To much opportunity fire

[Knight]

During a Russian-German scenario I witnessed a MG-34 unit shooting opportunity fire 7 times (!) while beeing shot at from 3 directions. I know the Matrix guys likes to romanticize the German army (look at the game logo) but this is ridiculous.

[Nikademus]

it is'nt romantisizing the German army, the Matrix gang instituted an experience check that might allow a unit to gain "additional" OP points. This was done to help counter 'gaming' of the system whereby one could force a unit to shoot off all of its set OP points and then charge in with a unit or two and wipe the target out.

This way there's a much greater level of uncertainly and helps to discourage such ahistorical behavior.

Since the higher a unit's exp the greater this chance for add'l OP points, you'll probably see the Germans benefiting from this new rule more than others given their usually high ratings throughout much of the war.

[Drake666]

Yes their is two much of it but on the other hand it stops people from using crazy tactics like useing up all op fire and then driveing up next to a unit and destroying it.

I think the priced paid for haveing two much is worth the price of more hictoric play.

[Moonwolf]

Originally posted by Drake666:
Yes their is two much of it but on the other hand it stops people from using crazy tactics like useing up all op fire and then driveing up next to a unit and destroying it.

I think the priced paid for haveing two much is worth the price of more hictoric play.

Yes, there is too much OP fire, but it is better than it was before. However, to get to really historic play they have to stop stereotyping the nationalities and admit it isn't as pigeon-holed as all that. I mean, the Germans were the Cowards of El Alamein, they were the ones who ran and left their allies in the lurch. The Italians held their lines all through repeated British attacks and only surrendered AFTER being left behind, AFTER marching 50 miles without water, AFTER running out of ammo.

The Germans were not as good as the game protrays, and the Italians were not as bad.

------------------
Ed Mortimer

Meglio un Giorno da Leone

[Nikademus]

the only problem i have with the "national characterisitics" is that they might lead to some rather incongruous situations, like say for example, your playing with an 'elite' level Italian group with corresponding exp and morale rates. What happens if they suddenly go off and surrender?

actually after playing the Americans for a brief period of time i've failed to yet notice their "greater tendancy to retreat, but rally quickly" and have seen their squads stand still and get decimated by incoming fire same as the rest of the nationality groups.

anybody else notice the national characteristics at work?

[Moonwolf]

Originally posted by Nikademus:
actually after playing the Americans for a brief period of time i've failed to yet notice their "greater tendancy to retreat, but rally quickly" and have seen their squads stand still and get decimated by incoming fire same as the rest of the nationality groups.

anybody else notice the national characteristics at work?

I think what's masking the American's "retreat and come back" characteristic is the experience check for op fire. If a unit makes the experience check, they are no longer retreating . . . sort of puts the kabosh on that characteristic if their experience levels are above average.


------------------
Ed Mortimer

Meglio un Giorno da Leone

[Wild Bill]

In version 3.0 you'll be able to control that, even for the AI, if you are unhappy with it...WB


------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[Tomanbeg]

I've tried not to get this, but I can't hold back no 'mo! 'Rushing' a unit that is out of Op fire shots is VERY historical. What you guys arn't keeping in mind is that the game is trying to simulate similtanous events in a linear fashion. When I send 4 Shermans at a Panther until it runs out of shots what I am doing is recreating the fact that the Panther can only shoot, reload, acquire another target and shoot again so many times before the Shermans get in a close in flank position. Do the Math. The game won't let me send them all at once. And it's even more critical for the poor bloody infantry. How do you think all those positions were taken? Historicaly, only the US Army was into shooting units off their positions. And look at all the close assaults they ended up doing. Why is this gaming the system? How else am I to simulate what was done most of the time. It sounds like 3.0 will be a big improvement, as long as the units are no longer packing Roy Rogers six-shooter.
T.

[Wild Bill]

No, you don't remember those Roy Roger 44 six shooters that each fired twelve times
.
.
.
.
Each ?
You old enough for that?

Wild Bill

------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[Paul Vebber]

Actualy if you "do the math" the shots we give a unit is pitiful given the several minutes a game represents. 5-6 rounds a minute was quite leisurely for a Sherman so technically if the masses were charging right at them 15 ro 20 shots is not out of the question in a turn!

