"Overwatch/Opportunity Fire: Is it overrated?" Topic

Recently I've played two WW2 games using different sets of rules; one had rules for opportunity fire and one didn't. I must say the one that didn't have the op fire rules was the more fun to play and I thought that I don't really mind if games don't have a mechanism for a "free hit" just because someone else moved.

The one that did have the op fire rules meant that if any unit moved even half an inch, it could get a stationary enemy op fire at full blast but if the attackers stopped just a few inches away and didn't move at all, even if they were in the open, then the defender would have to wait until their turn. So it was better to stand your ground in the open instead of dashing from cover to cover.

I like the Squad Leader Defensive Fire Phase rule where you could shoot anything you could see in your opponents turn regardless of whether you're moving or not, or else not having opportunity fire rules at all rather than a poorly worked out op fire system that's there because a lot of WW2 gamers think it's a deal breaker when it comes to rules.

I don't think Op Fire is a deal breaker at all, in fact I've come to see them as overrated. Does anyone else feel the same or are they a deal breaker?

To my mind it's pretty essential, hence the warning order 'Watch and shoot, watch and shoot' It's how all armies operate, movement draws fire.

It all depends on how much pain and suffering you're willing to put up with to have it.

Me? I do army level games so its completely extraneous to me.

Ack – The TMP bug struck again. I had a long post but don't want to recreate it…

As above, it depends what you are trying to model and at what level, however with modern (ie post 1900) weaponry, that is indeed how armies operate.

How best to simulate the ability of modern units to dominate ground is of course the question. You probably want to avoid panzerbush (although the turn sequence and terrain restrictions avoided it being too silly) and you probably want to avoid an op fire rule which lets defenders blast a millimetric exposure. There is a reason units advance by short rushes.

Then there is our old friend friction and the degree of control freakery exhibited by the players (or not).

So really you need to pick a mechanism you and your pals are happy with and stick with that. If you like the SL fire phase approach, then use that.

If you really hate opp fire, then use short move increments (a max of 30-40 yards infantry movement) and op fire sort of sorts itself out, but you may have to play an awful lot of turns.

As to the original question, the battalions cut to pieces in a few minutes by unsuppressed flanking machinegun fire at Loos would possibly argue that opportunity fire is underrated in many rules.

For me it is a must have.

But there needs to be

1] limits on this 'defensive fire' so it is not automatic and troops moving in short rushes or carefully in cover should be a lot less vulnerable than troops marching brazenly into the fire.

2] ways to cover your movement with fire, smoke (though this can easily be overrated too)

Simplistic IGOUGO MOVE then FIRE rules are not my cup of tea as they frequently have troops rushing round corners to fire first or indeed the infamous Panzerbush effects.

Opportunity fire at least stops your opponent wandering off for a smoke/look round during your turn – or players lapsing into a coma from boredom if it's a large game.

Tango…what I described did happen, there was no "if" about it.

Traditional, instant and absolute op-fire is both overrated and unrealistic. This is the type of op-fire that allows units to fire at maneuvering enemies regardless of the shooter's status and regardless of the amount of time the target is visible.

A complete lack of op-fire is equally overrated and unrealistic. Overwatch is central to and really defines 20th/21st century tactics. It's why tanks were invented. It's why walking point is so dangerous. It's why smoke and suppressive fire are needed to maneuver across a battlefield. Without some form of op-fire by definition you're not representing 20th/21st century tactics.

Something in between no op-fire and unrestricted op-fire works best. Op-fire should require something of the shooter. And op-fire shouldn't be possible in any and all situations.

In our rules "Warfare in the Age of Madness" a unit must be on Alert status to react to enemy actions during the opposing player turn. Units have 2 or 3 action points and shooting, assaulting, and going on Alert costs 2 AP. So by definition an Alert unit has given up the ability to shoot in its own player turn in order to try to conduct overwatch fire in the opposing player turn (there's no guarantee that it will have that opportunity so it's a risk).

And an Alert unit can only conduct a reaction shot at the end of an opposing unit's action such as a move action. This means that if a unit is moving fast enough across a gap small enough then a shot won't be possible So the unit in overwatch needs to pick its field of fire carefully since a tiny gap between two buildings won't be enough to engage a fleeting target.

As Martin suggests, you need move increments small enough for op-fire to sort itself out. We maintain a fast pace of play by giving units 2-3 AP and a move action costs 1 AP. Infantry moves 4" (exiting or entering terrain features) or 8" (moving only in the open) per move action.

This means that an infantry unit can move really far across open ground not covered by enemy fire (24" in one player turn!). But with an enemy on Alert movement becomes really dangerous, especially across open ground since, at the end of any move action, an Alert enemy can shoot the moving element.

Allowing reaction fire only at the end of a move action also eliminates the need to interrupt movement and remember where a move started and how much movement is left. It's much more user friendly and easier to implement in multi-player gaming.

Are there any rules that model suppressive fire to support movement? My brain is pretty fuzzy right now due to a sinus infection, but I can think of lots of rules that have overwatch, but I'm having a hard time with suppressive fire. Maybe IABSM??

> Are there any rules that model suppressive fire to support movement?

Fireball Forward. You can fire before moving and if you cause a morale check the unit you fired at can not shoot till their next activation.

IABSM – the shock system handles that, firing at the enemy causes shock which can be rallied away only when their leader is activated.

IIRC the Squad Leader turn sequence goes something like:
Side A – some units fire at full value
Side A – units which have not fired this phase move
Side B – units fire (not sure on restrictions, but there is the option to shoot at troops which moved across LOS; there may have been a reduction if they moved into/out of LOS)
Side A – units which moved may fire at half value.

This covers most of the bases: preparatory fire to cover movement, and defensive – including opportunity fire – that is particularly effective against troops moving in the open. But what works in a boardgame (hex-based makes LOS easier, and use of status counters helps too) is less easy in a figure game (managing status couners alone can be a nightmare – did we forget to remove the prep fire counter from thatbase last turn?).

It comes down to how much granularity you need.

op fire kind of comes dowmn to, are you more into a dynamic, free flowing game, even if it is not really historical, or more for the historical tactics, even though it is slower moving?

For me, a game is not fun if historical tactics dont work. if I have to learn the tactics that work for that game, rather than the ones that worked for that war, then it is a major turn off fore me.

OIf you want an Igo/Ugo and dont want to mess with op fire, just change the sequence. Side A shhots , then moves. Side B shoots then moves. Makes dashing out into then open a lot less atractive and still lets you go back and forth. Not quite up to where I want it, but way better than Move/shoot turns.

It really depends on what you want from a game. I just this weekend played a new game that uses a move/shoot/moveagain turn. Makes for some very odd tactics, but as it is recreating the second martian invasion of earth, I guess it works out OK. it would not work at all for a WWII or modern game is you wanted it based in reality at all.

Owen

What is meant by Panzerbush? I have not heard that before.

I'm a big advocate of opp fire or overwatch. I've seen too many games where AFVs or even infantry zip from one area of cover to another in the face of fully prepared and alert opponents.

"Are there any rules that model suppressive fire to support movement? "

Any rules which let you shoot then move do this, some (like CD IV) even allow 'ineffective' HE fire to suppress the target with a big firing penalty and others (GBWW2) block all fire in and out of arty templates which rather neatly suppresses the target! The prep fire phase in Squad Leader was explicitly there so you could support your movement with fire.

"What is meant by Panzerbush?"

It was the tactic used in AHGCs Panzerblitz of moving from cover to cover (hence 'panzer bush') and never being exposed to fire. Spotting was very restrictive (you needed to be within 250m of cover to see even firing units). Panzer Leader had opp fire, but you just had to hop from cover to cover in shorter increments to avoid it and to sloooowed the game down a lot.

Personally I never had a problem with Panzerblitz, you just needed to make good use of terrain, obstacles and a security screen to make sure the enemy didn't have many places to hide integrated with a decent fireplan. Some people didn't like it though. It used shoot then move, which essentially introduced automatic defensive fire against assault.

