Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire
 

Dear winSP community,

Do you consider it cheating to use the new, much more accurate and therefore useful (suppresive) z-fire on old scenarios that were no doubt created before z-fire became usefull? I typically lay smoke or hide behind trees/buildings and use one of my unseen units (usually infantry) to spray the the accurate (although not the very deadly in the least ;)) blind fire until the enemy unit is routed (usually only takes 6x4+6x4 for even the most hardy enemy unit to reach rout/retreat).

I'm wondering if using the new super z-fire with my hidden units on old scenarios is making the unretrofitted scenarios too easy. You can rout any unit by just hiding even the most green of infantry units behind a smokescreen or tree or house (although houses seem to reduce z-fire range significantly) and after achieving retreat/rout status then proceed to move right up to the unit and waste it.

I would be grateful for any opinions.

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

I dont consider it cheating,unless you can show me another way how to move to the building that has an Infantry squad in an urban map were you have 1 or 2 hexes visibility and not take massive casualties in the process...

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

Rather than considering it cheating are you saying z fire is now to good.

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

If you are laying down loads of Z fire then you are showing your location to the enemy and so can expect some artillery in response, whether the opponent is human or the AI.

Blind area fire is something that I find I very rarely use. Its simply not worth the ammo expenditure. Perhaps with an HMG onto some enemy tanks that I suspect have riders and are not in direct LOS, and that is about it. But after that, I try to move the MG teams before the inevitable arty response if I can.

More usually, I wait until those tanks are in line of sight for direct fires before trying to knock external passengers off them. Its a far more efficient use of ammo.

Andy

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

I don't think it's cheating, unless you made an agreement with a human opponent to limit Z-fire in some way.

But I agree that z-fire can easily be used excessively by human opponents and can spoil the game.

I don't think artillery is an effective deterrent to z-fire. My first priority is to hammer units that are pressing my line or to support an attack, which are both time critical. Then there's counter-battery.
If I'm lucky enough to have any spare artillery plots, it doesn't seem very efficient to plot on scattered locations where I think there might still be MG units.

My solution would be to limit ammo. I think most foot units (particularly in SPWW2) have far too much ammo, especially MMGs and HMGs, and this is even more true for MGs with a 1200 RPM RoF, which are given double damage because of their RoF, and they are therefore given twice the ammo allotment of a 600 RPM MG unit!

If people want to fire off loads of z-fire, make them have to buy extra ammo cannisters/ammo trucks. Which will also make MGs a more worthwhile artillery target, because you may actually hit their ammo supply.



Cross

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

where have we ever said that MGs "give double damage because of their RoF"??

You may perhaps be getting confused with multi-MG sections as opposed to single MG elements. MG sections may have 2 or even 3 MG lines for the 2 or 3 weapons in the element, that is not "doubling their Rof" - it is extra guns over the singleton.

Andy

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

I'm sorry but isnt a single shot from an MG or rifle or whatever approximately a burst of 10 rounds? If that's the case, then the ammo loadout is correct.

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

I didn't mean to imply that you have ever said that. I just pointed out that MMGs and HMGs with a RoF of approx 1200 RPM get 'double damage' (actually KILL) compared to 600 RPM RoF MGs.

If you look at the KILL values of 30cal MMGs/HMGs in the game, they correspond to the approximate RoF of the weapon:


RoF approx 500-600
KILL 5
Vickers HMG
30 cal Brownings

RoF approx 900
KILL 8
MG-34

RoF approx 1200
KILL 10
MG-42


It's right that the MG-42 gets KILL 10, because it puts twice as much ammo down range as say the Vickers (KILL 5) in the same length burst.

The strength of the 1200 RPM weapons was how deadly they were, their weakness was that they were ammo hogs. The strength of the 600 RPM weapons was that they used half the ammo, therefore were good for suppression, but were not as deadly.

The disparity is with the ammo loadouts. The MG-42 gets double the KILL of 500-600 RPM HMGs, but should get half as many bursts.

Currently in SP, we are modeling the deadliness correctly, but the high RoF weapons are getting an unfair advantage as they have the same SP ammo loadouts (with same size crews) as the weapons that conserve ammo.



If this is true, then why does the MG-42 get KILL 10 and the 30cal Browning only KILL 5?

They shoot very similar rounds. The MG-42 even has a much shorter barrel length and lower muzzel velocity than the Browning, and the MG-42 is only air cooled, not water cooled like the M1917.

The only reason the MG-42 is more deadly is because it shoots twice as much ammo in a burst.

Cross

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

I find z-fire useful at times, but, as said by others it's generally a waste of ammo, and I find most of the time I don't have ammo to waste.

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

I find it a waste of ammo and game time. I only Z-fire with SP Guns, when I know someone is hiding out there.

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

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

Well this is dragging on & going off topic but my 2 cents.

PBEM Z fire is an integral part of the game & while those that use it excessively bog down the game by restricting movement they tend to loose because they give away to much info. Only ever played one guy who was very good at it on the right type of map.

The MG thing
In my view they work as they should in this game their main role is suppression either to break up an attack or soften a defence.
The kill rating is therefore not a major factor though higher is nice of course.
So in use in game the MG42 & Vickers provide similar suppression & the MG42 gets a few more kills. Ignoring other factors like accuracy, range etc.

