Defensive Stealth aka Skulking

[Honza]

Is skulking such a crime against reality or realism? Is that the main argument against it?

Well, how about considering the fluidity of the defense and the defenders natural attempts to be stealthy?

Rigid defenses are brittle and may snap. I think soldiers knew that. If a defense line has a bit of 'give' to it then it is more flexible and tougher.

Defenders would not just sit in place and allow themselves to be pummeled by the attacker. They would probably be shifting around looking for the best cover, the least exposure and the best line of fire to their enemy. IOW they would be doing a bit of stealthy adjusting to the attackers force.

All this can be expressed by the method known to us as skulking.

Skulking is methodical and boring but it is not an exact science. When I skulk I do not always re-enter the same location, I often will shift one hex up or down the line. Or I change my mind and go back another hex.

What it boils down to is that the defensive line 'shimmers' or trembles under the force of the attack, which I believe it would do.

 

[MrP]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

Skulking you mean?

 

[Arnaud]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

I guess he does mean "skulking"...

I'd break down the problem in two aspects:
- reality: doesn't matter. ASL is not a simulation of WW2 tactical warfare, has never intended to be, will never be. It's a game where you're supposed to try fulfilling victory conditions by any means allowed by the rules. If a J8 errata allows Panthers to fly, I would fly them.

- gameplay: certainly, a situation where the defender is able to assault move/advance back and forth on the same line for several turns is not the most interesting. But it only means that the attacker is not doing his job, or that the scenario is plain boring. Generally you should always force difficult choices on your opponent, if he's able to fall back and reoccupy the same positions without putting his units at risk (remember Snapshots) then you're probably losing the game.

BTW, skulking can involve "recycling" Concealment markers, transferring SW between units, shifting Dummies around... not necessarily a trivial move.

 

[Morbii]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

I think the reality-based argument can work fine here. As with many things in ASL, it can be seen as an abstraction. The defender is probably lying lower than the attacker in a defensive position. Skulking simply makes it harder for a defender to be hit.

 

[Vinnie]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

My only problem with skulking is it requires an actual move while in a building hex covering 50 m I expect you could find a spot well outside of all observation. The skulking mechnic works well,

 

[MLaPanzer]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

I guess he does mean "skulking"...

I'd break down the problem in two aspects:
- reality: doesn't matter. ASL is not a simulation of WW2 tactical warfare, has never intended to be, will never be. It's a game where you're supposed to try fulfilling victory conditions by any means allowed by the rules. If a J8 errata allows Panthers to fly, I would fly them.

- gameplay: certainly, a situation where the defender is able to assault move/advance back and forth on the same line for several turns is not the most interesting. But it only means that the attacker is not doing his job, or that the scenario is plain boring. Generally you should always force difficult choices on your opponent, if he's able to fall back and reoccupy the same positions without putting his units at risk (remember Snapshots) then you're probably losing the game.

BTW, skulking can involve "recycling" Concealment markers, transferring SW between units, shifting Dummies around... not necessarily a trivial move.

This says it all.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

This says it all.

I don't disagree; I think placing a counter works a hell of alot better than physically moving counters back and forth (EXC: the "concealment shuffle").

 

[Honza]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

Skulking you mean?

Hahaha... my mistake.

 

[Honza]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

I've changed my post to say "skulking" but I can't change the title of the thread. If a moderator would be kind enough to change the title of the thread to "Defensive Stealth aka Skulking" it would be much appreciated. aperbag:

 

[Honza]

My guess is that in any defensive line there would be a combination of holding ones position and shooting, going to ground, and shifting around looking for better defenses or postions.

We have two out of those three options available to us now. A "gone to ground" option would be good, but in a way is unecessary because the defender can skulk.

If the defender has been outflanked then even a 'gone to ground' option loses credibilty because once a defense is outflanked the defenders are that much more vulnerable to the fire from all sides anyway.

I like the fluidity of a defense where one can skulk. It does actually seem realistic to me. It is like the defenders popping out into a yard or alleyway and relocating themselves elsewhere in the 50m area. Or like pulling back from 'hot spots' of enemy fire and occupying the room adjacent.

At the end of the day I'm saying it is not one of my pet hates about ASL.

