Matrix Games Forums

I'm an "old fart" who really enjoys tactical wargames. Started with avalon hill games ( SL., ASL, Panzer Leader, etc ). Currently I've been playing COH and HPS's Advance of the Reich. I've been visiting this forum to get the Pros and Cons of HOS. The PROs far outweigh the Cons:)

However there seems to be one area that garnered a bit of negative reaction, and that is how the game handles spotting, and on a related subject there the inability to conduct "area fire" (i.e. Fire on an empty hex). I have no problem with the way units are spotted ("Spotting" dice roll, or moving adjacent to an unspotted unit ?). Both COH and AoR essentially have this convention. However both of these games allow "area fire". So if I want to spend time attempting to flush out enemy units, I can.

My question is (Finally, remember I'm old and apparently long winded!!) does the current spotting and no area fire rules detract from the game that much? Just want some opinions before I buy. Thanks for your patience:)

ORIGINAL: genehaynes

I'm an "old fart" who really enjoys tactical wargames. Started with avalon hill games ( SL., ASL, Panzer Leader, etc ). Currently I've been playing COH and HPS's Advance of the Reich. I've been visiting this forum to get the Pros and Cons of HOS. The PROs far outweigh the Cons:)

However there seems to be one area that garnered a bit of negative reaction, and that is how the game handles spotting, and on a related subject there the inability to conduct "area fire" (i.e. Fire on an empty hex). I have no problem with the way units are spotted ("Spotting" dice roll, or moving adjacent to an unspotted unit ?). Both COH and AoR essentially have this convention. However both of these games allow "area fire". So if I want to spend time attempting to flush out enemy units, I can.

My question is (Finally, remember I'm old and apparently long winded!!) does the current spotting and no area fire rules detract from the game that much? Just want some opinions before I buy. Thanks for your patience:)

Another old fart here that grew up playing the same set of games.
I have also been playing the board game versions of this series for almost 10 years, so take my answer with a grain of biased salt.

I have never missed the ASL way of combat after I started playing this series. The spotting rules give me a real feeling of how it might be on a battlefield. That combined with the alternating actions, instead of one side moves all then the next side does the same, makes the game more interactive and helps with the flow of the battle as outlined by the rules.

So, long story long, I don't find the no area fire detracts from the game at all and find the play very compelling.

Hi Gene,

You aren't long winded at all. It looks like we grew up playing the same games.[:)]

On the spotting mechanic... I designed the game, and the spotting mechanics are a key element, and one in which I completely believe in. I feel that the idea of area fire is an ASL idea, not a real-life tactic. I talked with a lot of combat vets while in the war college, and I can promise you that the order "Hey guys, lets show everyone where we are by firing on that building because I **think** there might be someone there," is just NOT an order than is given. Enemy positions are revealed by careful observation (Spotting attempts), scouting (moving adjacent), or attempting to draw fire while maintaining cover (moving through covered terrain). I understand that it might take some folks time to get used to the mechanic, but I feel that after they do, they will like it.

I hope you decide to buy the game, and enjoy playing.

Mark

Man that was fast! Thanks for the info, I really appreciate it. I'm buying today. Don't go anywhere, I know I'll have lots of questions when I start playing. Oops, wife's yelling ( I mean calling), gotta go:)

Ask away! Hope you have fun.

ORIGINAL: markhwalker
I feel that the idea of area fire is an ASL idea, not a real-life tactic. I talked with a lot of combat vets while in the war college, and I can promise you that the order "Hey guys, lets show everyone where we are by firing on that building because I **think** there might be someone there," is just NOT an order than is given. Enemy positions are revealed by careful observation (Spotting attempts), scouting (moving adjacent), or attempting to draw fire while maintaining cover (moving through covered terrain).

This statement conflicts with much of the WWII military history that I've read.

First, area fire, or recon by fire, is generally used by attackers in situations where the defenders already know where they are...its the defenders whose position is unknown.

Second, in many situations in the game, we're not trying to fire on a place because "there might be someone there"--we're trying to fire on a place where I fired at a known enemy target two minutes ago--so now I won't fire again until I've positively spotted the enemy again? Frankly, it just doesn't make much sense to me...

Obviously use of this tactic would be limited by common sense and ammo supply limitations, but I don't agree that this tactic is simply an "ASL idea".

Seventy-Six,

Men (and women) do NOT hold position in an firefight. At least not those that live to tell about the firefight. If you are behind a wall you lift, aim (if possible) fire, and then shift position. You lift twice in the same position, you are asking to be wounded.

Spotting replicates this. Yep, you saw that Russian in the window two minutes ago, but where is he now? Probably the next window down, or perhaps behind the inner baracade in the room. You've read about those too, I assume?

Bottom line it is a game mechanic that makes cybercommanders think before they fire, something their real-life counterparts always do.

I cannot speak to area fire a la ASL, it has been too many years and too many cats since I've been able to play a board game.
As Mr. Walker pointed out the spotting mechanic makes sense, to a point.
Where I have difficulty with it for example is say a German ldr in D7 makes a successful die roll to spot an enemy unit in H9 and that unit is marked with a SPOTTED marker.

Assuming a 2-4 minute turn, multiple firefights taking place all over the battlefield, AFV's moving, smoke (not LOS blocking smoke, more like a haze) squads yelling, equipment clanking, just plain battlefield noise; what are the chances that the sqd in E11 is going to be looking right at that building at H9 or even know that the ldr in D7 had spotted that hex. Or, the spotting unit sees the enemy through a window that the sqd in E11 cannot see. Especially if an enemy sqd say two hexes away had previously fired on them and subsequently became un-spotted. I would think I would be watching that hex as it presents the most danger to the E11 squad and not with godlike omniscience just know to fire at H9.

Maybe, if it is possible to program, make the spotted hex only visible to units in the same, or even adjacent hexes that, or a house rule precluding the E11 squad from seeing the spotted hex.

Still, I like the idea of the spotting mechanic, it does add a sense of realism.

Dear Gene,

Just go ahead and buy it. It is a cracking game and as good a simulation as any another, if not better than most.

That is from an old fart talking from a position of almost total ignorance of actual warfare, but from a position of having played many, many games.

Regards,

Fentum

Roeddog...

Yes, you have a point, and one that I have often pondered. I can only say that I just think it "feels" right. I love the way the firefights blossom, and the way it makes you think before you fire, but you are correct. Just because one guy spots someone it doesn't mean everyone should, but that's the way it is.

Tracers... there are tracers. Even in WW2, tracers were commonly used to mark positions.