2 Simple ways to make OP fire go away completely.

1) Have Igo-Ugo within the phase. I move/You move etc. Shooting is simultaneous except units that did not move get to shoot first.

2) Strict IGO UGO or Card activation or whatever you like. Units can do 1 thing per turn. Shoot or move or whatever. This will always allow a "defensive fire" since you have to move to range.

But I agree. Artificial defensive fire rules are over rated and sometimes pretty confusing.

A problem with phases can be that if you have your prep fire phase then move and the enemy opens up from concealment/cover you have to stop and wait until the next turn to do anything about it. I prefer to have units allows to switch freely between moving or firing – some fire then move – some just fire – others move and fire then maybe move again.

Sometimes a unit can do a lot more than seems credible in the nominal time frame for a 'turn' but it saves messing about with orders and keeps the game flowing. Because often you don't get a lot done in a turn anyway overall things move along at an historical tempo.

I like to test my system against the extraordinary situations as well as the typical and if you make Wittmann the best kind of tank commander possible in the game and give him a top notch crew then with only moderate luck he can wreak havoc on RHQ/4CLY. It helps that the crews are mostly dispersed out of their tanks too of course.

I agree there is a lot to be said for shoot then move and this would be the way to go if doing a simple intro set for newer or younger players. Few others seem able to get their heads around my esoteric ideas!

In "No End in Sight", troops moving in sight of enemies must roll for their movement. If it's not enough to reach cover, they get pinned down wherever they reached and the enemy gets a 1 in 6 chance of landing a hit.

In "Five Men in Normandy", you only get shock dice when firing reaction (unless very close to the bad guys). Essentially its just suppressive fire, not accurate attempts to take down a target.

If overwatch just comes down to removing 1 extra guy, then it's pointless because that's not why you set up a few riflemen to cover that alley: It's to inhibit the enemy movements.

Here's why I'm starting to think that having no opportunity fire is better than having bad op fire rules that are there because players expect them.

In the game I played where there was no op fire, we got to use WW2 tactics. The movement rates aren't that big so you can dash from cover to nearby cover but not much further unless you want to throw caution to the wind and double your movement, which comes with penalties. Or I could move the normal distance between two bits of cover and if I fall short, then the enemy can catch me in the open.

So, being an IGOUGO game you move your troops from cover to nearby cover on your turn. The enemy then shoots at you on their turn at your new position. It's better if you have some of your troops fire at the enemy in your turn in order to pin/suppress/kill some of them whilst the other unit dashes to nearby cover. So that's all good, proper and it doesn't need op fire on top of that.

With the other game, which is a fine game in many ways, my original unit dashes a short distance from cover to cover, gets shot at and gets shot at again on the enemy turn. There's no difference between an opportunity fire done quickly to try and get a unit dashing from cover to cover and planned fire directed in full at a stationary target. For me, this isn't as realistic as the non-op fire game.

Which brings me to my "epiphany" moment. If the rules allow you to do fairly realistic fire-and-manoeuvre tactics without a specialist op fire rule, then isn't that better than a clunky rule that attempts to simulate op fire but instead gives a free hit? Are the words "opportunity fire and overwatch" in the rule contents a pacifier for gamers when in some cases, the rest of the movement and fire rules can effect the same result without having a section dedicated to it?

I guess it can be. Bad rules for something are worse than none.

The key is if the rules reward historical tactics and punish things that would not work then that is fine.

Opportunity/overwatch is not easy to model elegantly and well. Can you name and shame the rules with the duff op fire rules??

In "No End in Sight", troops moving in sight of enemies must roll for their movement. If it's not enough to reach cover, they get pinned down wherever they reached and the enemy gets a 1 in 6 chance of landing a hit.

I like this idea.

we got to use WW2 tactics.

Well that's your answer. If the game promotes 'realistic' tactics than its' actual mechanics of how it does this are basically irrelevant.

However….

It's better if you have some of your troops fire at the enemy in your turn in order to pin/suppress/kill some of them whilst the other unit dashes to nearby cover. So that's all good, proper and it doesn't need op fire on top of that.

