Units disobey op fire order bug

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

So if I used an empty truck or halftrack for recon by death so the accompanying infantry could later cross an open area without anyone shooting at them (or if in a city, so they could get close enough to shoot without being shot at), would anyone complain?  My understanding is that's acceptable.

Depends on your Rules of Engagement. I, for one, would have a problem with that.

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

Thanks, Jason.  That's the kind of feedback I'm looking for.
 
The bottom line appears to be to clear up these issues before playing, because those tactics would be acceptable under some of the ROE I've mentioned. 
 
There appear to be too many variables to go over ahead of time. 
 
It'd be nice to have a checklist with options, like the game options for command control and armored facing.  For example: 
 
Recon by death (trucks) if infanty within 3 hexes ___ Yes  ___ No (Check one). 
 
Recon by death (passenger halftracks) if infantry with 3 hexes ___ Yes ___ No (Check one)
 
Trucks drawing opportunity fire along front lines but behind front lines ___ Yes ___ No (Check one)
 
Passenger halftracks drawing opportunity fire along front lines but behind front lins ___ Yes ___ No (Check one)
 
The Blitz cite identified areas of disagreement but didn't propose any particular rules regarding halftracks. 
 
The Blitz rule regarding trucks would appear to suggest they should never be used in combat for any reason, but the rule then focuses exclusively on blocking lines of sight.
 
I've had jeeps used as recon by death.  Is that acceptable?  Jeeps are recon units, aren't they?  As a practical matter, jeeps are different than trucks.  If their SP is 2, they are even better than a 6 SP truck platoon, because the recon by death will cost less.
 
I haven't seen a comprehensive list of possible issues. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[british exil]

I realize that we've moved away from the actual thread starter, but as frank frankly pointed out, the feedback we get from Veteran players, help us ,to understand the ROE. In fact I get to understand the game play a little better esp when I read AAR's what a player did and why.

I realize that my use of the LVT2 were out of line in some ways and would have cheesed off some players had I used some of the tactics in a 1on1.
But as pointed out it would be good to have a checklist, so that complcations do not arise.


By the way Jason how are you getting along with the game/strategy manual. You did want to create didn't you???[&:]

Mathew

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: british exil

I realize that we've moved away from the actual thread starter, but as frank frankly pointed out, the feedback we get from Veteran players, help us ,to understand the ROE. In fact I get to understand the game play a little better esp when I read AAR's what a player did and why.

When I have some time, I'll whip up another "video" tutorial or two.

ORIGINAL: british exil
By the way Jason how are you getting along with the game/strategy manual. You did want to create didn't you???[&:]

It was moved lower on the priority list for the moment with all that is going on behind the scenes. There will be more info available soon, I hope.

Not only that, my personal life has become rather busy as of late, especially with the home business. Tis all good, but a tight deadline!

Jason Petho

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

I haven't seen a comprehensive list of possible issues. 

Instead of making an endless list, one could make a few generalized statements:

Unarmed Vehicles (Soft Targets) - tracked or wheeled - are not allowed to recce or to be used to soak OP Fire

Armed Vehicles (Soft Targets) - tracked or wheeled - allowed to recce (if inherent infantry type unit is assigned to armed vehicle, the infantry unit must 'tag along').

Armoured Vehicles - tracked or wheeled - allowed to recce.

Armoured APC's - tracked or wheeled - allowed to recce (if inherent infantry type unit is assigned to APC, the infantry unit must 'tag along').

Etc

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

So the jeep could recce by death.  (Jeeps are armed, aren't they?)  That was my impression.
 
And the recce by death with the armored passenger halftrack was okay, provided its infantry was nearby.
 
But a truck could not recce by death.  That was apparently what Jason found objectionable in my earlier example.
 
I agree with British Exil that I learn far more (and far quicker) over the forum than by trial and error.  And I'd like to avoid irking an opponent unintentionally.  Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

So the jeep could recce by death.  (Jeeps are armed, aren't they?)  That was my impression.

There are two types of jeeps in the game; those that are armed, those that are not.

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
And the recce by death with the armored passenger halftrack was okay, provided its infantry was nearby.

My rules of engagement mean that the halftrack must be in the same hex with the infantry if conducting an assault. If not, the infantry fights dismounted with the halftracks a hex or two behind the parent infantry, ready to reload the infantry and carry on the advance. Empty halftracks roaming the battlefield are a no-no. APC's are just that, glorified battle-taxi's, as we're still a few years away from 'proper' Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
But a truck could not recce by death.  That was apparently what Jason found objectionable in my earlier example.

