(01-30-2012, 08:15 PM)Leo Wrote: roman
You intensively use Z-fire too, not only I...
All gamers plays by those rules on which he agrees. If to you restriction of Z-fire is important, it was necessary to speak IN ADVANCE about it, as Gila.
BTW, Z-fire (not-aim fire) was very often used in all real battles for suppress and even destroy enemy troops. Rifles, SMG's, BMG's, grenades, especially MG's and various artillery systems was used for it. Plays without Z-fire is unrealistic.
(03-02-2011, 04:19 AM)oldrocky Wrote: Re Z fire : Recon by fire and suppressive fire have been doctrine for decades. I feel that the way it is represented in SPWW2/MBT is very accurate. I've seen posts complaining that Z fire will hit troops behind buildings but it does happen. There are ricochets, bullets bouncing and spinning off in all directions, not to mention the use of arcing fire by direct fire weapons which is a certain talent in itself and very effective when executed by a soldier who is adept at the technique.
I've played with several players included Oldrocky and have not used both z. But as you say. The rules are laid before and do not talk about the use of z. I always use z but measurably. With you I'm using too much because I had to respond to its shape. If a new battle I know its modality.