MATG WW2 - Opportunity Fire

[ZAJACMWZ]

I'm playing thru some solitaire games of MATG WW2 to get a feel for the system. The opportunity fire rule seems a bit constrained unless I'm missing something. Rule 7.4.4 states that a stand can only suffer an opportunity fire attack once per movement phase. The situation I'm looking at is one of a defense in depth - as the Soviets emplaced at Kursk with AT units echeloned in depth.

For example, lets say two AT gun units are deployed in depth, with terrain blocking LOS from the unit in the rear of the defense to that in front. An enemy tank unit approaches, and the forward AT unit misses. Now the enemy tank unit can move throughout the depth of the defense, and possibly past the AT unit in depth (which only gains LOS after the tank unit moves past the first AT unit) can't fire at it since the tank has been attacked once already in its movement phase, per 7.4.4.. Is this correct or am I missing something?

Seems to me that LOS at the time of firing should govern how many times a unit may receive opportunity fire.

Thanks for the assistance.
Matt Z

[pmskaar]

I have played these rules a couple of times a while back. I remember reading the opportunity fire rules and that a unit could only be fired at once per turn with opportunity fire. I admit that I can't wrap my head around this concept but maybe the rule should be worded to say that a unit can only fire opportunity fire once per turn which makes more sense to me.
As written, it appears to say that once a unit receives opportunity fire and survives that it can no longer be attacked no matter how many other stands could potentially engage it.

Perhaps Red Leif or someone else can clarify and explain this rule a bit better here.

Pete

[Gort]

I disliked the opportunity fire rule as written, so I changed it:

In 8.5.1
For both fire and fire/move postures:
less than or equal to 1 MP expended in continuous LOS of firer = +3 CRM
less than or equal to 3 MP expended in continuous LOS of firer = +2 CRM
greater than or equal to 4 MP expended in continuous LOS of firer = +1 CRM

In 8.5.2
change from "your opponent touches the stand to move it" to "movement points are expended"

In 8.5.5
delete the first phrase and replace with "A unit may suffer multiple opportunity fire attacks as long as it continues to expend movement points and comes into LOS of eligible firing units"

In practice we have gotten into the habit of counting out loud the movement points expended by the unit to remove any ambiguity of when it is possible to fire upon it. The modification seems to work really well - fast moving units crossing small gaps are almost impossible to hit, while slow moving units crossing larger gaps become shot magnets.

Hope this helps.

[ZAJACMWZ]

Gort

I play Advanced Squad Leader a lot, and your house rule that reflects limited sighting time is right in line with that very detailed system. I assume that a unit whose OF target starts in LOS is not penalized in any way, correct?

I was also thinking about a +1 penalty to turreted vehicles firing outside of the standard template firing covered arc. This might balance the inability of a non-turreted vehicle from firing outside its covered arc with a tanks ability to do so, but yet portray the effect of the tank vehicle commander usually remaining focused forward. Since these are "platoon" units the non-turreted gun complete restriction seems harsh - unless the "move/fire" designation and +3 penalty already compensate for the non-turreted vehicle repositioning its facing and firing.... Have you tried this at all?

Thanks,
Matt

[WargameHub]

I actually like the way the opportunity fire works. It's the same as regular shooting, a stand can only be targeted once per phase. So if you want to op fire on it you have to choose the best point and hope it does the trick.

What it eliminates is the issues some games have where a platoon gets fired at. Player isn't happy with the result so fires the next group at the same platoon. Repeat as needed.

[RedLeif]

Hi Matt,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this question. John Fernandes wrote the rules with playability in mind. John ran a lot of games with people who never played his rules before and some who had never played a war game before and his Op FIre rule leans more towards that crowd than the ASL player.

I kept the rule mostly as written (as did George Chrestensen in the MicroSquad rules) largely because it is in line with a tendency John had to limit the number of attacks on a target to one per phase. You and many others will argue this is not realistic and I'd agree with you it's not. But its one of the aspects of the game as conceived and taught by the author.

John would probably say two things about this situation. First on your tactical set up 'if you set up your forces so they are not providing cover as well as they could be, the rules should not help make up for a poor tactical deployment'.

Second he'd say "If you don't like something about the rules make your own up."
If you compare many aspects of version 1 to version 2 of the MATG rules you'll see we took him at his word.

Gort's house rules look very good, workable, and are well thought out. Thanks for sharing those, I like them. I'll give them a try with my group that I play with. Even just using his edit of 8.5.5 would add a bit more realism without much more complexity. If you don't like all or any of Gorts ideas come up with your own, but in any case have fun.

Kind Regards,
Leif Edmondson

[John Secker]

Indeed. This is one of the basic paradigms of this rule set - you have to decide before firing on a unit which of your troops are going to fire. You have to commit, you can't just keep trying until you have done enough. The same applies to Opportunity fire, and while some of the ideas here may seem logical at first glance, you have to remember that this is a simulation of a lot of stuff all happening at the same time. We don't actually have everyone on both sides sitting watching while one unit trundles about, then the next one has a go.

Of course it is your right to bolt on whatever house rules you like, and if they work for you then good luck. But it is always risky messing about with fundamental elements of a set of rules - like introducing weapon ranges into Crossfire. Things can unravel quite unexpectedly.

[TAMMY]

I agree on modifications to 8.5.5 but not to the various penalties to 8.5.1. unless you apply the same to standard fire for how long the target has been in LOS during its movement phase.

The situaion may be the same, that is the movement has been under cover most of the time and the target was in view for a short time only.

This would be an added complication that I feel not necessary..

[ZAJACMWZ]

Thanks all for your input - some things to consider and to playtest.
Matt