Home Rule to regulate skulking

[FrankH.]

While I agree that two players can play by whatever house rules they want...but I will skulk for several reasons and as mentioned up-thread the biggest reason being the death star final fire avoidance.

Now since I pretty much only play large CGs I am speaking from my experience with them...and while skulking is an effective tool on the defense...there are a couple ways it can work against you...and I can attest that it can and does happen.

1. You skulk back a section of your troops and then the nearby enemy sniper activates and it is quite possible that a unit you were going to move back into the front lines is now pinned or broken by an untimely SAN. Or worse...since you did skulk some units...that same SAN which would have hit them in their original location now ends up hitting your rally point leader. Whoops...now that leader is dead, wounded or broken.

2. Also...skulking and Stukas (or aircraft in general) don't always play well together...

I think CGs, especially in urban settings, are kind of a different animal. As you suggested there are too many things going on, potentially, making every tactic, including skulking, somewhat more risky and unpredictable. The often wide potential availability of OBA are I would say another big consideration.

IMO this makes the game overall more challenging and far more interesting. And that is why I am mostly interested in CGs. Or at least scenarios with a range of pre-game, and/or post-setup but prior to start adjustments, that unpredictably may greatly change how it starts off.

I also think there is a very different mindset to the game, between those who are most interested in short scenarios and especially in tournament competitive play, and those who are more into the CG version of the game.

But this does not change the fact that the rules allowing skulking, not the tactic itself, are one of the many "wobbly" aspects of the (basic rules of the) game. I use the word wobbly - not sure it is the best word - I might have used other words.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

But this does not change the fact that the rules allowing skulking, not the tactic itself, are one of the many "wobbly" aspects of the (basic rules of the) game. I use the word wobbly - not sure it is the best word - I might have used other words.

I wouldn't call it "fact". It's a personal opinion at best.

 

[FrankH.]

I wouldn't call it "fact". It's a personal opinion at best.

Sure, it's an opinion, mine.

 

[ASL1]

I recall a scene from movie about the Bulge where a GI in a foxhole is under attack. He reaches out to grab his boot and buys the farm. The film was in black and white but I can't remember the name.

Since I am bringing up movies that I can't remember the name of here is another. Some Americans in a transport plane ditch or crash on an isolated island in the Pacific. There is a small contingent of Japanese on the island. After some initial hostility between the two groups an uneasy truce is developed. The truce holds until the Americans repair their radio and rescue is on the way.
The young Japanese officer will not surrender and leads an attack where they are all killed. Earlier in the movie one of the Japanese who has been trading fish to the Americans is killed by a shark while wading in the ocean. Pretty good flick actually.
Thanks!!

"None But The Brave" with Frank Sinatra, Clint Walker, Tommy Sands

 

[Actionjick]

"None But The Brave" with Frank Sinatra, Clint Walker, Tommy Sands

I forgot Ol' Blue Eyes was in it. He was in a couple decent war flicks. Not too bad a singer also.
I think there was a rooster character of him in a Looney Tunes cartoon. Porky brought him in because the hens weren't laying eggs. He got into a singing duel with the Bing Crosby rooster. Lmao those were great cartoons.

 

[Actionjick]

In the ASL Word thread Eagle4ty defined exfiltrate ( post # 371, OMOOT can't provide a link ). I think if skulking was referred to as exfiltrating those who frown upon skulking may view it a little more favorably.

 

[Philippe D.]

I think it's clear from the many replies here that skulking has been in the game for way too long to "fix" it - if there ever was anything to "fix".

Now, I know there are other tactical warfare systems out there, though I'm only really familiar with ASL. What other types of mechanisms do these other games have to simulate the action of soldiers laying low for a time while trying to not let the opponent grab their position?

