z fire

[seabolt]

This is hardly a problem. If a player is concerned about z-fire then make a pre-game z-fire agreement with the opponent. Limiting it to whatever weapons are acceptable.
A much better idea than stop playing vs. certain players..

It does seem wrong to shun a fellow player for using a perfectly legal option. I'd have to second that this is the best approach, which--considering the source--is proof of the old maxim that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. ;) (I kid! I kid!)

Players that z-fire every available infantry units are digging their own grave. It's terrible ineffective and reveals the units positions.

Then again, maybe you should have waited 12 hours. ;) This can certainly be the case, but not always.

Narwan and I are doing a Stalingrad mirror in which he's dismantling my Soviet defense with epic quantities of z-fire. He plasters a front-line unit with ~30 bursts of z-fire. The suppression renders his follow-on size-0 or elite unit effectively invisible as it walks up and murders the befuddled Reds in the same turn. The key is that he doesn't allow a single rally attempt to occur before capitalizing.

In this battle, he's giving away almost nothing. I already know that he's out there. And it's Stalingrad; *nobody* lives long enough to burn through 90 bursts of rifle and MG fire regardless of how many turns the game might last. A large part of the problem is that SPWW2 ammunition loadouts are far, far too high.

I can't fully replicate the tactic in our mirror because you really have to plan your approach with the tactic in mind, and I'm far too invested in my Cro-Magnon technique at this point. It's frustrating, yes; it's also absolutely a clever and insightful counter to my own best efforts to ruin Narwan's day in that fight. If you don't limit z-fire in a prematch agreement, I don't think it's proper to complain about your opponent doing everything he can to legally improve his position. We're replicating all-out warfare here, not a tennis match. ;)

-- 30 --