Taming The Skulk

[Sparafucil3]

I can let it go at this, Jim, since you admit that skulking is not realistic in the least and is simply "just a game tactic". I agree completely.

I never said it was realistic and if I gave you that impression then I mispoke. ASL is a game in which some real world tactics happen to work. Too many people seem to lose sight of the fact the game part comes first. I would suspect that as realism creeps up, playability would decline. Unless a rule is umplayable or unclear, I prefer to leave things as they are. Just my .02 Canadian (since its worth more than my own currency). -- jim

 

[Jazz]

Here is another idea.

How about allowing a for of RFP to be left, assuming enemy units fired into that hex, in the hex vacated by the Skulkers. The Skulkers would then be subject to that RFP when the Advance back into the Location.

Evidently the nights feel like they're getting longer sooner in the far North and Jim has broken the lock on the mood enhancement cabinet at the Clan McLeod compound a bit early this year.

:halo:

 

[SamB]

I don't feel that Jim or Michael have shown that skulking is "broken". I'm sniffing the air and detect no problem at all. :cheeky:

 

[Bryan Holtby]

Sigh....realism again.

A 40 meter long section of building can accomodate many rooms, skulking easily simulates movement between rooms of individuals or teams. After all, the 10ish men a squad represents arent likely to be clustered together now are they.

Skulking easily simulates the effects of concealment/fog of war. Your unit saw some enemy...but now they dont.....and again in a couple of minutes they do....did the enemy REALLY move or did they just lay low....or were your own men keeping their heads down long enough to loose sight of the enemy?

If one were to be really picky there are quite a few 'gamey' elements of ASL. To simply pick one and dissect it is to miss how it all flows together. The flow is more important than the one gamey element IMO. In order to fix the gamey issues, one would have to start with eliminating the different phases.

Without skulking, the Russians would be slaughtered in RB. Often the defender in most city scenarios cannot compete with the firepower of the attacker and skulking is the only option to avoid certain death. The trick for the attacker is to take away the opportunity for skulking through maneuver and SMOKE.

There are only two ways that this perceived problem could be dealt with. The TC method (which you would have to do before ANY unit did ANYTHING), or make the night rules apply to daytime battles, thus eliminating the ability of the defender to move at will. Either way would totally destroy the balance of every scenario made.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

The question is: How is moving an infantry unit back and forth in the space of 40 metres simply to avoid fire representative of tactical maneuver? What real life tactic is it supposed to represent? Your comments don't seem to mesh with the other comments here.

They're ducking out of LOS/LOF. What's so difficult about this concept?

Exactly.

We are talking about an abstract game system played with cardboard pieces. As an abstraction, there will be inevitable variations from reality as percieved by various people.

It's a game folks. Not real life. There may be small-ish changes that might make the rules more "real", but I don't think this one fills the bill as "small-ish".

As always, JMMHO.

AMEN, you deserve a plus rep for this.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

More importantly, the most intuitive way of "fixing" this "problem" is to allow defensive first fire against units leaving a hex and going into cover. But that will discourage not only skulking, but all kinds of maneuver. That would be a disaster and significantly reduce the fun factor for the defender in ASL.

There's no problem to fix. Just because somebody thinks so, doesn't mean they're right.

I agree, it would sux.

 

[RobZagnut]

>Here is another idea.

My buddy Rob R. and his father play it where you can fire at a unit before it expends a MF/MP. Claims that's how it was in SL.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

Let me put it another way - what is the problem with a unit simply staying in a hex and receiving fire in the DFPh? What is unrealistic about that?

You have control over your carboard men. If that's what you want to do go for it ... but I'm sure as hell going to do what I want to do, which may or may not coincide with what you want to do.

Why should we permit defending units an advantage over and above terrain TEM to do this? The massing of firepower on the attack if precisely how units "in the real deal" managed to overcome defensive positions - that and judicious use of maneuver, as pointed out by Jim B. and others. Still looking for a decent quotable example, but I hope we can all stipulate that. So why do we feel that the defender in ASL is at a disadvantage if not allowed to skulk?