Rather.

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
I agree with British Exil that I learn far more (and far quicker) over the forum than by trial and error.  And I'd like to avoid irking an opponent unintentionally.  Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond.

No problem, anytime!

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

Regarding Jeeps, I checked, and there are Jeep Scouts, which are armed, and there are Willys Jeeps, which are not and which are apparently used to tow other units.  Jeep Scouts can recon by death then, but Willys Jeeps could not.
 
Regarding the APCs, that's precisely the type of clarification I was looking for.  Thank you.  So the use of an APC to soak up opportunity fire before its infantry entered the hex would be a no-no, but if it soaked up opportunity fire while sitting one or two hexes behind the infantry, that'd be okay.
 
If the APC and its infantry entered a hex together, and the APC took the opportunity fire, I'm thinking that would be okay too, although I'm not sure because the qualification is usually limited to advancing together in an assault, and in this example, they are not advancing as part of an assault.
 
So British Exil's LVT2s are okay for recon because they are armed, and, I would guess, okay for soaking up opporunity fire because they were hanging back from what I understood.  I think British Exil was playing against the AI.  I don't know if LVT2s are hard or soft, but I suspect a human opponent might adjust the opporunity fire so as not to flre at them by restricting the opportunity fire range downwards.  If the LVT2s were sent forward for recon, that purpose would be legit, but the LVT2 would probably start soaking  up opportunity fire, which would probably make the forward observor role a no-no.
 
For veterans, this might all seem like second nature, but for me, it's loaded with all sorts of uncertainties and questions.
 
Jason, I hope everything goes well with the home business.  Thanks again.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

Regarding Jeeps, I checked, and there are Jeep Scouts, which are armed, and there are Willys Jeeps, which are not and which are apparently used to tow other units.  Jeep Scouts can recon by death then, but Willys Jeeps could not.

That is correct.

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
Regarding the APCs, that's precisely the type of clarification I was looking for.  Thank you.  So the use of an APC to soak up opportunity fire before its infantry entered the hex would be a no-no, but if it soaked up opportunity fire while sitting one or two hexes behind the infantry, that'd be okay.

That is also correct.

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
If the APC and its infantry entered a hex together, and the APC took the opportunity fire, I'm thinking that would be okay too, although I'm not sure because the qualification is usually limited to advancing together in an assault, and in this example, they are not advancing as part of an assault.

The infantry should advance alone. If you want armour accompanying them, send in a tank platoon or armoured car platoon.

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
So British Exil's LVT2s are okay for recon because they are armed, and, I would guess, okay for soaking up opporunity fire because they were hanging back from what I understood.  I think British Exil was playing against the AI.  I don't know if LVT2s are hard or soft, but I suspect a human opponent might adjust the opporunity fire so as not to flre at them by restricting the opportunity fire range downwards.  If the LVT2s were sent forward for recon, that purpose would be legit, but the LVT2 would probably start soaking  up opportunity fire, which would probably make the forward observor role a no-no.

Technically, they are battle-taxi's. You can recce with them as long as the infantry they came ashore with are nearby or riding along.

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
For veterans, this might all seem like second nature, but for me, it's loaded with all sorts of uncertainties and questions.

It comes with experience and years of playing. Everyone starts out using whatever they can do fill roles the weapon systems were not designed for, and then get frustrated when they do not win, especially when playing a human opponent. Over time, one realizes that trying to replicate historical uses and tactics tends to bring the best results and an overly pleasing experience, game play wise.

Of course, any questions you have, I would be happy to answer. I do not know it all, but certainly always have an opinion.

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
Jason, I hope everything goes well with the home business.  Thanks again.

So far, so good. Creating a set of maps for a Napoleon book, always a pleasure to learn and be creative!

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho

[1925frank]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
Jason, I hope everything goes well with the home business.  Thanks again.

So far, so good. Creating a set of maps for a Napoleon book, always a pleasure to learn and be creative!

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho

Let's see. From Portugal to Moscow. From Normandy to Egypt. Isn't that kind of like asking one poor fellow to row the Titanic with two oars?

Nevertheless, it sounds like something you enjoy.

I think Lincoln said, "For people who like that sort of thing, that's just the sort of thing those people would like."

Thanks again. You've been tremendously helpful.

Thanks too to Jimair1 for letting us pirate his thread without complaining. Three cheers for Jimair1!