Smoke overrated?

[Rosollia]

You should agree to limit the ammount of artillery with your opponent. If you have enough artillery to provide an effective smoke screen AND shoot high explosives to suppress all the defenders then you have way too many artillery assets.

Then again what did you do with your own artillery? The enemy was advancing in the cover of a smoke screen and if you bombard his advancing infantry they should suffer heavy casualties and rout.

spamming cheap field howitzers and mortars just for the smoke seems like an exploit.

And if you buy realistic forces then there would be no problems.

Bottom line beign:
Try to adjust your rules before crying out to adjust the game mechanics. If you buy realistic forces you should get a more enjoyable game.

[Spledge]

I'd be interested in learning how many points were allowed for arty purchases in your game Shorebreak.

[Griefbringer]

Originally Posted by Rosollia

Then again what did you do with your own artillery? The enemy was advancing in the cover of a smoke screen and if you bombard his advancing infantry they should suffer heavy casualties and rout.

Yep, smoke screen popping up should be an indication that there are likely to be some folks advancing from that direction sometime soon. Having your mortars pounding that area should make life uncomfortable for them.

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.



As for the MRL abbreviation, that stands for Multiple Rocket Launcher, ie. any of those multi-barreled affairs that can fire a whole salvo of rockets rapidly.

[jivemi]

Originally Posted by Rosollia

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. Thanks.

[StuFL]

Originally Posted by jivemi

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. Thanks.

Sounds like effective suppressive fire to me.