I don't feel that at all, "we" doesn't include me. If I want to shoot at moving attackers, I'll keep my defenders in place. If I don't, then I'll skulk. Locking a unit in place for no good reason other than someone think they shouldn't be allowed to skulk is completely unrealistic ... what, did they just magically loose their feet. :laugh:

 

[Michael Dorosh]

They're ducking out of LOS/LOF. What's so difficult about this concept?

Please tell me you're joking. Please, please, please, tell me this is some super-ironic joke and the additional rolling eyes smiley is for additional effect and not actually evidence that you really believe whatever the hell it is you think "ducking out of LOS/LOF" really means with regards to a squad of 10 men.

You are joking, right? And you did read my comments on exposure to effective fire? You're just pulling my leg? Please say yes. Especially since I already bowed out so gracefully of the discussion. I'd hate to see you make yourself look like foolish by saying no, because it would totally ruin my day. We had ended on such a high note - I'd rather not get a joke than have you come in with some overblown, idiotic comment like that above, punctuated by ten pounds of smarm in a five pound smiley. So for the love of God, please just say YES.

Won't you?

Say yes?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

You have control over your carboard men. If that's what you want to do go for it ... but I'm sure as hell going to do what I want to do, which may or may not coincide with what you want to do.

I don't feel that at all, "we" doesn't include me. If I want to shoot at moving attackers, I'll keep my defenders in place. If I don't, then I'll skulk. Locking a unit in place for no good reason other than someone think they shouldn't be allowed to skulk is completely unrealistic ... what, did they just magically loose their feet. :laugh:

Wow. Two super-ironic comedy posts in a row. I hope! FOR ALL THAT'S HOLY, MAN, TELL ME NOW THAT YOU'RE JOKING AND THAT I SERIOUSLY MISSED YOUR SENSE OF HUMOUR! I beg of you!

The spelling of "lose" with two "o's" is the icing on the cake! HAHAHAHAHA! Seriously!!!!! I don't know how I missed it before!

YOU SIR ARE THE KING OF COMEDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HEREBY BOW TO KING RICHARD THE FIRST, GRAND LORD OF ALL THAT IS FUNNY IN THE LAND OF ADVANCED SQUAD LEADER, GAMECHIMP DOT COM AND ALL THE REALMS BEYOND THE SEAS!!!!

Seriously! To admit otherwise would be...brutal at this point.

 

[Treadhead]

Dorosh... step away from the knife!

 

[Mr Incredible]

I've been wondering for months what ever happened to Oberst Balck.

Well this post has answered that.

He never left, he has always been amongst us.

:ciao:

 

[alanp]

More importantly, why the subterfuge? Why not just introduce some kind of game mechanic in which all this "hiding and watching" is simulated by having him stay in the same hex, hiding and watching? You're simulating hiding and watching by running outside and running back in?

I admit I am looking at this literally, because I see it as, if nothing else, an enormous time-waster if nothing else, in addition to doing one thing in order to simulate something else altogether.

The proponents of skulking are saying that in this case, movement is being used to represent troops taking cover. Movement=no movement.

Not very intuitive. Why not greater TEMs for defending units or something more elegant?

Let me put it another way - what is the problem with a unit simply staying in a hex and receiving fire in the DFPh? What is unrealistic about that? Why should we permit defending units an advantage over and above terrain TEM to do this? The massing of firepower on the attack if precisely how units "in the real deal" managed to overcome defensive positions - that and judicious use of maneuver, as pointed out by Jim B. and others. Still looking for a decent quotable example, but I hope we can all stipulate that. So why do we feel that the defender in ASL is at a disadvantage if not allowed to skulk?

Well, there are many 'schools' of war simulation. I think I have a firm grasp of the road ASL took.

