First Impressions, please!

[Gizuria]

Whether it is or it isn't is beside the point because it's a port of a board game to the PC. It's likely that the board game doesn't have Area/Prep fire and therefore it isn't in the PC game either. Fans of the board game might not like having their game tampered with in this fashion

It's probably safe to say that no military hoses down every potential enemy-occupied location with area fire before exposing their troops to fire. That might be the thinking here too. Not saying I agree but if it had Prep Fire/Area Fire, it sure would feel a LOT more like ASL.

Of course, that's different from not being able to fire on a location where we already know there are enemy units. Having to rediscover the same unit in the same location each turn isn't how I'd do it. I'd probably have the unit remain visible in the following turn unless it takes some action to conceal itself, i.e. moves from one hex to another using Low Crawl. But making changes like this would make the game very different from the original board game. The board game fans are obviously happy with it being like this.

[Schnaufer]

I find that on easiest mode, those partisans sure shoot great. Maybe Russians didn't need regular army [:(]


Hopefully after many more games I will see the fun others are expressing.

Have a good day [:)]

[midgard30]

Just throwing ideas, a suppression/area fire on a unit could prevent or reduced the effect to return fire...

[Richie61]

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog
Whether it is or it isn't is beside the point because it's a port of a board game to the PC.

This [:)]

[z1812]

ORIGINAL: Richie61

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog
Whether it is or it isn't is beside the point because it's a port of a board game to the PC.

This [:)]

I can agree with the above and it is a reasonable explanation.

However there is a difference between a game play decision and area fire being explained away as being something that isn't practiced in reality.

[midgard30]

Well, they added the flanking fire rule (and some others, from what I read). I'm looking for games that give me some degree of realism (being able to apply true tactics). If the actual rules allow that, I'm fine with this. But I'm not going to discuss this further as I'm not a game designer nor a tactician, and in the end it's designer and buyer's choice.

[markhwalker]

On the spotting mechanic... 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).

Spotting represents having enough of a fix on your target to fire. Unlike in gaming, the combat vets I've spoken to are very reluctant to fire at "areas" because doing so reveals their position to the enemy. That is the whole idea behind spotting. You have to consider if it is worth revealing your position to fire on an enemy position.

[z1812]

ORIGINAL: macob30

Well, they added the flanking fire rule (and some others, from what I read). I'm looking for games that give me some degree of realism (being able to apply true tactics). If the actual rules allow that, I'm fine with this. But I'm not going to discuss this further as I'm not a game designer nor a tactician, and in the end it's designer and buyer's choice.

+1

[markhwalker]

Well, there is certainly nothing magical about being a game designer. Y'all's ideas have as much merit as mine. That doesn't mean I'll agree with them, but neither will I dismiss them out of have.

[Harv]

ORIGINAL: macob30

ORIGINAL: Harv

I remember working through some "game books" back in the 90‘s to do with small unit tactics (infantry and armour I believe), and I think they were written by a John Antal. They were very interesting, and if I remember right, I died a lot with them too. Same Fellow I assume, and now I wish I'd played Brothers in Arms.

Are you talking about that book?
http://www.amazon.ca/Armor-Attacks-Inte ... Leadership

Funny, because it was in my wish list.

Yep! That's the one. Might even hazard going through the boxes in the basement and take them for a spin again.

[markhwalker]

But it is not ASL.

Yay! Someone agrees with me. [&o]

[midgard30]

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

On the spotting mechanic...

Thanks for the explanation.

[smb1968]

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

On the spotting mechanic... 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).

Spotting represents having enough of a fix on your target to fire. Unlike in gaming, the combat vets I've spoken to are very reluctant to fire at "areas" because doing so reveals their position to the enemy. That is the whole idea behind spotting. You have to consider if it is worth revealing your position to fire on an enemy position.

Mark,
I get the notion of the spotting mechanic in the game reflecting the fact that squads don't fire all the time at everything around them, but I don't get why you lose that "spot" you made on the next turn. Why couldn't it be made easier to spot a previously spotted unit (maybe a -1 on the roll for spotting a previously spotted unit that hasn't moved in the interim)? I just don't get why a squad would "forget" the location of a unit they just fired out 5 minutes before. Love the game, though.

Scott

[Grotius]

Isn't the idea that the enemy is a moving target, even if it stays in the same hex? It peeks out of windows, then ducks back in; it finds new cover; it tries actively to become unspotted. I really like the spotting rules the way they are, though I wouldn't object to a -1 die roll mod on successive spotting attempts.

[markhwalker]

SMB and Grotius,

You are both right. As I posted elsewhere (but can't find it). Let's say that you are using a stone wall for cover (dangerous because of the chips, but okay if you have goggles, but way too much detail), anyway... you lift, aim (if you can) and fire. Only a fool then raises again in the same place. Veteran troops will slightly shift their position before raising again. Similar things happen in buildings.

get why you lose that "spot" you made on the next turn. Why couldn't it be made easier to spot a previously spotted unit (maybe a -1 on the roll for spotting a previously spotted unit that hasn't moved in the interim)?

I can see that, and we might put it in. Same unit spotting same unit, gets a -1 on the die roll.

[smb1968]

Thanks for the explanation Mark. And whether you change the spotting rules or not, I really appreciate your willingness to come on the forum and respond to questions about the game engine -- you seem to be a truly class act.
Scott

[Missouri_Rebel]

Id like you to consider the -1 for spotting also and or a -1 for hidden units that fired in the previous turn. It is often very harsh on the attack when you have to get a good roll to spot, another good roll to hit and a third to do damage. A more subtle hidden state seems like a good area to look at.

[markhwalker]

Thanks, Scott. Rebel... I might not understand what you are saying. After a hidden unit is revealed (placed on the map) it stays revealed (but not necessarily spotted) as long as a friendly has it in its LOS. Am I missing something?

[phatkarp]

Never played LnL before. Got it, played the first two German scenarios on "normal". Lost a couple times along the way before succeeding. (Hot Tip: Driving a PzIV into a house can cause the house to collapse onto your PzIV)

Anyways, I'm loving it and I'm having a great time with it. I'm hoping you can do another podcast with 3MA so they can tell you how awesome your game turned out!

[Missouri_Rebel]

I should have said revealed instead of hidden.

The -1 makes sense for spotting with the same unit on the next turn. What I'm saying wouldn't it also make sense that any spotting against a unit that fired in the last turn to also have an additional -1? IMO, they are not actively seeking to hide and have revealed themselves more than a unit that was merely spotted but is not firing. Shaken units being spotted would not qualify for this and units that were staying low (not firing) would benefit on their spotting rolls. I just feel that the units in cover enjoy too many benefits in addition to the TEM's.

I like the spotting mechanic in the game as it does add some realism and versatility. But is it too much of a deciding factor where attacks become stalled by a common roll too often?

Merely suggestions to consider. Of course the integrity of the system must be safeguarded first and foremost.

mo reb