In this, ASL probably shows its age with its alternating turn structure: a player will get to act (move) with all his units before the other gets to move one of his (barring the Rout Phase, and that comes with severe restrictions as to the direction of movement). More dynamic turn structures might make it easier for an attacker to force the opponent to stand and (possibly) fight in place: if, say, players alternate acting with a unit (isn't that what happens in a system like Lock'n'Load?), if the defender tries to skulk out of a given key position, the attacker could grab it. But then isn't that incentive to use your defending units to fire more aggressively than they should? (they are trying to lay low, remember)

I'd certainly like to hear how other systems deal with this kind of things, and whether it works - or works for X, but ends up messing Y. As I said, I'm not looking to "fix" ASL, just learn what other types of (good) ideas game designers have come up with in the last 45 years.

 

[holdit]

My "Opportunity Move" suggestion was inspired by the Avalon Hill "Napoleon's Battles" miniatures rules. At the end of the Attacking Player's Movement Phase he can mark any unmoved cavalry (or elite infantry) with a "React" marker. This allows him to have units that he can move later in his own turn or during his opponent's Player Turn (where the Movement Phase is followed by a Reaction Phase).
In summary, a React-marked unit could move:
Later in the owner's player turn, during the Pursuit phase
During the opponent's Reaction Phase
During the opponent's pursuit phase, in response to Reaction moves in that phase by the opponent.

The React marker is removed as soon as a Reaction Move is made, or at the start of the owner's next Movement Phase, whichever comes first.

The ability to react was restricted to cavalry (and optionally, elite infantry), in order to prevent it getting out of hand.

 

[Stewart]

Dunno. I do not think that Skulking is a gamey tactic. It is rather a game mechanic to represent the very historical behavior of holding a position while minimizing one's exposure to enemy fire IMHO.

On top of that, it is a core technique since decades and you can bet that it was used during the playtesting of just about any scenario in creation for the last 20 years (or even more).

Eliminating Skulking by house rule as a technique might thus have unwanted consequences with regard to play balance.

That said, of course, anything is ok if players mutually agree to adjustments of the rules.

von Marwitz

Agree with vM here.
While I hate skulking, I sure hope scenarios aren't designed for its inclusion. Requiring players to skulk isn't a good design.

It's a game use. This simply leads to the HS army which is pretty much just as gamey BUT requires the player to lose something to perform.
I think the suggestion is pretty sound.
Considering 25% of officially released scenarios show unbalanced roar records, if like to see it tested on those scenarios which REQUIRE skulking

 

[Sparafucil3]

Considering 25% of officially released scenarios show unbalanced roar records, if like to see it tested on those scenarios which REQUIRE skulking

Let us know how your testing goes. -- jim

PS: The quoted portion of your post is harder to understand than most of the SSR's you claim are unclear. I hope your SSR's and reports back are cleared than this post

 

[Vic Provost]

I am going to go a little further into this "waste of time" idea. The following are all things I consider a "waste of time". Your mileage may vary, but to me, good or better players will tend to agree with me:

1. Not knowing your TH modifiers and looking them up every time
2. Not knowing the columns of your IFT out to about 12 (at least) and having to look up the result every time
3. Not knowing the TEM's of terrain
4. Not having a plan
5. Watching my opponent agonize over what to do with their pieces for 30 minutes stuck in some paralysis by analysis loop (probably because they haven't made a plan)
6. Even worse, watching my opponent look up some "possible outcomes" on a table that says if X then Y happens Z percent of the time

I find that good or better players do all of this stuff in their heads. The play with pace because they instinctively know the odds (5) because the know the IFT (2) and the TH mods (1) and TEM. How many times a game are you rolling dice? If my opponents has to look that stuff up EVERY time they roll, I promise that's a much larger waste of time than me skulking all of my units out of the line of fire. In fact, if these things describe my opponent, I am actually speeding the game up by moving out of his LOF. Just sayin' -- jim (PS: I am not accusing you of these things. I am just commenting on this I find to be a waste of time)

I hate slow play, drives me crazy.

If I'm playing Tom Morin or Carl Nogueora I know we will play at a nice pace and at least have an idea what the hell we are doing. Not having to constantly check the QRDC and especially IFT all the time is huge. Know your rules as best you can. I also love the pace guys like Steve Pleva, Gary Mei and Paul Sidhu play, when I have been matched against them I knew it would be a tough game but they made quick and often the right decision and the scenarios flowed the way you hope. Bless Joe Gochinski for his work on Starter Kit scenarios and bringing noobies into the hobby, he has the patience of Jobe.