Okay now lets adjust the MGs another way so they are in line with what you are saying Simon, we will assume for this both teams carry the same ammo.
1 Set MG 42 Kill to the same as the Vickers
2 At least double the ROF from 9 to say 19
Now in human hands its way superior as you can elect to take a few shots or fire the full amount at the expense of ammo.
This has now become a superb Z fire tool allowing you if you so wish to put down double the suppression in a turn that the Vickers can.
Ignoring supply problems you could also introduce MG units with a move of zero or 1 & far higher ammo loads for defence, that MG42 is now nasty.
For units advancing yes the ammo loads are probably a bit high but I believe it was common practise for other units supporting the MG to carry ammo for it. Just assume this happens in game.
You said PBEM games are over pretty quick, would you expect the MGs to run out ignoring strategic supply problems. I seem to remember Vickers MGs fired virtually continuously for 12 hours, lets call that 200 game turns.

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

Hey John,

I agree that excessive use of z-fire bogs down the game.

Ten Vickers did fire continuously for 12 hours. Each gun fired 100,000 rounds, which is over 6,800 lbs of ammunition per gun. Which is again my point, let people buy ammunition dumps/transport if they want to shoot z-fire for the entire battle.

We could argue back and forth about the various merits and weaknesses of the Vickers and the MG42, but excessive z-fire could be addressed by reducing ammo for all HMGs. Personally, I’d reduce the MG42 ammo a lot more than the 500-600rpm weapons, for the reasons already given.

Rifleman would always carry extra ammo for their squad LMG (total LMG ammo would be 600 for a US section, 1000 for a British section, and 1150 for a German section) but I’ve never heard that other units would carry ammo for HMG sections; unless you’re talking about transport and supply units?

ATM we have a 3xMG42 crew of 9 with 270 SP ammo units.
If we use a 1.5 second burst (30 MG42 rounds) for one SP ammo unit then that’s 600 lbs of MG ammunition! That’s the maximum a horse and cart can carry (the horse alone could manage 200lbs).

That said, I recognize that mortars in SP carry more ammo than they should, and I think that is where RightDeve has a point about subjective game balancing. But mortar ammo still has to be used with care in the game, where MG ammo can be fired off with reckless abandon with complete disregard for fire discipline, and causes too much z-fire. Most players won’t waste much mortar ammo on z-fire.

Creating defensive and offensive MGs might help the situation slightly, but I wouldn’t have defensive MGs with more ammo, better to have mobile MGs with a lot less ammo; and or make MGs more expensive. Or just give all MGs less ammo and buy ammo supply for defensive positions.

Another thing that may help is to change triple MG units to only two or even one MG per unit; and as a bonus the MG crew sizes would then be more realistic.

Perhaps another idea would be to have z-fire (for infantry and MGs) cost more ammo units.

FTR, I do like the new accuracy for z-fire. It’s more realistic.

cheers,
Cross

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

The problem really with Z fire is its to good due to the eye of God nature of the game. Units instantly know where Z fire is needed.
Dont take as gospel but I am pretty sure it was common practice for the Germans to carry extra rounds for the MG42 specifically because of its ammo.
Messing with ammo is subjective & if being realistic MGs were Germanys main source of suppresion late war. People would moan if German arty came with the handful of shells they had availabe to fire each day

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

Now that you've mentioned it Imp, one of the things that I always thought this game should have is giving the player the ability to change the ammo loadouts of its units prior to a mission (or at least for a specific scenario). That way you could simulate situations with very low ammo, like late war German units...

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

You can for specific scenarios you set up just select the unit & press the D key, if you want to change all identical units press clone when your done.

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

Yes It's cheating and I tend to not do it to the AI since they can't retaliate in kind (human beings are fair game). I've felt this way since even before z-fire was so effective. It's especially handy when you're using lower quality armies with lots and lots of infantry, HMGs and MG-equiped vehicles (World War-II era Poland or China, or any modern third-world army), or when you're facing same.

The "proper" way to neutralize enemy squads before getting into grenade range is to drop artillery, that or set up the shootout where it'll be more in your favour (find another angle to attack them from, or wait for them to come to you). If you've no artillery for the former and no patience for the latter, either Z-fire or expect to do a lot of dying in that kind of terrain.

Is area fire too effective?
 

My friends and I found that Area Fire may be too effective.Though you have militias only arm with .303 rifle, they can still kick the elites' *** easily with myriads of area fires - every single shot may cause at leat 1 suppression

So, some guys tend to buy hordes of militias, flood over every soldier who dares to stand in their by simply pressing "Z" key frequently, which have made elite units useless for they didn't have that many shots

Re: Is area fire too effective?
 

Simple answer - if you have not agreed a set of PBEM rules in advance, anything is fair in love or war. So agree in advance what is "gamey" in your view and see if your prospective opponent agrees to it.

Me, I would simply love an enemy PBEM player who does that sort of thing as it makes targeting my arty assets so much easier... You did buy lots of nice mortars, MRL and such things, if your opponent is a proponent of massed militia (with poor morale) Z-Fires?. Get them running and its game over for them, really.

Andy

Re: Is area fire too effective?
 

Yup, that's how it was done IRL as well, lots of artillery and air support, not counter with your own infantry (Korean war may be the best example).