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.