If the enemy can't fire at you during your turn, why does it matter if you pin or suppress some of his units during your turn? I presume it reduces his return fire next turn, but it doesn't appear actually matter at all in terms of allowing your other units to execute the maneuver part of fire-and-maneuver during your turn. You can move with impunity from cover to cover without needing to fire for suppression at all.

-Will

But you DIDN'T get to use WW2 tactics – which involves denying maneuverability to the enemy. As bad as being able to fire double is not being able to fire at all while troops are moving in the open is worse. Imagine not being able to fire an MMG down a street while the enemy moves right across it.

The one that did have the op fire rules meant that if any unit moved even half an inch, it could get a stationary enemy op fire at full blast but if the attackers stopped just a few inches away and didn't move at all, even if they were in the open, then the defender would have to wait until their turn. So it was better to stand your ground in the open instead of dashing from cover to cover.

Sounds like you had a faulty Opportunity Fire rule if it was better to stand your ground in the open!

Personally I like a BIT of opportunity fire. The Battlegroup rules allow you to put some units on Ambush Orders, which technically delays their actions until the opponent's turn. The catch is that it's only those units that get long-ranged opportunity fire. (Unpinned Infantry units getting Close Assaulted get to shoot back at their full firepower, even if the infantry unit getting assaulted is NOT on Ambush orders, but that's defensive fire in case of an infantry assault)

Ambush Alley rules allow the reactive player's unit to attempt to shoot at the active unit (counting as that reactive unit's action for the turn), but each side rolls a Troop Quality test to see which unit actually gets to shoot first.

Infinity is even more extreme, as both players have active and reactive turns, and any action taken that any/all reactive models can see can be reacted to. If you can clearly be seen, you're dead.

I don't mind Flames of War's mechanics, as there's some 'opportunity fire' possible within ~200 yards to so (8", so Assault Rifle range).

Your enjoyment is the primary concern but from your description it seems the game you liked allowed you to cross open ground without fear while the other game would have rewarded you for supressing the enemy before trying to cross open ground.

In the first case fire and maneuver was an option, in the second a necessity.

The need for a separate opportunity fire mechanic is an artifact of the nature of most games where one player moves/shoots with his entire force while the other player sits on his hands. Games that move away from that sort of system don't suffer from a need to provide opportunity fire to the players, it's built into the game play. I'm thinking specifically of systems like Force On Force or Operation Squad, where both players are constantly interacting, acting and reacting according to what's happening on the table.

I enjoy games of that sort much more than, for example, Flames of War, where you might be left reading text messages on your phone for 45 minutes as your opponent has his turn, and your only interaction with him or the game is to watch as your units get shot at.

It is not considered uncouth to fire at your opponent if he has the temerity to maneuver his unfortunate troops in your line of fire.

Two Hour Wargames sort of ruined other WWII game systems for me regarding this. Whenever an enemy enters the line of sight of your models, you get to test to see if your models have situational awareness and reflexes quick enough to take action and fire upon them. This, to me, models the fluid nature of the situation.
Procedural turns with many phases and such turn me off, they are not modeling anything, really, and they are open to rules-lawyering and loop-holing. Soldiers don't sit around and think "I'd love to shoot at them, but it's not my turn."

We are playing games, of course, so we have structured turns (to varying levels) and there are different approaches to solving this problem. Overwatch fire is a common one, or randomized card activation, as is alternate activation. Depending on the mechanics/handling of these, they can be either good or bad in the game. But, to me, something must be present to allow for this or it's a non-starter.

Op Fire and "prep" fire are the most perplexing questions in WWII era gaming. You need some form of both or its not WWII gaming but its so easy to overpower or overcomplicate either concept that players often opt to get rid of the concepts rather than bother with them even thought they are essential.

So an easy way to have our Fire and Eat it too:

Turn Sequence
Side A moves
Side B moves
Stationary Fire A&B
Moving Fire A&B

Gives a natural defensive fire IF an enemy can be seen at end of movement. (Its OK to dash from cover to cover if you end out of LOS.)

