Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Search
Forums » Memoir '44 - English » Snipers
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
nemesszili
Senior Member
Hauptmann

User Pages
Posts: 945
Registered:
June 2008
  Snipers Mon, 15 June 2009 22:06
Well, before I bought the EF, I was wondering....:
- How cool it would be, if snipers would be also on my battlefield!
My dream became reality last year,in the end of July. When I looked at the EF, I said very nice. When I opened the box, and I saw it's parts, I said wonderful. When I was using Russian units and markers I said outstanding.

Still, my opinion is, that the EF is one of the best made expansions. But the snipers aren't my favorites. Why?
Simple explanation: They're too powerful.

Lets take a look at the sniper. It's rules are:
- Moves two and battle: OK. It is an elite unit.
- Fires at 1-1-1-1-1: They can fire further than a normal unit.
- Retreats 1,2 or 3: They are familiar with the area, or they can navigate themselves better, than infantry units.
- Star marks a hit: They are more precise than normal infantry units.

Until now, I agree with these rules. But what about this:
-ONLY Grenade hits the sniper, and NO Victory Medal is won:
This is the rule, which makes me wondering.Not only it's a powerful unit, whit outstanding abilities, but one of the most professional units of the war. But in Memoir '44, units, which worth no medal, are often ignored by the enemy player. So it is the sniper. It is a very annoying unit: when I played yangtze's Tikhvin, the sniper unit next to the bridge is an obstacle to the Germans. They can hardly bypass it, because it will harass their own reinforcements. I'm not blaming yangtze for this, I'm not blaming anyone: I just want to say, that this last rule is too good for the player owning a sniper. After a so long combat, with so many orders lost to kill a sniper, you get nothing. Please, think about this!
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

User Pages
Posts: 2083
Registered:
October 2004
Re:Snipers Mon, 15 June 2009 22:21
On the other side of the coin....

Yes snipers can be a royal pain. So much so, it is sometimes worthwhile to try and take it out with a reasonable amount of firepower. As to it not being worth a medal, I agree with that ruling.

But, I have played a number of times where one side or the other had snipers. Sometimes it is not worth the order to get in a sniper shot as that same order can sometimes get you 3 shots w/ another unit or there is a pressing need elsewhere on the board. Also, one can park a tank next to a sniper and it cannot fire at all unless it moves to a hex that is not adjacent to a tank.

All in all, I have no complaint with the sniper rules.
      
ad79
Senior Member
Major Howard

User Pages
Posts: 786
Registered:
September 2007
Re:Snipers Mon, 15 June 2009 22:46
I like the rules for snipers. I think they reflect well what a sniper was supposed to do.

They are a pain if you need to go past/through their positions and as they are hiding themselves I agree with them being difficult to hit.

I have used the sniper to harrass units at a range and having a 1-figure unit in range of a sniper, forces a player to decide wether to save the unit or use the order to try and take a medal.

And when I play with the snipers I often find myself thinking of the sniper scene in Full Metal Jacket. Although from a different war it shows how a single sniper can seriously halt the movement of enemy troops, and as Tank Commander says it shows that it can be a good choice or maybe a neccesity to try and take it out with a reasonable amount of firepower.
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1842
Registered:
July 2005
Re:Snipers Mon, 15 June 2009 23:16
Not always but often, like with the Soviets in 1941, and theSS in Normandy, snipers were used in groups to ambush much larger formations. There's an excellent chapter in Erhard Raus' memoirs explaining how a group of Soviet snipers in an orchard held up a whole Kampfgruppe, about half a division, for a significant length of time on their way to Raseiniai. These Soviet snipers, essentially on a suicide mission, timed their fire to coincide with artillery bursts so they would not be discovered.

Similarly groups of young SS snipers in Normandy would rage, if captured, at not having been given the opportunity to die for the fatherland. I always think of sniper units in Memoir as being a group, rather than an individual, though that might depend on the scenario scale.

These guys were a breed apart, and had a significant impact on the battlefield, and I don't think they're overpowered in Memoir. If you can bear to do it, as with artillery and Tigers, one strategy is to ignore them as far as possible and go after more conventional, less elusive targets.
      
OldBloodandGuts
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 306
Registered:
May 2007
Re:Snipers Mon, 15 June 2009 23:57
I also like the rule as-written -- makes the snipers a nuisance, but not an overpowering force (which seems very accurate).

From purely a gaming standpoint, the no-medal rule accomplishes what many good game rules/mechanics strive for: it forces the player to make a decision, factoring in risks and rewards. Do you divert forces to deal with a "meaningless" objective? Or do you continue on and endure the harrassing fire?

It's like a well-designed golf hole -- do I lay up in front of the pond and take my par, or do I risk hitting it into the water by trying to hit it over the pond to get a birdie?

It's those types of decisions that really allow players' personalities (whether in golf or M44) to show through.
      
nemesszili
Senior Member
Hauptmann

User Pages
Posts: 945
Registered:
June 2008
Re:Snipers Tue, 16 June 2009 07:56
I would like to change that last rule as follows:

A sniper can only be attacked, after he fired or moved. It takes casualties as a normal infantry unit, and still doesn't counts as a medal.