Think about this: you're not forced to skulk. Go ahead and do something else with your Defenders in their MPh--or PFPh, if you dare! Prep Fire, Opportunity Fire, Move, etc. Just don't expect to last as long (on average) as a Defender who skulks [correctly/appropriately.]

A rule that says 'Defending units get +1TEM as long as they just sit there and take it" [but remember, "?" isn't lost for Infantry when in OG] would feel more artificial to me than the rule--or really, the application of all rules both players have access to equally--that allows 'skulking'. Remember, too, the aspect of WWII combat ASL is attempting to simulate: the defining parts of any battle--the 10-20 minutes [not necessarily in a row] which decided who held the field that day. Attackers should just wait until artillery becomes available if they "know" that Defenders are sitting there waiting for a mistake on the Attackers' part. 'Skulking' may actually make both players take a more active role in this 10-20 minute time-frame when things get decided.

We're both leaving out the cases when one or both players' units are concealed and/or have Dummies. Are the 'skulkers' really there? Halving the Attacker's fire-power is one way to simulate this. This really is the most elegant way to handle 'fog of war' coupled with the simplest rule set available.

While philosophizing about ASL, I always keep in mind the tension the designers worked with between realism, details and playability. We are talking about a game tactic, too, not a rule.

Good discussion, gentlemen, and an excellent thread.

 

[jpellam]

Evidently the nights feel like they're getting longer sooner in the far North and Jim has broken the lock on the mood enhancement cabinet at the Clan McLeod compound a bit early this year.

:halo:

Just like your avatar picture of you sitting in the dark.:laugh:

 

[Will Fleming]

I like Bob's realism and Mattias' comment along with the others supporting skulking as a viable element of the game.

Keep in mind skulking actually speeds play in several ways. No shots, less DR, less rule checks, less HOB, ELR, counter replacement, whatever. Also, are you sure you want to make the defender's turn into a slugfest where both sides trade shots with little movement? Playing defender would be pretty boring.

 

[Jazz]

Just like your avatar picture of you sitting in the dark.:laugh:

Skulking.....

 

[Tater]

For 10 seconds and then running back into exactly the same fire positions. And doing this potentially 2, 3 or 7 times in a row.

I'd love to see a real world example of that, if you have a quote handy...

Troops running out of the line of fire are generally exposed to fire. My proposed rule amendment would simulate that. Currently, in ASL, there is no simulation of it whatsoever, and therein is the problem Jim has outlined.

One man's reality is another's horse$h!t...

The onboard action is just the abstract of the realism. Trying to break down every ASL mechanic and cross reference it to a real world action is just stupid. The game just doesn't work that way...never has and never will.

 

[Faded 8-1]

Jim's original question is more interesting and more relevant than yet another reality argument.

For those who hate skulking, the question remains - how would you fix it?

We've seen the reality arguments a thousand times, but nobody ever posts a workable solution. Only vague ideas that sound impossible to implement.

I challenge the skulk-haters to write up a rule that eliminates unrealistic skulking without eliminating valid tactics or introducing new realism/rules problems.

Until we see some evidence that a viable alternative even exists, there's not much point talking about scrapping the current system.

 

[Tater]

I would posit that if your opponent is able to skulk out and back into the same position >3 times, you are likely getting diced, not using all the means at your disposal to reduce/eliminate the position, moving too slow, or the position is not a tactical threat to you.

BINGO!

The problem most players have with skulking is that they don't know what to do about it. They just want their opponent to quietly sit still while they shoot...then they want their opponent to politely break and rout away. :nuts:

BTW, the only thing that skulking does is avoid the enemy "Defensive Fire"...so if skulking doesn't make sense...why does using "Defensive Fire" offensively make sense?

 

[Tater]

Please tell me you're joking. Please, please, please, tell me this is some super-ironic joke and the additional rolling eyes smiley is for additional effect and not actually evidence that you really believe whatever the hell it is you think "ducking out of LOS/LOF" really means with regards to a squad of 10 men.

So much for the "respectful" discussion...what a hypocrite.