But what happened to Prep Fire? You still have it provided you realize a "turn" is just a convience for gamers not a real world concept. So during Fire Phase you shoot at enemy and "suppress" him. Now its a new turn and you have Movement Phase to advance and attack the suppressed enemy. You don't need an artifical "prep" fire phase.

Nuances: If you want you can double move and give up shot BUT enemy can shoot you after first move (an easy to use "interupt" Opp Fire to prevent massive moves within LOS). You can use Order Chits at the start of the turn to have units commit to a certain action (Move/Move; Move/Fire; Fire). You can add a Morale Phase at the start of the turn after orders so that those Suppressed Stands may have a chance to recover…after you've committed to the assualt – no way in the real world you could know an enemy is fully "supprssed" – they could be playing possum…)

Anyway all of the above is what I did for Combat Command as I wanted a simple to play WWII game that did not leave out the essentials but did not make "Overwatch" so oppressive as to choke off manuver.

Early versions of Command Decision almost did the same but the current version has gone for complex and oppressive.

TomT

There has to be a mechanism in place, troops in a defencive position will have arcs of fire to cover and orders when and when not to fire. If there is a threat they will not sit and wait until the enemy have reached cover.

Of course in the attack the whole unit will not advance in a nebulous mass. It is often easier in games than real life because the figures are on the table and an attack can be planned accordingly. So half a troop jockies into a covering position to dominate the ground and provide cover. When they are established the 2nd 1/2 move forwards. So when the enemy fire they will be observed and smashed.

Tally Ho!

I'm not going to name and shame the games. Both rules are popular, have their fans and their detractors alike. Once I name them, then everyone will start unloading their support or hatred onto them. I want to keep this academic.

You see, I hear people saying that op fire is a must in any decent WW2 game but I also hear that dashing from cover to nearby cover without getting a full blast from your opponent is alright as well. My recent experiences have shown me that in a non-op firing game the results are similar to games where there's an elaborate op fire step to resolve. A good op fire mechanism is welcome, but a clunky or badly designed one can detract from a game. However, if there isn't one at all but you still have to practice fire and manoeuver tactics in order to not get annihilated, then that's OK: Op Fire rules are no longer a deal breaker for me anymore.

"Are there any rules that model suppressive fire to support movement?"

The latest version of Command Decision has a suppressive fire phase, although it's more the operational level than tactical.

Battlefront are a bit of a mixture, in that they are igougo, but keep some Op fire, units can cover defilades and can use Op under certain conditions, what they can't do (in WWII) is use Op fire at everything that moves or shoots – there are conditions, and quite reasonable ones, also, all the Op fire does is accelerate the point in the turn when the unit fires, it's not a "free" shot as I've seen in some rules.

Any rule set should have a sequence which follows how armies fought. Opp fire has to be modelled accurately in some format and it should not matter about how or what the troops are doing who trigger it….assuming they are moving in the open.

Qualifying for opp fire is not how a system should work. It should never be a given

It should be fairly automatic unless the restriction is something which reflects limited movement. ie cover or hunkered down or under fire.

I have never come across any set of ww2 rules without opp fire that were worth bothering about after playing more than three times. Thats how many games it takes to break them.

I guess it depends upon whether you are the attacker, or defender, and if you are heavily outnumbered, or not.

This is a very interesting thread. Opportunity fire was an additional skill I was thinking of offering as an option in the Hammer's Slammers The Crucible rules (which is, in many respects, just modern, AFV slanted, combat). Although, currently, it has an IGOUGO component to the move/fire system, and it has an elite skill for firing on the move, it does not have a provision for opportunity fire during other's movement (except for specialist weapons that break into the movement phase – the equivalent of, for example, running into a mine).

But it is something I'd considered.

John T

My recent experiences have shown me that in a non-op firing game the results are similar to games where there's an elaborate op fire step to resolve. A good op fire mechanism is welcome, but a clunky or badly designed one can detract from a game.

Quite true. I think most of the Op fire rules I've encountered have been on the clunky end.

