.com.unity Forums - Smoke overrated?

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- WinSPWW2 (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=139)

- - Smoke overrated? (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=49317)

Re: Smoke overrated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gila (Post 815535)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spledge (Post 814326)

In addition to limiting art tubes in pre-game negotiations, have PBEMers also employed an agreement on limiting the actual number of smoke charges deployed during a game from arty?

Hypothetical:
- Some agreed to number of total arty tubes.
- Then a number of actual smoke rounds deployed during a game is agreed to also. Example, during a given game, only 6 {or another number} deployments of smoke total from arty. Direct fire and infantry deployed smoke rounds not counted.

As for myself,there is never an agreement on smoke.

I'd allow smoking on first turn,or whenever, but never first turn arty bombarding.

Using smoke can be an double edged sword as an opponent can use it in his favor if there is no shellacking follow-up.

That will not be a problem from the next patch on (both games).

Only the attacker can pre-programme artillery now in an assault or attack.

Arty menu is of course still available to plot gold spots. However defender or meeter players arty will now only show up at turn 2. (or 1 - cant be bothered checking right now).

That stops saturation bombardment of the packed deployment zone with arty by the human player in PBEM or against the AI. (AI will however still occasionally fire turn zero fires - to keep the human on his toes :hurt:).

Re: Smoke overrated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosollia (Post 814173)

Besides mortars and artillery, also MG units can be used to spray smoke-covered areas with Z-fire. And by my understanding, it is by no means gamey - historically MG units in defensive positions seem to have determined some pre-set fire lanes that they could spray under conditions of poor visibility.

Just wondering if this happened on the assault, and especially into trenches. For instance, in the Kursk campaign I would z-fire main gun rounds through smoke into trenches 150-200 meters away from my tanks (mostly Tigers) on the same turn infantry/engineers cleared paths through mines 100 meters from the trench line.

The effect was devastating: Not a single enemy unit fired as my infantry came adjacent and blew them away. Tanks with MG rounds left came in and added to the mayhem. This tactic was repeated a number of times, almost without fail.

So did they actually do this in WWII, or would this be considered a bit gamey? I'd like to make it a permanent part of my repertoire if it's not considered too much of an exploit. :smirk: Thanks.

Re: Smoke overrated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jivemi (Post 818350)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosollia (Post 814173)

Sounds like effective suppressive fire to me.