BTW thankyou to the moderator who changed the title. That was very quick!

 

[wrongway149]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

I don't disagree; I think placing a counter works a hell of alot better than physically moving counters back and forth (EXC: the "concealment shuffle").

Counter placing adds 5-10 seconds to a game each time. No more room in my Planos, either

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

Counter placing adds 5-10 seconds to a game each time. No more room in my Planos, either

You're from Ohio; as if a little hell over the boards will cancel out the hell of everyday~

 

[Treadhead]

It's my turn, I go. Now it's your turn, you go.

The point being, it's in the nature of the game that playing pieces are manipulated in discrete segments during very structured sequences.

Because of this, an evaluation of game play to the detail of realism will tend to disappoint because the game play is herky-jerky, while reality is fluid and continuous. How players behave will not match reality, because of how time is interrupted and discontinuous.

"Skulking" is perhaps a fine example of this. Back and forth, back and forth. Not realistic at all.

But while I tend to be very detail oriented when I parse rules, I look at the picture quite differently when considering the entire system. This is particularly true about the sequence of play.

Situation X at the start of the Player Turn, Situation Y at the end of the Player Turn. What happened to the units when all was said and done?

I find the ebb-and-flow to be very satisfying when I look at ASL game play on a Player Turn by Player Turn basis. While time is parsed into phased chunks, at the end there is a feel of continuity.

And after all, "skulking" is not a rule, it is a game strategy. If one does not like it, one should develop an "anti-skulking" strategy.

And don't sweat it, because at the end of the Player Turn the situation is pretty much how it should be, "tactically" and maybe even "realistically" speaking.

 

[Patrocles]

Is skulking such a crime against reality or realism? Is that the main argument against it?

Well, how about considering the fluidity of the defense and the defenders natural attempts to be stealthy?

Rigid defenses are brittle and may snap. I think soldiers knew that. If a defense line has a bit of 'give' to it then it is more flexible and tougher.

Defenders would not just sit in place and allow themselves to be pummeled by the attacker. They would probably be shifting around looking for the best cover, the least exposure and the best line of fire to their enemy. IOW they would be doing a bit of stealthy adjusting to the attackers force.

All this can be expressed by the method known to us as skulking.

Skulking is methodical and boring but it is not an exact science. When I skulk I do not always re-enter the same location, I often will shift one hex up or down the line. Or I change my mind and go back another hex.

What it boils down to is that the defensive line 'shimmers' or trembles under the force of the attack, which I believe it would do.

Sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps someone has some info on realworld firefights where this happens?

 

[Paul M. Weir]

The method involved in skulking, IE AM out followed by Adv back in, requires the presence of an unobserved (by the enemy) hex. If all adjacent hexes are observed then skulking is not possible. I see this as the equivalent of local (in-hex) cover being partially out flanked by the enemy.

All ASL rules are mechanisms to model aspects of combat. The present tactic of skulking represents an attempt of the defender to hide within the hex. I think the mechanism is tedious and at first glance unrealistic (how many times do we hear that word), but does the job (in terms of effect) without additional rules and exceptions.

To my mind it is counter intuitive and ugly but gives a reasonable effect and does not work in situations where a "go-to-ground" counter should not work (flanked).

 

[MLaPanzer]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

You're from Ohio; as if a little hell over the boards will cancel out the hell of everyday~

At least were not Michigan!

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

.To my mind it is counter intuitive and ugly but gives a reasonable effect and does not work in situations where a "go-to-ground" counter should not work (flanked).

Going to ground would be as much a choice on the DEFENDER's part as skulking; it isn't invulnerability, it's avoiding the "skulk phase(s)"

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Re: Defensive Stealth aka Sleazing

At least were not Michigan!

There's that...:hush:

 

[Honza]

To my mind it is counter intuitive and ugly but gives a reasonable effect and does not work in situations where a "go-to-ground" counter should not work (flanked).

That is generally how I see it.

 

[Honza]

That is generally how I see it.

The reason being is that I see skulking as defensive stealth. When the defender is flanked it is much more difficult for him to be stealthy.

I think the word 'stealthy' is important here. Defenders were not robots or fortifications, they were soldiers who were out to a) defend the line & b) survive - hence they would be as stealthy as they could to achieve those two objectives.