Re: Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire
 

With the hope of revealing and suppressing any unseen enemy unit I use anything at hand to Z-fire but only if i had incoming hidden fire first and if it's worth the risk of exposing your units at the given moment.

Re: Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire
 

against the AI this is a blatant cheating... maybe take it as a training ground before taking on a human opponent. keep in mind, if you can z fire, then your human opponent can do so too. with the same exact lethality, with the same exact accuracy.

Re: Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire
 

Being one of the people that asked for more accurate Z-fire, I must say that surely the correct solution is NOT the old system where the darn attack is more likely to hit the neighboring unit than the target hex.

So if the old scenarios actually got too easy, maybe it is because they had to be dumbed down to compensate for the player's inability to use the reasonably common tactic of blind firing.

If the AI is the problem, surely it can eventually be given the ability to target "events" with Z-fire. In fact, if they don't dumb this last down, the computer would have quite an advantage (though perhaps it should be given one to compensate for its limited tactical skill) - you might miss seeing exactly where the fire graphic is coming from, but the computer won't.

Re: Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire
 

I, for one, am VERY happy with the new accuracy of z-fire.
It went from being totally useless to useful (unless you're playing with unlimited ammo, which is a "cheat" in-and-of itself, and probably makes it "too powerful") under certain circumstances.

Re: Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire
 

It would be a massive (as in impossible) effort to get the computer to Z fire efficently, you make loads of decisions in the blink of an eye based on the situation as to the risk of giving away your position vs the benefit of Z firing.

Re: Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire
 

Z-fire can be usefull for locating units that already fire on you.
As for example units on fired me, i want to find them,then I z-fire on on the general location, and voila! they changed status thus discloseing thier loctaion.
But expending every round radicaly,is IMO just to supression,in turn,is rather gamish:)

Most HU opponents i've played don't like it.. and keep in mind the AI never ever z-fires.

Re: Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire
 

I dont know why some of you find z-fire unrealistic or gamey. Dont units IRL blind fire at possible enemy locations if they recieve fire but havent yet spotted the enemy?

Re: Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire
 

I love the Z-fire feature, I think it's totally realistic that we can fire through smoke, trees, and put down suppressive fire.

The main way I think it's unrealistic and gamey is that there's often too much of it, and tri-pod MGs are too effective compared to other suppressive fire. A human vs human game can turn into a Z-fire fest, which spoils the game.

The reason for too much Z-fire is probably because of unrealistic infantry/MG ammo loadouts. In human vs human battles we don’t have to worry about running low of infantry/MG ammo. You can just Z-fire away for the whole engagement…


Cross

Re: Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire
 

Agreed.

Anyway, Cross... about that "too much" ammo thing. Care to play a 35 to 50 turns urban battle without ammo suppliers? Blast away with the z-fire as per IRL, and lets see if the subsequent heavy firefight still allows for an extra cartridge or two...

Personally, I think how much ammo should be carried is a very subjective matter, which depends on various factors. The game does a good job of balancing the various "reality" parameters.

And also, I don't see a reason why it's cheating to use the so called "excessive" z fire. I mean, in real wars, if you have the tool, you will use it regardless of what your opponent may think. If I have the tool called "suppressive fire" and I consider spending the extra ammo justified for the current and future tactical conditions, I will certainly do it BEFORE my human opponent could do the same. Yes, because my HUMAN opponent will certainly do the same with the exact same effects. And that's why I call it fair.

Please note that in SP, we have this clear distinction by the game engine of "on target fire" and "z-fire". What do you think is bigger in the ratio between "on target fire" and "z-fire", when it comes to real life engagements. I don't believe soldiers in the battlefield do more "on target fire" than that so called "z-fire", except for snipers. You can do mostly "on target fire" only initially when you have that surprise factor, typically on ambushes. Most fires will be guesstimate fires even when the soldiers don't have direct visual contact to the target (what the game call z-fire), with no such thing as that red line extending to a locked certain whole squad (on target fire). Only difference is the game depicts it in a one notch larger scale, i.e squad level z fire, because it doesn't consider each individuals to be single game entity/unit.

Re: Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire
 

I’ve never had a human vs human game last 35 turns, let alone 50 turns, so set the game for 90 turns if you like :-) Most PBEM battles are decided around turn 10, and may need another 10 turns or so to play out and determine victory level. In my experience it’s rare for PBEM to go much longer than that. In human vs human games, infantry/HMG ammo almost never runs out.


I’m surprised that you think ammo carried should be “very subjective”. I would think we’d want it to be as objective as possible.

Is it balanced for infantry HMGs with twice the RoF (and therefore twice the KILL) to have the same number of bursts as infantry MGs with half the RoF (and therefore half the KILL)?


I agree that’s it’s not cheating to use excessive Z-fire, unless you broke a z-fire agreement you made at the start of the game. And I don’t think anyone on this thread has said that it is cheating. But just because it’s not a cheat, doesn’t mean it’s realistic, or that it can’t spoil the game.


I agree that we should use every tool at our disposal. But I think almost unlimited infantry/MG ammo should not be at our disposal (unless you’ve bought additional ammo).

Is it fair that in the game infantry HMGs are sitting on huge piles of ammo, that really could only be carried by vehicles?

Is it fair that in WW2 MG42 crews get twice as much ammo as allied 30cal HMGs?

If an allied MG burst is 15 rounds; for a 600 RPM MG that’s a 1.5 second burst to potentially suppress 7 hexes (3.5 US football pitches). But actually single HMGs get two z-fires for the use of one ammo.
Then the MG42 at 1200RPM would fire 30 rounds in a 1.5 second burst.

For 90 bursts the German crew must carry 2700 MG rounds (approx 200 lbs of MG ammo).
Standard issue for German MGs was 1150 rounds (approx 85 lbs of MG ammo).
For 90 bursts the Allied crew must carry 1350 MG rounds (approx 100 lbs of MG ammo).

If a German MG42 crew carried 1200 rounds that would be 40 bursts.
If an Allied 30cal crew carried 950 rounds, that would be 60 bursts.



I agree. In real life more ammo would be expended in area fire. And I’m fine with people who play the game like that. But IRL ammo shortages LIMIT area fire. Troops have to use fire discipline, or be out of ammo in minutes.

I’d love to see similar constraints in SP as there is IRL.

The bolt action ‘mad minute’ was a 15-30 rpm of aimed fire. Which means riflemen could be out of ammo in just 2 or 3 minutes without fire discipline.

MGs and modern IWs can also run out of ammo in 2 or 3 minutes of sustained fire. Which is why IRL troops have to use fire discipline, or have access to additional ammo.

I’m just saying that currently in SP, IMO, infantry/MGs come with too much ammo, so players rarely have to use fire discipline, which is why z-fire is abused and unrealistic.


Cross