ROE discussion beforehand?

Quote:For instance the ground rules I would set up would be....
1/ Ban the surround tactic
2/ Limit the number of shoot and scoot missions to 2 per turn per side
3/ No using trucks or the like to draw op fire
4/ No incorrect use of half tracks, these were transport to get men into the thick of battle only.

I would only agree to number three. Trucks & unarmored HT's are transports. Not bait.

1) I would never play someone who would "ban" the surround tactic. It would be like a sports team taking their best players off the field because the other team does not have similar players on their team.
2) If someone was "shooting & scooting" me to death, I'd be frustrated. But, I would also inwardly admire his ability. The "visible" units in the game are unrealistic enough to warrant the shoot and scoot tactic. Most AT guns were successful because they fired once and then moved. Why restrict it? Then you would get into a scuffle over; "hey, you used shoot and scoot three times." Answered by, "Uh, no I didn't I shot once and then moved to another part of the battle field."
Too much room for misunderstandings and hard feelings?
3) Agree with this wholeheartedly. As long as "and the like" would be defined.
4) I think further reading will be needed to figure out what "incorrect use" means?
I've read tons of desert descriptions of "empty" Bren Carriers charging and overrunning AT gun positions, as their infantry fired and charged the defensive positions of the enemy. And, I've also read where empty "fighting" HT's were used to flank positions and set up road blocks.
I prefer the Leto HT rules guiding the use of HT's.

Quote:I think that anyone else who likes to play like this ought to post here and then people of a like mind may contact one another.

I think players should discuss ROE's before they start a game. They can hash out what can or cannot be done in their individual games?
I use the club's ROE's and personal ROE's (governing the use of personnel carriers) when I play. I don't think I can accept rules that artificially restrict play to a point where you have to "absolutely do what the designer had in mind" to win a game. Or, accept rules so that my opponent will have a fully historical event to "enjoy".

There will never be a concensus on what "universal rules" should be used. But, that is my personal opinion. Open discussion is good. But, most bad experiences would be avoided if that discussion was made beforehand and not after the fact.

Gordon, I am sure that there will be many who will play you using your above rules.

Good luck!

I agree with Ed, particularly on Number 2. Shoot and scoot is the somewhat unrealistic response to the somewhat unrealistic inability of a unit to fire and remain hidden. Or fire from a hull down position.

In CS, you are either completely hidden or completely exposed. Whereas in real life armored vehicles, particularly TDs and assault guns, would typically find hull down or hidden positions where they could fire and back away quickly. They would then reposition and fire again. SnS is the best way within the game mechanics to replicate this tactic.

WWII is replete with examples where units sat and shot from cover, sometimes for hours, and were never spotted at all. Examples tend to be German HMGs and AT guns with their relatively smokeless propellants. But that doesn't happen in CS at all....it's an instant expose. I think shoot and scoot is more realistic than the alternative.

As for surround and capture....that's the only way you can really utilise units in this game with a high assault factor yet low firepower. If you don't use surround and capture, you will find that your high assault units are relatively useless....leading to the farcicial situation that firepower employed at say 750 metres is deadly whereas a Russian SMG platoon rolling into close combat at point blank range is almost completely harmless...it will usually bounce off undisrupted troops and disrupted troops will more often than not simply retreat without casualties.

Ed & McIvan on reflection I think are both right about the assault in many respects and I have no real problem with it, when it is done with what would say are combat units.
I guess as with most things it just depends what you wish to achieve from the game and I have seen some very dubious surround tactics used. Often only because the unit being surrounded has no fire capablity left.
I have done it myself so I am as guilty of it, I've surrounded and disrupted for instance 5 SP ISII's Tanks and then because I have nothing else left, overrun them with halftracks. Yes they surrendered and it was effective, historic and realistic, I think not.
I can't think of any circumstance where that has happened in reality.

Shoot and scoot I agree it would be dificult to do the 2 options thing, but it's not impossible to count to 2 so it depends on a persons integrety.
But that is better than where an whole force comes out of hiding shoots off a shot and then goes back into hiding. In some games I've seen upwards of a hundred tanks at once doing this.
Lets get real here that just didn't happen in the last war. It's just like playing the kids game of hide and seek.
Once again though it depends what you wish to get from the game and I have to respect if that's the way you wish to do it, then that's fine.
Halftracks Leto is fine with me so we agree on that
Bait we agree on that also
Wonderful we are halfway there. lol
I think you are right though it's down to each player to decide on their "Rules of Engagement"
So I suppose the bottom line here is before doing battle LETS TALK
Good Luck and regards,
Gordon

Gordons HQ Wrote:Ed & McIvan on reflection I think are both right about the assault in many respects and I have no real problem with it, when it is done with what would say are combat units.

It is a part of the game, as in the way the engine works. And, the kernel of an idea in tactics was to flank a unit from both sides and move to cut it off. Often, this led to hasty withdrawls and or capture. The idea is that the unit is no longer capable of combat.

Quote:I guess as with most things it just depends what you wish to achieve from the game and I have seen some very dubious surround tactics used.

Dubious? I only find that players who run empty trucks around a unit to "surround it" and then overrun it from one hex. That is dubious and not an ROE I would agree to use in any game.
It's not dubious to fully occupy a unit's attention to soak up it's opt fire. Often this is done by sacrificing a friendly unit or two to that fire to enable the rest to move to surround and overrun. It is often called "paying the price." :)

Quote:I have done it myself so I am as guilty of it, I've surrounded and disrupted for instance 5 SP ISII's Tanks and then because I have nothing else left, overrun them with halftracks. Yes they surrendered and it was effective, historic and realistic, I think not.

You would not have done that to me. Empty HT's cannot assault an armored unit without infantry or other friendly armor. I thought that was clear? :conf:

Quote:Shoot and scoot I agree it would be dificult to do the 2 options thing, but it's not impossible to count to 2 so it depends on a persons integrety.
But that is better than where an whole force comes out of hiding shoots off a shot and then goes back into hiding. In some games I've seen upwards of a hundred tanks at once doing this.

Well, the game uses a six minute turn? I agree that shoot and scoot done by the entire enemy force may be frustrating. But, there are ways to adapt and overcome even that tactic?
And, as McIvan said, AT's and MG's often were not "seen" immediately as in the game. That part is just not realistic either. And, there were even instances of units moving in the open and not identified as an enemy until it was "gone from sight". Though, in the game if you have line of sight you spot a moving target instantly.
What Ivan tried to say was that the shoot and scoot tactic balances out the other?
I personally would not play a "shoot and scooter" for long. Or, I'd only play them in West Front desert scenarios. LOL! :cheeky:

Quote:So I suppose the bottom line here is before doing battle LETS TALK

It never hurts to ask a player what their ROE's are. You often settle into playing members who share your ROE's and shy away from those who do not.
I once stopped playing a person after watching (the rare time I watched) a replay and saw him using HT's to absorb opt fire, then move empty trucks to surround, then move armor forward to pound my armor into disruption, and then overran my armor with empty HT's.

I guess it comes down to; let the player beware?
:chin: