SPWW2 handicaps vs AI

[jp10]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Still, we are looking at possible fixes for this - perhaps charging 2 ammo per shot, or 2 shots per z-firing.

My experience with real life 'z-fire' was usually a controlled and selective affair, not a full out firestorm. A team slowly firing rifles at the windows of a building as another team rushed down the street. 3-4 rifle grenades into a covered tree line to flush a sniper. Plunging fire by a single .50 cal into a dry river bed 500 meters away. Low ammo use type of firing.
The concept was not so much to hit anything but to 'suppress' anyone there to cover a moving element (especially an area that had been covered by smoke.) or to trigger an response. If you are hiding in cover, observing an enemy unit, waiting for it to get closer, and suddenly it starts firing in your direction, have they detected you or not? Training, leadership, experience and discipline is a factor there.
The only times I witnessed a full high volume of area fire was into a raid site as the assault element made it's initial movement towards the compound and a night defense. A cross road and some dead space had been sighted in with aiming stakes during daylight and engaged 'blind' that night when our trip flares went off. But it was only for a short time both times.
My point here is, I don't see an increased ammo use penalty as a fair representation every time. I will often Z-fire by turning off selected weapons in a unit and using only MGs in long range situations or rifles in shorter situations. Rifle grenades only sometimes, against snipers. This also makes me more mindful of my ammo supply.
The thing about area fire, is that it takes coordination to use without triggering a 'mad minute' from your own troops and it can ground friendly elements (happened to me more than once) slowing operations.
If it was possible I would suggest subtracting more movement from units that z-fire as opposed to normal firing movement effects. That would impose a 'slowdown' effect on players that z-fire too much or with too many elements.
A restriction of 2 shots only would limit the ability to heavy volume cover fire into smoked hexes during assaults, raids or night time 'fire for effects" when you know they are 'out there' in the dark just outside your perimeter (such as a Vietnam jungle night attack).
I would also offer that the seemingly high ammo counts for some unit types implies a logistical support system that exist in real life but not modeled in the game. For example, troops carrying 3x basic ammo loads to include every rifleman with an 81mm mortar round strapped to their pack (my back still hurts) or 'invisible' ammo runners from a Battalion supply point.
The balanced flexibility tactically in the SP series is what has kept this the BEST war game ever.

[gila]

[/quote]

I see... but let's not forget that Z-fire is eligible for all units, normally (disregarding Player's own intent on limiting himself). That's why the sum result is a lot deadlier than artillery, which is usually limited in numbers. Not to mention that normal leg infantries (small arms) have more ammo "counts" than artillery units.[/quote]

Almost always z-fire from from small arms fire results in suppression sometimes maybe retreat if pressed enough very rarely a causality thats b/c guys will lay low.
With aty no matter if your flat on the ground if a round hits close you may or not have causality or two.

[DRG]

We were hoping to start hearing from both sides Re:Z-fire ......ALL we have heard up to now are people complaining about it......not a lot of people but it's a theme that re-appears

[Mobhack]

And the only people who could possibly be objecting to it are those who play other humans in PBEM.

In which case, you can discuss the (to you) over use of the feature via email, and if necessary simply stop playing against someone who you think is always "going large" with too much direct area fire. Just like say, someone who always plays with a gazillion snipers, or whatever you feel is wrong. And if it's a PBEM league, then the organisers can set out (or be lobbied with to do so) acceptable ground rules like say "only a dozen bursts of Z-fire a turn is acceptable use".

Because its a human-only feature, limiting it lies in the human sphere. I think everyone could agree that letting loose with 200 unit's worth of Z-fire for 4-6 bursts per unit, each and every turn is being a bit unsportsmanlike. If that is happening, then talk to your opponent about some ground rules. Simples.

[gila]

[jivemi]

Originally Posted by DRG

We were hoping to start hearing from both sides Re:Z-fire ......ALL we have heard up to now are people complaining about it......not a lot of people but it's a theme that re-appears

Don't use it myself much but in a past thread somewhere I mentioned that Rommel's men used it in France, that the Eighth Army used it in North Africa, and someone else said that the US Army called it "reconnaissance by fire." In the Armor in Battle series posted by Old Gamer there's an interesting description of tanks using area fire against ATGs:

"I was more or less stymied along the road. This was not good. I also knew that the higher ground was drier ground. I decided then I’m not going down the road. I’ll see if I can go around. I used the ridge to my advantage to get to Marthille. Well, the
Germans must have known this. They must have gathered up from various sources this supply of antitank guns. They spent a lot of time, because this was November,and they were beautifully camouflaged. They had gotten enough underbrush so that they really...camouflaged these guns.There was no evidence of guns when we were going up. We had the light tanks leading, and they’re mobile. We did reconnaissance by fire [my emphasis]. We used .30 caliber. The light tanks were firing their coaxes,because they thought something was suspicious. They were firing. When you hit something solid, it flashes. Suddenly, we got flashes, so we knew we got something there. One of the light tanks, with its 37mm popped one of these suspicious places. Brush and all came down, and there was an antitank gun.So they started popping all over the place. The minute they saw this antitank gun, we had a medium tank come, and they shot 75mm rounds...In 45 minutes, I think we got the largest bag of antitank guns. We got over twenty antitank guns, about eight of them were eighty-eights, but we got them before they got us."--Brig. Gen. (ret.) Albin F. Irzyk

Additionally, from a gaming point of view, z-fire mitigates the "moving adjacent" problem, in which unsuppressed defenders take potshots at infantry who are theoretically 50 meters away yet are invariably spotted and blasted--even if the adjacent hex was the first they moved into that turn.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by DRG

We were hoping to start hearing from both sides Re:Z-fire ......ALL we have heard up to now are people complaining about it......not a lot of people but it's a theme that re-appears

Z fire is perfectly valid needed in many cases like firing through smoke that just dropped at a known enemy or firing at an inseen hex to provoke a reaction or detect if it becomes more suppresed.
Due to game mechanics it should probably be penalised because we can react instantly, use till detected then switch instantly to aimed fire as an example.

Your suggestion to penalise ammo use & possibly shots hence movement makes sense to me despite a post saying some Z fire does not use extra ammo.

I dont use much mainly detection & sometimes MGs if isuppresion effect looks more beneficial than targeting a unit.
However do bring up my AA if it turns out no planes & Z fire in safety from the rear, low ammo count so it would make me think do I need to if ammo use increased.

Using 2 shots & hence using movement points works for me in most cases as the unit is spending time laying down fire, in the case of using it as a recon tool they are also looking for return fire.
Storming a building behind smoke now needs more units laying suppresive fire to achieve the same effect.
2 squads z fire while 3rd attempts to take the position. Z firing now needs a bit of coordinating to maintain the advance.
Defending it also works, lay down the Z fire only to find you missed someone & are out of shots.

Even bumping heads & getting pinned without seeing the firer works for me.

These changes could impact on the game more than expected.

Should also please PBEM who think the other side abuses, have come across this myself makes the game slow & hence boring if they fire virtualy everything, simple thing dont play them again.
With PBEM has a negative effect to if uses 2 shots per Z fire as harder to detect location its coming from l would think.
Theres nothing to stop you Z firing right back at the location his units Z fired from.
Just remember Z fire rarely kills things aimed fire does, sell a feint so they Z fire at virtually nothing while giving away rough locations.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by DRG

We were hoping to start hearing from both sides Re:Z-fire ......ALL we have heard up to now are people complaining about it......not a lot of people but it's a theme that re-appears

Z fire is perfectly valid needed in many cases like firing through smoke that just dropped at a known enemy or firing at an inseen hex to provoke a reaction or detect if it becomes more suppresed.
Due to game mechanics it should probably be penalised because we can react instantly, use till detected then switch instantly to aimed fire as an example.

Your suggestion to penalise ammo use & possibly shots hence movement makes sense to me despite a post saying some Z fire does not use extra ammo.

I dont use much mainly detection & sometimes MGs if suppresion effect looks more beneficial than targeting a unit.
However do bring up my AA if it turns out no planes & Z fire in safety from the rear, low ammo count so it would make me think do I need to if ammo use increased.

Using 2 shots & hence using movement points works for me in most cases as the unit is spending time laying down fire, in the case of using it as a recon tool they are also looking for return fire.
Storming a building behind smoke now needs more units laying suppresive fire to achieve the same effect.
2 squads z fire while 3rd attempts to take the position. Z firing now needs a bit of coordinating to maintain the advance.
Defending it also works, lay down the Z fire only to find you missed someone & are out of shots.

Even bumping heads & getting pinned without seeing the firer works for me.

These changes could impact on the game more than expected.

Should also please PBEM who think the other side abuses, have come across this myself makes the game slow & hence boring if they fire virtualy everything, simple thing dont play them again.
With PBEM has a negative effect to if uses 2 shots per Z fire as harder to detect location its coming from l would think.
Theres nothing to stop you Z firing right back at the location his units Z fired from.
Just remember Z fire rarely kills things aimed fire does, sell a feint so they Z fire at virtually nothing while giving away rough locations.

[RightDeve]

I think we can all agree that Z fire is indeed useful for doing "recon by fire" or firing on suspected enemy locations before it's fully identified. Which begs the question: is it really necessary for the Z fire to be able to go past obstacles? Recon by fire usually happens when you have direct LOS to those "suspected locations." I can accept if it's just an obstruction of LOS, like smoke. But going past building blocks and forests?

In a utopian world, in which one can snap a finger and everything happens, here's my suggestion:

(1). Z fire can only happen when the unit has direct LOS to the target hex, which means it's very similar to directed/targeted fire. This way, a unit that does Z firing is not immune from being Op-fired by enemy units. Exception to this rule would be when there's a smokescreen, or technically, non-terrain obstruction of LOS. I'm pretty confident everyone on both sides can agree on this.

(2). Z fire consumes A LOT of Movement Point, thus reducing shot count & movement ability, as Andy previously suggested. Although some would not agree to this.

But then again, Andy is spot on in saying that Z fire is human-only feature... well, what can I say about it...

Originally Posted by gila

Almost always z-fire from from small arms fire results in suppression sometimes maybe retreat if pressed enough very rarely a causality thats b/c guys will lay low.
With aty no matter if your flat on the ground if a round hits close you may or not have causality or two.

Yes that is true, most of the time if the volume of fire is high enough, Retreat status is very common. Which is worse than suffering casualty: with one or two wounded/killed soldiers, a unit may still retain its effectiveness as a whole, but when a unit is flagged as "Retreating", it is practically useless as a whole unit. Now, some may say, "Retreating" is not permanent while casualty is permanent; I'd say, due to the nature of Z fire being ubiquitous and instantaneous, that "Retreat" status may as well become a permanent status.

[Mobhack]

You cannot stop scattering fires going into cover, since that is built into the game system. Does not matter if it is direct fire or indirect - no notice is taken of any blocking terrain when scattering fire. Its been that way forever, and would need a fairly big rewrite of the firing code to fix.

As to human players misusing Z-fire, then I think a house rule of say "No more than 12 bursts of Z-fire permitted per turn" should curb any players who go to extremes. In a competition, the save game of anyone ignoring this could always be forwarded to the umpires for action.