Question to the community regarding the sportsmanship and z-fire

[Imp]

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.

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.

[RightDeve]

Originally Posted by Imp

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.

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.

[Cross]

Originally Posted by RightDeve

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...

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.

Originally Posted by RightDeve

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.

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)?

Originally Posted by RightDeve

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RightDeve

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RightDeve

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.

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

[Imp]

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.

[Cross]

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