Unless a real noob who is moving on from starter kit or just getting into the game system there is no excuse for waiting 10 or 15 minutes between moves of even one counter. Keep the game moving as best you can.

Can't remember the name or scenario any longer but at some tourney at least 15 years ago my opponent was absolutely paralyzed during his own player turn and especially his movement phase, luckily I was on the attack so could kind of set a pace but if my turn took 15 minutes, his would take 45. That drove me crazy for so few decisions to make and units to move. Come on man, play the damn game! Vic.

 

[daniel zucker]

I hate slow play, drives me crazy.

If I'm playing Tom Morin or Carl Nogueora I know we will play at a nice pace and at least have an idea what the hell we are doing. Not having to constantly check the QRDC and especially IFT all the time is huge. Know your rules as best you can. I also love the pace guys like Steve Pleva, Gary Mei and Paul Sidhu play, when I have been matched against them I knew it would be a tough game but they made quick and often the right decision and the scenarios flowed the way you hope. Bless Joe Gochinski for his work on Starter Kit scenarios and bringing noobies into the hobby, he has the patience of Jobe.

Unless a real noob who is moving on from starter kit or just getting into the game system there is no excuse for waiting 10 or 15 minutes between moves of even one counter. Keep the game moving as best you can.

Can't remember the name or scenario any longer but at some tourney at least 15 years ago my opponent was absolutely paralyzed during his own player turn and especially his movement phase, luckily I was on the attack so could kind of set a pace but if my turn took 15 minutes, his would take 45. That drove me crazy for so few decisions to make and units to move. Come on man, play the damn game! Vic.

Vic you know that sometimes playing slow is a tactic. As can playing fast. It is a game after all and you not just playing the game your also playing the opponent

 

[Jazz]

Vic you know that sometimes playing slow is a tactic. As can playing fast. It is a game after all and you not just playing the game your also playing the opponent

<shrug> If winning is that important to someone that they play glacially (or unreasonably fast) on purpose....they win and I'm looking for another opponent...that's just me.

 

[bendizoid]

I don't know if it's been discussed somewhere. I have thought of a rule that could minimize the "gamey" of skulking. It consists of, whenever a unit leaves a location in his MPh, allowing to enemy units to fire to this abandoned location, leaving residual FP there. This residual FP counter shall not be removed until the end of the APh, acting in this location similar to a FFE. So, if a unit goes out of LOS in its MPh a comes back in its APh, it would be attacked by this Residual FP. The main point would be to distinguish these Residual FP "skulking" counters from the regular ones. Or merely allow all Residual FP counters to remain until the end of the APh.

Design a scenario and make a SSR then playtest it. Get back to us with a full report.

 

[rdw5150]

I am open, however, to addressing some minor issues, for example the 'death-trap' Foxholes, making the Pleva OBA rule 'official' and some such.

von Marwitz

This.........

 

[ScottRomanowski]

No, do NOT even consider make a home-brew OBA modification official!

 

[sdennis]

<shrug> If winning is that important to someone that they play glacially (or unreasonably fast) on purpose....they win and I'm looking for another opponent...that's just me.

I cannot like this post enough! We are not playing for the mortgage here....

 

[Lorenzoknight]

What is the Pleva OBA rule?

 

[JimWhite]

No, do NOT even consider make a home-brew OBA modification official!

Assuming you are referring to the Pleva OBA rule...why exactly would you not like to see it made official?

 

[Sparafucil3]

What is the Pleva OBA rule?

Radios/Phones cannot "X" out. They repair on a 1/2. You don't lose OBA access for drawing two red cards. When you draw a red card--including the first--you shuffle two red cards into the deck and use that. There is an article on the modification in an upcoming journal. It remains pretty consistent with the existing rules for about 6 turns. After that, it results in a few more missions than normal. -- jim