This would force the player owning a sniper, not to put his sniper right in the front line, and serve as a large obstacle to enemy units.
Maybe in Normandy those SS snipers agreed to fire and kill-as-many-as-you-can, then die for the fatherland after being identified. But senior snipers (see Stalingrad) only fired if, they knew, they won't be easily spotted after firing, they can scarper, or the target was so important (maybe Stalin Very Happy or a senior Russian general), that they just cannot miss this opportunity.


[Updated on: Tue, 16 June 2009 07:57]

      
ad79
Senior Member
Major Howard

User Pages
Posts: 786
Registered:
September 2007
Re:Snipers Tue, 16 June 2009 08:30
OldBloodandGuts wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 23:57

It's like a well-designed golf hole -- do I lay up in front of the pond and take my par, or do I risk hitting it into the water by trying to hit it over the pond to get a birdie?

It's those types of decisions that really allow players' personalities (whether in golf or M44) to show through.


Hi OldBloodandGuts.

A 4-iron of the topic here, but.
Are such a good golf player that a lay up is an automatic par?

That's impressive!

I tend to find there is a third choice on such holes, and that is: Do I slice it miles out of bounds and take a drop. Very Happy

I am currently playing off 16,7.
      
Achtung Panzer
Senior Member
Leutnant

User Pages
Posts: 1063
Registered:
December 2007
Re:Snipers Tue, 16 June 2009 14:38
nemesszili wrote on Tue, 16 June 2009 06:56

I would like to change that last rule as follows:

A sniper can only be attacked, after he fired or moved. It takes casualties as a normal infantry unit, and still doesn't counts as a medal.


I play with the house rule that all snipers start the game as camouflaged. Seems to be logical that a hidden enemy should make the first move and can't be targeted with ranged fire (i.e. not close combat) until he does.

      
Shoegaze99
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 159
Registered:
May 2008
Re:Snipers Tue, 16 June 2009 16:46
Snipers not resulting in a medal makes a degree of sense. A sniper is a deadly nuisance on your way to accomplishing an objective, not a battlefield objective in and of itself. They are more akin to a mine field than they are a platoon.
      
OldBloodandGuts
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 306
Registered:
May 2007
Re:Snipers Tue, 16 June 2009 21:26
ad79 wrote on Tue, 16 June 2009 02:30

OldBloodandGuts wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 23:57

It's like a well-designed golf hole -- do I lay up in front of the pond and take my par, or do I risk hitting it into the water by trying to hit it over the pond to get a birdie?

It's those types of decisions that really allow players' personalities (whether in golf or M44) to show through.


Hi OldBloodandGuts.

A 4-iron of the topic here, but.
Are such a good golf player that a lay up is an automatic par?

That's impressive!

I tend to find there is a third choice on such holes, and that is: Do I slice it miles out of bounds and take a drop. Very Happy

I am currently playing off 16,7.


haha...I'm not that good (about a 15 handicap), but saying "do I lay up and take the double bogey or risk going for it and getting the quadruple bogey" just doesn't have the same impact and ruins the metaphor. Smile
      
ad79
Senior Member
Major Howard

User Pages
Posts: 786
Registered:
September 2007
Re:Snipers Wed, 17 June 2009 00:01
OldBloodandGuts wrote on Tue, 16 June 2009 21:26

haha...I'm not that good (about a 15 handicap), but saying "do I lay up and take the double bogey or risk going for it and getting the quadruple bogey" just doesn't have the same impact and ruins the metaphor. Smile


You are right, our handicaps don't go well with golf metaphors. But as long as we are having fun it's ok.

Hope you manage to carry the water and get the birdie this summer!

[Updated on: Wed, 17 June 2009 00:01]

      
Kaufschtick
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 129
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Snipers Wed, 17 June 2009 06:31
OldBloodandGuts wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 17:57

I also like the rule as-written -- makes the snipers a nuisance, but not an overpowering force (which seems very accurate).

From purely a gaming standpoint, the no-medal rule accomplishes what many good game rules/mechanics strive for: it forces the player to make a decision, factoring in risks and rewards. Do you divert forces to deal with a "meaningless" objective? Or do you continue on and endure the harrassing fire?

It's like a well-designed golf hole -- do I lay up in front of the pond and take my par, or do I risk hitting it into the water by trying to hit it over the pond to get a birdie?

It's those types of decisions that really allow players' personalities (whether in golf or M44) to show through.


Agreed, I'm good with snipers as they are, well said.

[Updated on: Wed, 17 June 2009 06:32]

      
Winter Storm
Senior Member
Oberstleutnant

User Pages
Posts: 222
Registered:
October 2006
Re:Snipers Wed, 17 June 2009 14:10
Kaufschtick wrote on Wed, 17 June 2009 06:31

OldBloodandGuts wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 17:57

I also like the rule as-written -- makes the snipers a nuisance, but not an overpowering force (which seems very accurate).

From purely a gaming standpoint, the no-medal rule accomplishes what many good game rules/mechanics strive for: it forces the player to make a decision, factoring in risks and rewards. Do you divert forces to deal with a "meaningless" objective? Or do you continue on and endure the harrassing fire?

It's like a well-designed golf hole -- do I lay up in front of the pond and take my par, or do I risk hitting it into the water by trying to hit it over the pond to get a birdie?

It's those types of decisions that really allow players' personalities (whether in golf or M44) to show through.


Agreed, I'm good with snipers as they are, well said.


me too
      
    
Previous Topic:New Scenario Editor
Next Topic:Final Score in Scenarios with 'Sudden Death' Victory Conditions
Goto Forum: