Shoot & Scoot & Pet Hates

[Digger]

A well thought out reply there from BT...I hadn't really seen it like that maybe because I am too busy doing it.

The real problem I think is that when Talonsoft designed the original EF way back when. It was designed as a 2D game with the 3D option thrown in. It has all those bad habits of board wargaming with a few 3D icons thrown in. Perhaps it was designed with play against the AI primarily in mind as only a few scenarios are rated as H2H play. The AI certainly doesn't know anything about shoot and scoot that is for sure.

I expect that when the game was first designed and built on what now is by todays standards an aging engine these factors were not taken into consideration. As the game has developed from EF - WF - RS - EFII things have improved, concealment, unit icons, diverse terrain and those night rules which change the whole feel of the game. These were all things that were able to be changed within the context of the game engine. They worked and improved the game as a whole. (I only wish those night rules were backwardly compatible). I remember playing WF for the first time and was blown away but the unit colour schemes not to mention the fact that I did not automatically seem to spot everything.

What hasn't changed is the scale of the game and the ability of units to fire and move in the same phase. This one fact is the basic structure of the game, which makes tactics such as Shoot and Scoot wholly possible. This is not like those ACW Talonsoft games of even ASL where Movement is automatically followed by a defensive fire phase. (Unless the unit moves though a fire lane and incurs an immediate 4SP attack with a -2 mod and you roll snake eyes..but I digress). The game mechanics attempted to counter for that absence, and lets face it added length of play, by inventing OP fire. But as we all know this is a totally random affair. Perhaps the designers should have made all units OP fire when they could if you had it enabled for that unit. (Even if I knew units always would I would still leave many set to off). But then again this may favour the defender as, the game engine can only spot units at the beginning of a turn, and in reality it should be possible to spot units as you move, and as you are unable to without bumping into that company of Js-II's in that open field, we are left with the uncertainty of OP fire.

All this is a result of the abstraction of a turn based wargame into a single phase for each player, the game uses the turn start to calculate everything, with the exception of combat results..I would be nice if spotting was dynamic and those M20 AC's could move onto a crest of a hill and the game engine would calculate immediately the chance of spotting a target. This alone would change the game massively. A calculation is already done for OP fire each time a unit expends AP's in sight of a unit why not apply that in reverse, as well as making OP fire more certain. Alas no we are left with a game which is essentially turn based with some other actions allowed in the opponents turn.

Like any wargame there is a certain degree of abstraction, if there wasn't then I guess we would all be playing Combat Mission in First Person mode. I have tried that game and I like it but I get too confused when I play it. I don't want that degree of realism. I like looking at the bigger map and consequently the bigger picture.

I accept the abstraction because this is just that an attempt to present a playable platoon based game system that is 10 years old this year. 10 years ago I had a piece of junk 586 100Mhz with 8Mb of RAM that barely ran the original EF. Considering how groundbreaking this game was when it was first released, it is surprising that it is still going..Which is a testimony to the dedication of the players and designers..We can only hope that Matrix games don't just put this in a shiny new box and actually look at what can be done to the game, considering the power of the average PC or notebook these days. We can only hope

Matt ~Digger

[Von Earlmann]

Yeah! What Digger said :-)

[Mike Abberton]

How would people feel about a new rule something like this for op fire:

Increase the percentage chance that a unit op fires as noted below and allow unlimited op fire regardless of APs remaining with the following limitations:

1 - If a unit has APs remaining for opfire, the op fire is at full effectiveness and near 100% reliability. This simulates a defender in an ambush situation waiting for a enemy unit appear.

2 - If the unit does not have APs remaining for op fire, than the effectiveness of the op fire is reduced by 25% or 50%. This simulates snap fire of a round or two (as opposed to a half turns barrage represented by regular fire) directed at enemy units that become briefly visible as they move. It probably makes sense to have non-AP fire occur at a lower frequency than AP op-fire as described above, maybe at current op fire reliability.

This makes all that shoot and scoot more at least a little more risky since you cannot fully exhaust an enemy's op fire, particularly scooting up to point-blank range where the non-AP op fire attack strength reduction wouldn't mean as much.

Alternatively, if you recoil from the idea of infinite op fire, than perhaps substitute a reduced firing cost for op fire (say 1/3 normal fire cost) and full fire effect (no reduction in attack strength) for all opfire with more overall reliability. This would give a typical tank with 100 APs for opfire about 7 or 8 shots and an assault gun (50 AP firing cost) about 6.

[Von Luck]

Before we go into death mode its a game.Until we get superior PC's to handle everything make the most of it.Example 15 Tigers facing 60 T34/85's what do you do you fire and back off,if you dont the 40 plus survirvors and going to advance and get kills on you.IE same goes for Russians they hide and pop out fire and back off from superior German long range fire.No game is perfect but so far this is the best we have make the most of it.Think ive said this before any tech members want to write or produce new code and improve or bring out a better game im all for it??????????/.

[Von Luck]

Matt 100% what you said.My first PC only 13 years ago had a 200mb hd 4mb of ram win 3.1 basic soundblaster 16 and a floppy for installation.Oh yeah and a meagre 14 inch monitor.In those days it was type in the prog ie c:\ultima2\exe etc.

[Toten Tanz]

I'll jump in here, as I like a good arguement:-) First off, as stated, it's a game. If you want realism, your are looking in the wrong place. Unless you have access to something like the Armor Training Facility, at Ft. Know, you are never going to find it, either. At least, not anytime soon.

Secondly, moving from one hex to another does not take 250m. In any movement from hex to hex, a unit could move anywhere from 1M to 500M. Hexes, in relation to ground scale, represent areas of control. I.E., a 1 SP tank unit does not sit on the entire hex, but it's presence controls it. So, in game terms, a tank could move several meters, and control an empty hex, fire and move back to control a different hex. Additionally, in the time frame of each turn, an entire platoon could individually shoot and scoot into and out of a hex, thus controlling the hex the entire turn

Disrupt, surround and capture is a valid tactic, and very realistic. Don't think so? Read up a little bit on Barbarossa. It is also a tactic that is easily defended against. If you are getting large amounts of troops captured in one fell swoop, then you are not using good tactics. Large formations of men w/o support to the sides, or rear are very vunerable in the game, as well in real life.

Armor retreat problems. Once again, in the abstract, it is more realistic than people give it credit for. Displacing under fire is very dangerous for vehicles, and men to boot. I like ASDN's patch. After playing it, though, instead of fiddling with armor facing during a retreat, I would suggest changing the armor facing modifier, or attack modifier when a unit has retreated. This would model tankers displacing in an orderly manner, rather than simply high tailing it, while under fire.

Op Fire; pretty bad stuff. You can increase the success of your op fire by setting it to your advantage. Too many people simply leave it at default, then complain when it back fires on them. Set the default ranges you want, then tweak individual units EVERY turn.

Just remember, the game is an ABSTRACTION of real war. As such, there are compromises that must be made.

[Wolfman]

I'll jump in here, as I like a good arguement:-) First off, as stated, it's a game. If you want realism, your are looking in the wrong place. Unless you have access to something like the Armor Training Facility, at Ft. Know, you are never going to find it, either. At least, not anytime soon.

Secondly, moving from one hex to another does not take 250m. In any movement from hex to hex, a unit could move anywhere from 1M to 500M. Hexes, in relation to ground scale, represent areas of control. I.E., a 1 SP tank unit does not sit on the entire hex, but it's presence controls it. So, in game terms, a tank could move several meters, and control an empty hex, fire and move back to control a different hex. Additionally, in the time frame of each turn, an entire platoon could individually shoot and scoot into and out of a hex, thus controlling the hex the entire turn

Disrupt, surround and capture is a valid tactic, and very realistic. Don't think so? Read up a little bit on Barbarossa. It is also a tactic that is easily defended against. If you are getting large amounts of troops captured in one fell swoop, then you are not using good tactics. Large formations of men w/o support to the sides, or rear are very vunerable in the game, as well in real life.

Armor retreat problems. Once again, in the abstract, it is more realistic than people give it credit for. Displacing under fire is very dangerous for vehicles, and men to boot. I like ASDN's patch. After playing it, though, instead of fiddling with armor facing during a retreat, I would suggest changing the armor facing modifier, or attack modifier when a unit has retreated. This would model tankers displacing in an orderly manner, rather than simply high tailing it, while under fire.

Op Fire; pretty bad stuff. You can increase the success of your op fire by setting it to your advantage. Too many people simply leave it at default, then complain when it back fires on them. Set the default ranges you want, then tweak individual units EVERY turn.

Just remember, the game is an ABSTRACTION of real war. As such, there are compromises that must be made.

I agree entirely with this point of view.