While the game isn't WW2, one interesting thing Sam did in LaSalle was to change the order of the different phases. It's not move-shoot-assault, it's shoot-assault-move, and then your opponent gets to resolve his general shooting and defensive fire on the troops you moved into assault.

Really changes the feel of a game, because you have no idea whether that assault is going to be successful.

At the player in charge of a company or so level, I really like the Battlegroup 'ambush order' where you just delay that squad's action until your opponent's turn. The challenge is figuring out a cool diorama marker so I don't have any paper or cardboard on the table.

I've been experimenting with opportunity fire type mechanism using an engagement time for the firing tank versus the amount of movement of the target. By knowing the turret rotation time and adding an additional 4-5 seconds for the gunner to lay his gun on the target you can figure how far the target will have moved. Most tanks are going to move 60-75 meters in about 10 seconds going cross country. So if you spot an enemy tank at your 45 degrees right and your turret rotates at 20 degrees/second it will take roughly 3 seconds to get the gun pointed at it and another 4-5 seconds for the gunner to get it sighted to fire. That means the target would have moved about 50-60 meters. I've never been a tank gunner so I'm open to any corrections.

Wolfhag

The answer for us is yes there is a place for opertunity fire. In particulat, in a time maching system (A game that works in time steps i.e. bounds you could be in an out of arc in a time step so not shooting may be unrealistic. MG does have somthing like Opertunity fire but it is not an exact equal. On sighting new enemy you can react. If you are manueoveing and forgot/did not care to suppress (or failed)to suppress the enemy at first sight he could react and shoot first. As per the old adage first get off the killing ground. The target (whats left of it could run for cover if it could or fire smoke etc.) as a reaction. Other wise its friends or itself could return fire, the latter is of course less likely. It does not come "free" it takes a bit of effectiveness off the unit temprarily. It has to as you could otherwise be fireing fo far longer than it would be possible in the time step. Therefore it is often best to fire in you own normal go if the fight is going to be protracted. With vehicals they almost always react fire at some point. It ends up as a brif flurry of fire and eithet one or other is put out of action or if skermishing ducks back out the way, ready to mopve to the next fireing position. I do agree that IGOUGO wich is what MG is gets rid of some of the issues anyway. The game as such becomes more complex as more and better decision making is required. This is not part of the rules but a consequence of having something closer to reality. In IGOUGO you have something approching a bounding forward of units.

UshCha,
I'm using a "time advance" type system in one second increments in a tank-tank game. I know it sounds a little insane but I'll try to explain it. When a tank identifies and engages a target the player calculates how much time it will take to get the shot off. It involves the turret rotation time plus aiming time (depends on using a ranging or battle sight shot) plus a crew training modifier. Battle Sight is quicker but a little less accurate than ranging fire. The player gets to make a decision. So if it is turn 10 and it takes 12 seconds to get the shot off it will fire on turn 22. A lot can happen in that 12 seconds but once the player commits to firing there is nothing else he does until his turn comes up on turn 22. He's assumed to be engaging the target in that time. Once firing he commits himself to his next action to shoot or move so there are no order segments either. Each vehicle operates within its own decision-action-time loop and interacts with other tanks in the one second time increments.

I developed the game from WWII tank manuals and gunnery techniques and tried to keep away from gamey non-military terminology. It simulates a short tank-tank engagement that we've played with 8 tanks on a side and with players with no tank experience and not reading any rules. I took about 10 minutes explaining the concepts of the game, their options and decisions. Mostly explaining how a tank commander and gunner would perform in an engagement. They picked it up pretty quickly mainly because the progression in a turn was logical and I didn't need to get into artificial things like opportunity fire and they seemed to flow together naturally in the small time increments. I think it worked mainly because of some comprehensive and graphical play aids that outlined and flow charts with info needed to make a decision. I tried many other traditional methods to fit a lot of actions into traditional turns and segments but it just got too complicated. The second by second time progression worked best and was less complicated. I was surprised. Keeping movement in sync works pretty well too where moving vehicles are marked as moving but are generally moved on the table in 5 second increments. We've had targeted vehicles move behind obstacles or out of LOS before their opponent got the round off just by using the small time slice progressions.

