z fire

[Fokkov]

Beside this argument, what do you all think how effective Z-fire is ?
Even visible/spotted units that you try to surpress with direct fire by as example 2 or 3 mg's can return fire when you move a other unit into there los and so are not supressed at all. the z option must have even minimal effect compaired to this.

[Epoletov [SPR].]

---Off. top ---

Irritates that that tankmen are frightened (buttoned) bombardment from rifles, machine guns. :soap:

If it occured from bombardment rounds - then it is realistic.
For example, the Soviet tankmen fired at one German tank simultaneously several guns, SU-xx (which could not punch armor). Then German tankmen jumped out of the serviceable battle machine contused.

[Walrus]

Also, I don't really understand what is wrong with "eye of God" vision. Why is it unrealistic ?

Because the guy firing the MG in RL does not have EOG vision with which to correct his fire.

I am not saying that z fire per se is unrealistic. The reason it is in the the game is exactly because it is realistic.

What I am saying is that some players, seemingly when they first discover it, tend to over use it.
That makes me not want to fight them again.
Not because I lose, or win, but because it is...as you say...very boring to play against and destroys the fun of watching a replay.

My main issue is with long range z fire well out into the 'blackness' that is then accurately corrected, making it quite effective.
This accurate correction is because the player has EOG vision....which has nothing to do with reality.

I know that EOG applied for everything else in SP...however this issue is becoming a pet peeve of mine as I am starting to find more and more players using it all the time, with every weapon in range, during every turn of the battle.

One of the players I was mentioning in an earlier post told me that he had 'learned' it from one of the players who has already posted on this thread. The player that posted on this thread said that they use it sparingly and with appropriate units...the player that 'learned' this from him used it against me in a completely different way.
So...it is like a disease :( It spreads through contact and can come in a more or less virulent forms.

As I also said earlier, I use it when appropriate, and do not request my opponents to 'tone it down'. It is their choice to use it, and how they use it, but it is my choice to avoid battles against players who rely on it as their main tactic.

As I also said earlier...I think as players discover how often it is ineffective, they will calm down their use of it.
I dislike it enough to comment here, but not to make the initial post.

Cheers

[shortreengage]

.]
---Off. top ---

Irritates that that tankmen are frightened (buttoned) bombardment from rifles, machine guns. :soap:

If it occured from bombardment rounds - then it is realistic.
For example, the Soviet tankmen fired at one German tank simultaneously several guns, SU-xx (which could not punch armor). Then German tankmen jumped out of the serviceable battle machine contused.

Truth! Shooting with small arms (especially with tracers) will get you something nice in return:whis: OTOH, suppressing tanks with MG fire so that AT teams can get in tight is right out of the manual.

[shortreengage]

I use it from time to time, but only on a local level. Recon by fire.
I've played against a few players who suppress the world as if ammo was not a concern. I won't play them again. One is a very famous Blitzer from long ago. That said, I think that it depends on the armies and terrain and time period.

[zeiss]

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..

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

[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 --

[Narwan]

In these urban settings you really need z-fire. Without it you get slaughtered when you advance. Artillery often isn't an option as it can't be plotted to close to your own troops. That also means your own troops can't reach the targetted position in one turn so the enemy has a chance to rally. That's where z-fire comes in. The lmg in a squad had this as it's main task when advancing against enemy positions; force them to keep their heads down while the riflemen advanced to close quarters. In the game the lmg is incorporated into the advancing unit so you can't exactly duplicate the tactic. But by using a second squad as fire support (doing z-fire) you basically get the same effect.

It's also why many tanks like the shortbarreled PIV or the 75mm Shermans carry lot's of HE shells. Those were not just for firing at enemies in sight but also to fire at suspected positions or at positions the enemy MIGHT be at. Denying the enemy a specific terrain feature is an old tactic that is and has been widely used in reality. Z-fire is just one way to achieve that.

In assault and urban scenario's you have to assume z-fire will play an important role.

[Krec]

i only z fire with sp guns and sometimes before i assault. that tactic of drawing fire from z fire can be abused because of the system. i really dont need to z fire the whole battlefield. just use proper recon and move carfully and you should be fine.

[Cross]

Hi Seabolt,

I agree that a player shouldn't be shunned for use of a legal option, but human nature attracts us to people who are more like minded.

For example: I prefer not to play against opponents who 'legally' field armies of snipers. Building this preference into my pre-game discussion has kept it from being an issue.

This may not be tennis but battles should still be fought with good sportsmanship. I think we should kill one another with decency. Perhaps that's because I am British:chin:

Using vehicles to relay (shuttle) forces used to be a gamey practice in SPWW2. Many wouldn't do it, even though they could. Eventually SPCamo introduced the load unload cost which was a good solution.

I think you totally hit the nail on its proverbial head with the ammo loadout. I think the units probably have historically correct loadouts for the most part. But this is game where battles are a compressed and intense representation.

Therefore, it may make sense to make ammo shortage among infantry and MG units more of an issue. In these battalion level battles, I should have to worry about infantry and MG ammo. Currently, I only concern myself with artillery shells.

The ammo for some units could be lowered drastically, or it may be possible to make Z-fire an ammo expensive choice; perhaps using up 5x or 10x the ammo.


cheers,
Simon