The number of "shots" a unit has is more a function of the enemy's exposure to fire than the firing tanks abilty to pump out rounds. So we give the player control over about a quarter to a third (the 3-6 shots you get in your turn) and make the rest a function of the firing units experience and the range and ROF (how opfire works).

Now contrary to what seems popular revisionism in some circles lately, it was not healthy for Shermans or Cromwells to go charging en mass at a Tiger or Panther and let the "limited" turret traverse of the German save them. You have to be inside about 200 yards for that to matter (and be going across the firing tanks field of view- not toward it).

Its like seven guys can charge the "bad guy" with the revolver and theoretically the bad guy is sure to get tackled by at least one guy, but when you are one of the 7 standing there, knowing one of you is sure to get to him is little comfort

According to UK War Office records the average German "success" range on the western front was about 1200yrds, 550 for the Allies. So there weren't many cases of units getting to ranges where your speed across LOS made much difference. A good crew could get the barrel pointed the desired direction prety darn quick through a combo of turret traverse and rotation. Even StuGs could rotate in place pretty fast.

SO what does this mean for Opfire? Well, if you go charging at an enemy, you should never be certain that he will not get a shot off. So while "soaking off Opfire CAN STILL WORK (particularly against heavily suppressed and low experience troops) it just is not a sure thing any more!

IF a unit has a real high experience and you close the range with lots of units in his LOS, then he WILL realistically have opportunity to get LOTS of shots off. THe "special opfire" we have added accounts for this, but its random and only particularly likely if you are very close (within 2 hexes) repeatedly shooting at him, or you have lots of guys charging.

in version three we have increased the chance of this "special opfire" if the unit is in defend stance - ie specificaly looking around for units to shoot at. With the new "active opfire" you can pick which you want to ignore and which you want to take advantage of.

But keep in mind the length of the turn when thinking about Opfire (and units "spinning around) and the fact that while the game turn has lots of "simultaneity" implied and abstracted, it is not nececesairly in the order you want to assume it is

[Drake666]

Read about the grat tactic that your think is hictoric Tomanbeg.

Mass Destruction
A handful of Wittmann's tanks stopped on a strategic hill during the battle of Kursk. In the distance, they noticed a massive dust cloud generated by over 100 Russian tanks charging their position at full speed. It looked like the end was near for Wittmann's team. Wittmann knew their only hope was to obliterate the Russians from long-range. The Russian guns and armor were weaker, making them vulnerable at 2,000 meters, but preventing them from fighting back until they got within 800 meters. Wittmann's tanks opened fire at 2,000 meters firing one round every few seconds—and they weren't missing. The Russians were so tightly packed that in some instances the German round would go clear through one tank to destroy another. The majority of tanks were eliminated before they got within the lethal 800 meter range. But Wittmann was still vastly outnumbered. Fortunately, the remainder of the disorganized and poorly trained Russians were easily knocked out or shocked into surrendering. Not one of Wittmann's men or tanks was harmed.

[Michael Wermelin]

I must agree with some of the replies here. The new op. fire rules seems fine until you try to outflank the enemy. Outflanking is just not that possible in SPWAW anymore since a unit with good experience always will turn and fire back. In real time this equals the op.firerer shooting at many directions at the same time. But perhaps it is worth it anyway. It was no good when you could "draw" out the op. fire either.

[O de B]

I'm not sure but i think in the good old Steel Panthers 1 there was sort of routine that allowed the vehicles to turn their hull only once during the opponent's turn. Tanks were also allowed to turn their turret another time. Then they could only fire into the area their gun was pointing to.
I'm not sure since i did not played it for a long time now .
But having such restrictions in WaW could be cool, isn't it ?

[Nikademus]

though i too was a little put off when i first started playing SP:WAW and saw *my own* units firing add'l shots at an advancing infantry column (my objection was that it took away a little of the thought behind managing one's own shots during their phase...i.e. should i save a few rounds for OP fire in case something unexpected pops up? or shoot them all off now and take my chances) I find that i prefer the random chance for add'l shots vs a more static system.

Making things less predictible IMO helps promote a greater level of realism in the game. Tying the % chance to experience makes it even more realistic as i would expect a veteran unit to keep their cool and manage their time better vs a green unit that might be prone to freezing under the pressure.