We didn't have to stop play to perform an action or have someone shoot every second but in a large scale game it would bog down. Guns are able to fire at their historical ROF and better crews can perform more actions in a shorter period of time so 3-6 rounds/minute fired depending on other engagement times. We can speed up the game in any number of increments if units become disengaged or lose sight of each other.

So I agree with UshCha that if you can use a small enough time slice you can overcome much of the problems with opportunity fire but there is a tradeoff.

Wolfhag

I'm currently re-designing a old game from the ground up. In it is a feature that's somewhat like opportunity fire but with a significant twist. It's called "covering fire", and it's more than symantics. This is predicated on a simultaneous play construct. IGO-UGO games are for the most part inherrently flawed because the can allow someone to outflank or outmanuever you when you would have a clear chance at shooting them. Hence, most of these games introduce opportunity fire to deal with that anomoly. The difference with my "covering fire" is that it's deliberate. Just like in actual combat. You have to deliberately declare (decide) that you will cover an vulnerable avenue, for example, 50 to 100 yards gap between a built up village. So to prevent somebody sneaking by without risk and to protect your flank, one tank team of the platoon, may decide to "overwatch" while the other team bounds ahead. In protecting them you cover these potential risk areas. In this simaltaneous move arrangement everyone still gets to shoot in the fire phase which is after all the movement happens. The caveat to the covering fire is that you have to declare it the previous turn from the foloowing one where you can employ it. So, essentially you've taken a stationary position training your gun down an avenue 4" wide (100 m) and out as far until obstructions occur. So, in the next move anyone trying to "dash" past that exposure or kill zone better be moving fast because either way the covering fire will stop you at that zone and then fire with all the penalties associated except drops the "concealment" penalties – movement penalties still apply. This effectively gives you a good chance or at least a better chance to hit the guy risking the move. Far ranges and fast movement regulate themselves with appropriate standard penalties so it's not a free ride for anyone. There's no guarantees for either party. So, if you are not situationally aware and wise enough to declare covering risky areas there's no "opportunity fire" to save you. After all, the opportunity fire would suggest that anyone could see somehting from the corner of there eye, swing the turret around quick enough, aim, rip off a shot just like that. Not likely. What Wolfhag stated in his comments, there's alot to consider to engage a target you were onot expecting. But with covering fire you've essentially settled down, swung your turret, taken aim, estimated range already, loaded the appropriate round, ready on the trigger before anyone zips by. Quite a different thing than some abritrary snap shot at someone trying to stalk you where in reality they would have the upperhand because of there stealth.

There has to be some kind of mechanism to handle this sort of thing. It is real world tactics both WW2 and present. if the opportunity fire worked as you described there's something fundementally wrong with the system you were playing.

This is how I handle it in the game and prefer an asymetrical simultaneous movement system which also prevents anyone doing impossible bold moves in the open with impunity as in a IGO-UGO system. That is the weakest system of the lot, for a lot of reasons. This is why you see these multiple impulse movement systems or WOLFHAG's second by second system which virtually does away with any of this confusion – in fact it's probably the most successful method possible, I've seen.

While I use one second increments there are certain actions that happen in 5 or 10 second increments. I don't have a "spotting phase" in the game. During every 5 second increment each vehicle has a chance to attempt a "Situational Awareness Check". One die roll is compared to values in the four different 90 degree viewing aspects. If the die roll is less than or equal to the spotting factor the vehicle spots anything in that viewing aspect out to the targets maximum spotting range(different modifiers for size, cover, etc). However, when engaging the enemy you can only use your front quadrant as that's what you are focused on since your situational awareness is limited. This gives maneuvering units a better chance to sneak up and it's a good idea to have someone watching you flanks. We have had instances in combat where a Tiger spotted a T-34 on it's flank but because of the slow turret rotation the T-34 was able to make it to cover and out of LOS before the Tiger got the shot off. Basically it would take the Tiger 12 seconds (turret rotation and aiming time) to get the shot off and the T-34 was moving at 10 meters per second and needed to move 100 meters so just barely made it by a couple of seconds. The Tiger lost the target in the woods.

