Supressing Fire, real or imagined

[Steel God]

I have the very odd feeling that suppressing fire really, really works in PzB.  I know that in my PzC mind, suppression only really works by soaking off the defending units 3 shots, or inflicting losses and fatigue to degrade the units performance.  But what it feels like to me in PzB is that while OpFire is unlimited in the defensive phase, the units effectiveness in that defensive fire can be effected by suppressing fire maybe even if the fire is "no effect".  It could be my imagination, but in my limited experience it certainly feels/seems that I have better luck advancing on position and take less losses and suffer less disruption from defending units when I lob a little mortar and MG fire into the hex before moving.  I don't need to cause many or any casualties, the mere fact of getting the fire into the hex seems to help (like in the old Squad Leader board game). 

Anyone think I'm crazy?

[Ricky B]

Hmm, I have to say Paul that I am not aware of anything that would cause a reduction in defensive fire in the way you describe. But I do agree it can sure seem that way at times. So while I may think you are crazy (I really don't though) it isn't because of your thought here.

Rick

[ComradeP]

Maybe your artillery/mortar fire Disrupted the unit(s) using Opportunity Fire.

Due to the longer engagement ranges, the range effect modifier can lead to more variable fire results than you would normally see in PzC, but suppressive fire as such doesn't exist in PB as far as I know.

[Mowgli]

Yes, I think you're crazy (in a likeable way! :) ) as there is no rule to support your experiences as far as I know. I think you get carried away in the immersion!

My thoughts on PzBattles combat and "suppression" (note I'm not an experienced PzBattles player yet!):

Suppression as in "holding your fire"
One major difference compared to PzCampaigns seems to be that is very often more advantageous NOT to actively fire in your turn. Simply because it usually results in your enemy getting more fire actions on you than you get fire actions on him (due to unlimited opp. fires and long weapon ranges). So, just by amassing a lot of weapon systems within range of the enemy, you can convince your opponent not to fire in his own turn. Active fire just escalates the current situation (balance of fire power). If you have inferior fire power (or even just slightly superior fire power!), it's better not to escalate the situation. The more weapons are pointing at you, the more punishment you will take for firing actively in your turn.

Once the enemy is overwhelmed by all the guns pointing at him, it's up to you how much fire actions you give to your enemy by moving your units around within his LOS. Ideally you want to start with units that can get close without punishment (armored stuff) in order to get effective fire on the opponent to disrupt him. Once disrupted, it should be "comparatively" safe for the soft infantry to follow up.

Disruption as suppression
Of course you could also say that disruption represents suppression. Afaik, disrupted units have their movement halved, 50% combat power, and cannot assault. This should often stop an attack in its tracks. Reduced movement means that a unit might not be able to reach the next piece of cover.

Suppression implicit in assault actions?
Then again one would also need to ask whether suppression, as we tend to imagine it in our heads, happens on a smaller scale than the scale of Panzer Battles. Remember that a hex is 250m, so it's rather unlikely that units get pinned over such long distances? So maybe you could argue that suppression is just part of "assault actions"?

[Steel God]

Thank you all for validating my insanity.     And the feed back.  

Well, I am admittedly basing this on a grand total of 20 odd turns played in one scenario involving early war Italians versus early war British.  On the surface both sides are C quality and you would suspect the Italians to be able to hold dug in positions decently, but I am prying them out with a good success rate by following my rule of firing supressing fire first (mortars and MGs, as well as Artillery) and then closing with the target with infantry.  When I follow those habits the OpFire against my movers seems weak and ineffective.  I'm sad that there is no "software" design making that happen, but I'm going to keep doing it, becasue it feels like it works and fire and movement is always the name of the game in a tactical situation.

[Dog Soldier]

Fatigue can be accumulated faster by placing suppression fire on the enemy. Fatigue does factor in on how a unit reacts. It only take 50 fatigue points to drop a morale level. A lot less than in PzC. Units will be less effective in their fire at you if happen to push them "over the threshold" with a fatigue shot. Even the wounding/killing one man result can cause a enough fatigue to drop a unit a morale level if the unit was close to the 50 point mark.

This feature makes taking bunkers more interesting. AT, artillery, air strikes can soften up a defender in a bunker by accumulating fatigue in PzB. When the assault comes, all a matter of timing, the result can be enough to flip the defender to a lower morale and disrupt them into the open ground or the POW cage. All because you used enough fire suppression.

How much fire suppression is enough? Well this is where PzB seems so real. You just don't know exactly. And the fun begins when you start guessing.

Dog Soldier

[Steel God]

Fatigue can be accumulated faster by placing suppression fire on the enemy.  Fatigue does factor in on how a unit reacts.  It only take 50 fatigue points to drop a morale level.  A lot less than in PzC.  Units will be less effective in their fire at you if happen to push them "over the threshold" with a fatigue shot.  Even the wounding/killing one man result can cause a enough fatigue  to drop a unit a morale level if the unit was close to the 50 point mark.

This feature makes taking bunkers more interesting.  AT, artillery, air strikes can soften up a defender in a bunker by accumulating fatigue in PzB.  When the assault comes, all a matter of timing, the result can be enough to flip the defender to a lower morale and disrupt them into the open ground or the POW cage.  All because you used enough fire suppression.

How much fire suppression is enough?  Well this is where PzB seems so real.  You just don't know exactly.  And the fun begins when you start guessing.

Dog Soldier

Thanks Dog.  I knew I couldn't be completely crazy.  I have always been more of a "player" than a "reader of rules".  Some folks like to work out the math in the code and line up the right number of combat factors before rolling the dice, I like to do what feels right and I expect the game (if it models right) to reward could tactics.  In that regard I am finding PzB very refreshing with a much more tactical feel than one can get from a game scaled at the PzC level (nothing wrong with that, just not the right scale for tactical nuance).