[Epicurius]

Man.....there is a lot of discussion on this subject!

I have played a lot of war games in my short life, and have seen many systems. I am talking board and computer.

Every one who has posted here has brought up a very valid point. I can see the programmers now looking at all this and saying to themselves..."heck...we just won't change a thing."

I really like the old way. The system was more fun due to you having to think about your shots in Offensive fire phase. What I did not like about the old way was that games were SO dynamic. The draw fire and then taking the position is sort of taking atvantage of the system. But the new way IS taking some of the flanking possibilities out of the game.

I really like using my engineers to take out those tanks that their commanders let stray into MY forest or MY town. I tried that tactic in WAW and it worked. And that brings me to the biggest problem that I have been posting about the last few days.

Tank HE and Arty HE is pretty usless. The way I see it to bring this rambling to an end...

Tone down the "experience check for op fire" but keep it, and Tone up the damage potential for HE from a tank and arty. Just not too much. Then the game will be perfect! (I will bet the programmers have heard that from a person more than once.)

Plea to the programmers:

PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SATISFY EVERYBODY. MAKE YOUR GAME. SPWAW IS GREAT RIGHT NOW. JUST TWEAK THE EXISTING NUMBERS. KEEP THE SYSTEM CLOSE TO THE WAY IT IS.

Scott Randall

[Larry Holt]

I like the fact that Matrix has addressed the "soak off shots" tactic however, it seems that there are two competing solutions that have been implemented. In Ver 3.0 I can select my OF shots to avoid soak off and there is the random number of additional shots. I'm not sure that we need both to fix the soak off issue. If, on the other hand, the additional shots adds general realism (as Paul's post seems to indicate), then I'll just accept it as an additional feature and not a work around to fix the soak off issue.

I will say that it sure makes the game more uncertain!

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[Nikademus]

the random add'l OP shots should'nt totally negate the value of a flanking attack. Even if the AFV crew successfully chks for an OP and turns itself (turret or whole AFV) to face the new threat they will still be facing the classic delemma of such a maneuver, that of presenting a their more vulnerable side armor to their initial opponent advancing on their front.

It reminds me of a scene described in George Forty's book on US tanks in action. It described an action where a single Tiger tank was engaging 5 or so Shermans. The attackers brought up a towed 17 pounder on the Tiger's flank to assist. Now what's signifigant here is that the Tiger crew *spotted* the flanking manuever and turned the tank accordingly to present their thicker frontal armor to the weapon as well as to engage it. However this allowed the (surviving) Shermans to now enage the Tiger on the flank, forcing the Tiger crew to beat a retreat given the unfavorable tactical situation they were now facing.

Of course you wont see this vs an AI which never retreats from a defensive position regardless of whats developing. A human player though will probably 9 out of 10 times make the same decision giving the attacker some breathing space as they proceed with their advance.

[BA Evans]

Originally posted by Michael Wermelin:
I must agree with some of the replies here. The new op. fire rules seems fine until you try to outflank the enemy. Outflanking is just not that possible in SPWAW anymore since a unit with good experience always will turn and fire back.

Hey Mike,

If the enemy tanks turn to face your flank attack, they have just exposed their sides to your WHOLE army! Don't launch a flank attack unless the enemy is already being attacked from another direction.

The whole idea of launching a flank attack is to catch the enemy in a crossfire. Your main assault needs to catch the enemies' attention, THEN launch the flank attack.

Don't launch a flank attack all by itself.

BA Evans

[Tomanbeg]

I prefer the way WaW deals with swamping attacks, I just think it needs to be toned down a little. The main tactical use of this technique is overrunning lone units. To try it against a well supported position is foolhardy and should be rewarded with a bunch of burning attackers. I guess what I'm suggesting is a limit. Maybe twice the normal allocation of shots. Overrun in SP2 was WAY to easy. Sp2ww2 and SPww2 were better. Waw might have swung a tinesy lttle bit past believable. IMHO, of course. Still love it.
WB, Do you think he stole the 6-shooter from Hoppalong Cassidy? Chromed, pearl grips. Sorta like the one a famous General carried.
Could it be!
T.