The vehicle can use it's Situational Awareness Check any time during a 5 second increment. If he uses it early he will miss a chance to see a target in the later turns of the 5 second increment. But could catch it early in the next 5 second increment.

So I guess you could look at opportunity fire as a time and motion equation. So even in an IGOUGO system you could do some type of estimation (maybe with a variable) to see if you can get the shot off. Like Specfor12 says it depends on pointing your gun at the correct suspected avenues of approach. This would be out of the scope of some games but ideal for a tank-tank duel.

Wolfhag

These discussions are always interesting because you get a lot of the hardcore simulation type players to speak up, which tends to get drowned out a bit on here. :)

Surely the Tiger commander would order the diver to perform a neutral turn and let the gunner do the fine adjusting with his turret controls? The fun bit happens when a non-penetrating hit KO's the Tiger's electric traverse and the turret has to be hand-cranked two revolutions for each degree!

Milites,
Good point! I have neutral turn and ability to slew the hull around rule but we weren't using the rule that day. I don't have a lot of info on neutral turn rates other than a video of a JagdTiger neutral turning at 10 degrees a second on solid ground. I've seen videos of tanks slewing the hull around at about 30 degrees per second while static. The drawbacks are that if done on soft ground it can throw a track or break the final drive. I'd like to have something where a tank with neutral turning ability is faster than turret rotation but using the neutral turning there is a chance for a break down. Players decision.

From what I can gather attempting to neutral steer or pivot the hull in place in soft ground is very dangerous and the sideways motion of the tracks in soft ground puts dirt and rocks onto the treads and get stuck in the drive and idle sprocket. Maybe some real life tank drivers can shed more light on that.

Wolfhag

The fun bit happens when a non-penetrating hit KO's the Tiger's electric traverse and the turret has to be hand-cranked two revolutions for each degree!

Mr. Picky says it is impossible to knock out the Tiger's electric traverse – because the Tiger has a hydraulic traverse (power take off from the transmission located under the turret floor).

OW/Op Fire is very important, IMO …

wolfhag,
Your is truly a gunnery simulation which isa great .There are a few test cases that it would be interesting to run using your simulation to see what the results are. That is a true simulation at that level.

As there are a number of "bounds" between sighting and shooting in your simulation, then a reaction, I agree is not so critical. Our reaction covers stuff that happens in 10 seconds or less. You already simulate that so its not so critical to have a reaction. It would be intersting to know how fast smoke dischargers take to bloom. It may be you can actually simulate whether you get the shot off before it blooms.

Specforc12

Interesting your approach. Our rules have somthing not wildly similar. Its called gaze. You can Gaze at a gap or at a target. If its a gap it's in our parlance a strip 40m wide, typicaly you would use it to gaze down a street. If you are in that mode you can respond immediuately to a traget crossing or entering immedialy and the normal exposure time penaties are waved. BUT you have no situational awareness. You can do nothing to react or fire outside you gaze. In effect you have been told "Smither you only job is look down there ignore everything else".
Its other use is the equivalent (sort of) of taking your time to get one shot off but making it tell. Typicaly you use it if you have a limited operunity to fire. Spray and preay will do more to suppress an enemy if you are not expecting a lot of return fire forcing you to duck.

I think a lot of this may be coming at the problem from the wrong side of the question.

What is the purpose of putting a soldier guarding your flank, when you suspect enemies are skulking about?

Early warning?
Inflicting casualties as they move?
Prevent them from moving freely?

The answer to that will tell you what your rule needs to look like.

UshCha,

of course either side of Smithers will be Ginger and Jones gazing down their specified ARCs and ready to give target indication when a target pops into sight,

Tally Ho!

I'd have thought all three Weasel, though with an emphasis on locate and fix, if possible.

Milites – To some extent, but most games won't model all 3, let alone 2 :)