Support Weapons Targetting

[$Pec5]

Maybe there is a previous post about this, but I think that having a linear targetting option for support weapons would be useful.

The linear targetting option would allow you to assign a linear target area to a support weapon much the same as you would assign a linear targetting mission to off board artillery assets. I think this would help support weapons lay down more effective suppressive fire in the bocage country of Normandy.

Anyone agree?

[Seedorf81]

Maybe there is a previous post about this, but I think that having a linear targetting option for support weapons would be useful.

The linear targetting option would allow you to assign a linear target area to a support weapon much the same as you would assign a linear targetting mission to off board artillery assets. I think this would help support weapons lay down more effective suppressive fire in the bocage country of Normandy.

Anyone agree?

If you mean that we would be able to "disperse" the AREA FIRE over a self-designated line/arc (instead of the current not so clear area that is being fired upon), then YES!

[$Pec5]

Yes that is exactly what I mean.

To clarify:

When you want to perform area fire along a tree line or bocage with a support weapon, you could select a support weapon, then have an option to "target linear," which would allow you to draw a little green line along the area you'd like to suppress, and the support weapon would automatically disperse its area fire over the selected area.

I never understood why only off board artiller had this option. It would be so useful for your on-board mortarts to have this option when they are firing via direct fire in support of an infantry advance. It would also be useful to have this option for all other support weapons.

[Endymion]

Fully agree, that would definately be helpful for machine guns etc.

[Erwin]

+1 good idea.

[Michael Emrys]

Agree.

Michael

[womble]

Area fire by things like HMGs is already spread over adjacent Action Spots. If you spread it over much more, you're likely to not get enough suppression in one place to do any good, with one MG firing, if the targets have any cover to speak of. Even with 2.01's boost to MG effect.

[$Pec5]

Womble, I am aware of that. However, the feature would still be helpful for convenience purposes. You wouldn't have to assign new "target area" commands to each support weapon every turn to ensure an even suppression.

It would also be more than useful for tanks or AFVs with HE weapons. They wouldn't spend an entire minute blasting away at 1 action square or 15 seconds blasting away at one action square and then staying idle for 45 seconds (unless, can you give multiple "target briefly" commands to a unit to be carried out within a single turn?).

I think it would be most helpful for on board mortars

[dieseltaylor]

Agree with proposition.

[Chazz Ulric]

You sir are on to something.

[womble]

Womble, I am aware of that. However, the feature would still be helpful for convenience purposes. You wouldn't have to assign new "target area" commands to each support weapon every turn to ensure an even suppression.

Moving fire away from units you've suppressed would just mean the previously suppressed units would get unsuppressed and start doing their own suppressing of your MG team. Your single point of aim is already covering 5 action spots (the two beyond the three already targeted will be getting half effect) and this is one MG you're talking about. Hosing backwards and forwards wasn't the way MGs were employed.

How often do you find yourself moving the aim point of a weapon regularly and without having assessed its effect (which is what some sort of "linear target" order would have to be doing)? I reckon it's not near as often as you think.

Also, consider how it will screw up newer players as they see the order and think that a broad walk for an MG will be having any effect at all on enemy that might be near it. Imagine the "MGs don't work for ****" threads. We'd be back to pre-2.01 levels of dissatisfaction.

[Michael Emrys]

It would also be more than useful for tanks or AFVs with HE weapons. They wouldn't spend an entire minute blasting away at 1 action square or 15 seconds blasting away at one action square and then staying idle for 45 seconds (unless, can you give multiple "target briefly" commands to a unit to be carried out within a single turn?).

I think it would be most helpful for on board mortars

Whether or not it would be a good idea for MGs, this part is worth considering.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

With vehicles you can kind-of do this by giving several short movement orders with pauses and target commands at each movement point. It's clumsy but it works most of the time, although the present bug that gives firing-while-moving accuracy to units with paused movement orders makes this of dubious worth until it gets fixed.

[womble]

With vehicles you can kind-of do this by giving several short movement orders with pauses and target commands at each movement point. It's clumsy but it works most of the time, although the present bug that gives firing-while-moving accuracy to units with paused movement orders makes this of dubious worth until it gets fixed.

I don't think the lack of accuracy is too much of a problem for area fire type orders.

[Peregrine]

Be nice if you could stack 15s brief fire commands like movements orders.

[agusto]

Be nice if you could stack 15s brief fire commands like movements orders.

That would be great, indeed. I mean, i know you can do this currently by having a series of waypoints with 15 secs pauses each and assigning a target briefly command to each of the waypoints, but thats IMO cumbersome when compared to the ability of stacking multiple target briefly commands on a single waypoint.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't think the lack of accuracy is too much of a problem for area fire type orders.

That depends on how close friendlies are and whether the shooter has a 20mm cannon or a 105mm cannon

[womble]

Be nice if you could stack 15s brief fire commands like movements orders.

Yes, it would certainly be a nice option to have the ability to stack/queue commands beyond "One Pause, one special, one combat" (approximately) per waypoint.