z fire

[Yogi]

What is the consensus about z fire for spww2? I have not been playing spww2 for a very long period compared to others but I am forming the opinion that z fire is a rather "gamey" tactic....that is, how realistic is it to have fire through rows of buildings to 100+ meters beyond, through trees etc.....i can understand firing through smoke but to have an entire army z fire every turn seems a bit much....i know sph2h has some problems also but they are often dealt with by each player....for example, .00 fire of arty....do many ban z fire for games or is it really that popular? :conf:

[Vesku]

I do z fire mgs and guns at known targets but very rarely any other weapons. Don't mind oppo using it because it gives me info about his troops.

[Narwan]

Z-fire is extremely realistic. I'll contend that the vast majority of fire by direct fire weapons in ww2 was what in game terms is z-fire and not aimed at a specific unit. It's my opinion that there is far too little use of area fire in most games (compared to 'in reality').

And you can indeed aim through a single building hex. But you've got to remember that this is 50m wide and NOT packed full with buildings, there's streets, alleyways, gardens, yard, wooden fences, sheds and off courses windows to fire through with z-fire. Not being able to z-fire through a building hex would be more unrealistic imo.

The basic US tactic of dealing with enemy positions, either actual or suspected, was by pouring in vast amounts of area fire. I've read a quote recently (not sure where it was though) about a US sergeant during the Normandy campaign who commented on received replacements; his words were to the effect that before they could be send into action they had to be retrained in particular with regard to their tendency to fire only at sighted enemies and taking careful aim (as learned in boot camp). They weren't much use that way as they weren't likely to hit anything anyway and their volume of fire was so low that it's suppressing effect was minimal.

There's also an anecdote from ww1 that stuck to my mind with regards to area fire; a british unit was marching towards the trenches in an area behind the front that was considere clear and not in view of the enemy when suddenly men started dropping in rows. Turned out to be machinegun fire aimed up as if it was artillery; gravity brought the rounds back down and as (bad) luck would have it many landed on the road where the brits were marching. The spot was out of 'normal' aimed mg fire but the high angle and freak conditions (wind perhaps) brought the rounds much further than usual.

Personally I think z-fire is one of the best features of the whole game.

[Walrus]

Hi All

I find it very, very tedious to play against.
Especially when every unit is doing it, every turn.
It makes the replays, which I enjoy almost as a 'movie', very boring to watch and can sometimes make my game crash as the replay file gets too big.
Recently I gave up watching the replays for a whole battle because of the wall of z fire in every turn.
It will make me think twice about playing another game against that player, which is a sad situation.

My main problem is that can reach out into the map far beyond actual visibility.
The main problem being that you can make it very accurate because you can keep re-targeting 'spotted' enemy units, even when the z firing unit cannot actually see where it is aiming.
eg. in a current game, visibility = 10 hexes. SP mortar and SPA guns are z firing out to 20+ hexes into exact areas.
That's double+ visibility with no LOS at all.

That is a slightly warped function of the game engine and not very Real Life.
That's when I find it very gamey.

I also do not enjoy seeing a unit pop smoke directly in front of itself...then proceed to z fire accurately (or as accurately as the game allows. There are tricks to 'correct' the fire) into occupied areas well out of LOS.

Also there is a sneaky trick you can do after z firing arty / indirect fire weapons which is almost cheating IMO...so I don't want to go into details.
I tend to warn my opponent when I see that routine being used.

However, I have never asked opponents not to use this feature as it is a fair enough tactic in many circumstances. Especially using MG fire to suppress enemy positions just out of LOS, or hammer hexes in LOS that contain 'un-spotted' but known enemy. That's a Rumsfeld 'known unknown" eh
It is often the only way to expose zero sized units.

I just think it is over used, mostly by players who have just discovered it.
I think eventually the tsunami of z fire will calm down after the novelty wares off. It has it's place in the tactical play book.

Just my 2 cents worth.
Cheers

[Narwan]

I agree that it can be tedious to lay against. But tedious doesn't equal unrealistic.

As to the accuracy, I find z-firing into hexes you can't see with the firer to be very inaccurate. Maybe only one in ten 'rounds' hitting the actual hex. A lot depends on range though, the further away you fire, the bigger the likely drift.

And there are drawbacks, besides the mentioned information it gives the receiver on what's out there there's also the chance of the z-firer appearing on the map as 'spotted' (similar to arty units).

[Walrus]

Hi
I seem to have posted at the same time as you before
Interesting to see we have very different opinions.

I agree that it can be tedious to lay against. But tedious doesn't equal unrealistic.

Yes, but tedious does equal tedious. When I play this game, I enjoy realism as far as I can create it...but it is a game, I play it to enjoy it and watching never ending sheets of z fire , most of it ineffective, is not fun.
I have watched enough now to be bored to death with it.
It will affect my choices of opponents in the future.
Hopefully there will be a few players left out there who do not feel they have to shot every weapon of ever unit in every turn of the battle.
I play first to have fun, and second to win.

As to the accuracy, I find z-firing into hexes you can't see with the firer to be very inaccurate. Maybe only one in ten 'rounds' hitting the actual hex. A lot depends on range though, the further away you fire, the bigger the likely drift.

As you well know, the accuracy into blind hexes has more 'spray' now after a couple of SPCAMO tweaks in the last few patches.
However, as I am sure you are aware, there are ways to keep the spray fairly tight and if you have enough units firing into a small enough area, it can be very effective. I tend to have a problem with that when the target area is well out of LOS and the fire keeps hammering the same spot.

It is a function of the 'eye of god' game style. Your example before of the german MG fire in WWI that killed Brits well in the rear of the tranches by 'plunging' fire is fair enough...but they couldn't 'see' the enemy. As you said, it was probably blind luck...coupled with the fact that they knew where the enemy trenches were, even if they were out of LOS at that moment.

In a Meeting Engagement recently, with visibility being 10 hexes, and plenty of smoke around, I was being accurately z fired by every unit that could...some firing 2x LOS (20+ hexes)...EVERY turn, EVERY unit...most of their available shots for that round.
He knew where to shoot because he has 'eye of god' vision.
THAT is the problem for me.

As I said before, it is a valid tactic in many circumstances, but I think it is being over used by many players recently and personally feel it detracts from my enjoyment of my favorite game :(

And there are drawbacks, besides the mentioned information it gives the receiver on what's out there there's also the chance of the z-firer appearing on the map as 'spotted' (similar to arty units).

This is true. Also z firing units will sometimes 'smoke up' the hexes they fire from helping you discover their position.
The spray of fire into non-LOS hexes is better now too, mush less accurate.
Sometime units will z-fire their friendly neighbours with wildly inaccurate bursts.

I do use it in every game at some point. I tend to restrict it to MG type weapons and try to keep it to the edge of LOS if possible.

I just find heavy use...tedious.

Each to their own I guess

I am interested to hear the opinion of others on this topic.
Perhaps I am in the minority?

Cheers

[Narwan]

I do use it when it's suitable. But as you pointed out yourself, you need to hit a specific location with a lot of z-fire to get enough on target. Especially when using weapons without splash. And even then it rarely causes casualties, plenty of suppression yes but actual damage? Not really.
So I find it suitable and use it when it's suppression I'm after.

You've got a point that it gets a bit silly when you're playing with low visibility. However I think that's more a side effect of the low visibility (and the problem the gane has in realistically modelling it) than it is about an inherent problem with z-fire. When playing low visibility games you may well set an agreement with your opponent limiting z-fire. Sounds very reasonable to me.

Narwan

[Cross]

I like the Z fire feature.

I think it's a mistake to overuse it. It gives away your position and force strength, uses up ammo, isn't very accurate, and rarely causes casualties.

IMO if a player is using Z fire a lot, then they're probably a novice and a poor tactian.

But in the right situation it is useful and realistic way to supress the enemy.

[jadpanther]

Easiest way to beat the z-key player is to play much longer games. When he starts to run out of ammo you will see a large drop in fire.

Jad

I use this tactic..........but I don't think I overuse it.

[retired from gaming]

well, I am bit surprised with Jason's POV. I personally underuse area fire, just because it's sooooooooo boring. I area fire only when I really have to (and when I remember to do so, which means really rarely), but I think it is one of the most realistic aspects of the game. Never been in the army, so my view of realism is not very realistics (lol), based on what I read and what I see in documental movies. However, I dont think many of gamers here who actually been in the army have ever seen real combat. So I assume my view of realism is as good as anyone else out there.
Coming back to the subject, z-fire is extremely unefective in recent versions of the game. Waste of time, waste of ammo (good remark, Jad - people tend to play shorter games, have no idea why).
Also, I don't really understand what is wrong with "eye of God" vision. Why is it unrealistic ?

However I agree with one thing - I hate to play against people using area fire extensively - it makes replays take to long.