Blind Area Fire

[FogForever]

I have now finished 3 PBEMs and the biggest discovery has been the power of blind area fire.   Area fire without known targets is definitely an accepted practice however there are factors restricting the use of area fire.  FOW means there is the possibility of blue on blue firefights and friendly casualties if targets are not clearly identified.  Units may burn up ammunition which may be needed later.   Blind firing can also result in civilian casualties.  So yes blind area fire was used but within boundaries.  Finally in game terms, I have found suppressive fire without identified targets very beneficial to the attacker.

So I have been wondering how to use area fire but also work with the relative spotting feature.   I like the relative spotting feature because in reality, units can't focus fire on a target until they actually know where the target is located.   Using unlimited blind area fire basically negates the relative spotting feature.   Once a unit is located all units can concentrate fire on that target even if they technically wouldn't know to concentrate fire on that unit's location.  

So how are people merging the use of both blind area fire and the relative spotting feature?  Both are realistic but using only one negates the other.  

At the moment, I am thinking of allowing blind area fire but not allowing targeted fire on a generic or specific identified unit until relative spotting allows each individual unit to identify the actual location of the targeted unit.   So blind fire anywhere but not allowing fire to shift to an identified target until relative spotting reflects a unit knows the general or specific location of the unit.

Any thoughts?  Any other approaches for merging area fire with relative spotting?

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by FogForever

[Bozowans]

I thought officers IRL would sometimes use tracer rounds to tell units where to shift fire right? I don't know how common that is/was though. So most of the men in a platoon or company might not know an enemy is there, but they see the officer spraying tracers at that spot, and everyone steadily shifts fire over to that spot even though only a couple of people in the whole platoon or company knows an actual enemy is there.

[FogForever]

True enough.  I wonder if that is modeled within the relative spotting process.  Probably.

[domfluff]

A simple house rule I've gone with sometimes has been "no area fire without a spotting contact".

That's definitely not perfect, but it gives decent results with minimal overhead. Many of the rules 

You could go one step more complex, and make that "no area fire from a unit without a contact, if anyone else has a contact". That way, you can still recon by fire, but if you actually know there is something there, then you have to use the C2 network to share those contacts and coordinate fire.

That's still not perfect, but it does force you to pay attention to C2.


In reality though, getting contacts to the people you're expecting to fight is well worth doing, to the point of being the correct approach in most cases. The end result in the non-house-ruled game shouldn't really be too different in practice.

[domfluff]

21 minutes ago, FogForever said:

True enough.  I wonder if that is modeled within the relative spotting process.  Probably.

The manual claims that higher leadership factors affect accuracy, but tests haven't shown much of a difference as of yet. That kind of specific fire direction would mostly be the squad leaders role though, so aside from a general bonus it'll be a bit below scale.

[KGBoy]

What about firing into areas where there is no contact just a likely location (it makes me feel so much better)? That does mess with domfluff rules but surely is legitimate?

[domfluff]

10 minutes ago, KGBoy said:

What about firing into areas where there is no contact just a likely location (it makes me feel so much better)? That does mess with domfluff rules but surely is legitimate?

That's what the more complex version of them allows you to do.

In the simple version, you can't area fire without a contact.

In the slightly more complex version, you can area fire with a contact, or if no-one on your side has a contact.

Essentially, the only time you can't area fire is when you (the player) know that something is there, but your ordered squad does not.


(Again, definitely not perfect, but it's direct and simple.)

[FogForever]

Well last night, I started experimenting.  I am using the area fire anywhere but can't be readjusted to a specific sighted unit until the firing unit has at least a generic spotted marker.  So everyone is doing area fire and then one enemy unit is spotted.  Only the units which are informed by relative spotting of that spotted unit can redirect fire on to the generic or definite unit marker.   

Quote

You could go one step more complex, and make that "no area fire from a unit without a contact, if anyone else has a contact". That way, you can still recon by fire, but if you actually know there is something there, then you have to use the C2 network to share those contacts and coordinate fire.

What I am doing is similar to that but I continue to allow area fire just not at the spotted unit until relative spotting allows a unit to redirect fire to the spotted unit.  

[Erwin]

However, "Recon By Fire" is an accepted RL tactic.  If a unit suspects an enemy position, it is legitimate that fire is directed at it or the area.  This is usually done when attempting to move quickly thru unknown but hostile territory.

[Chibot Mk IX]

A little bit OT. I think blind area fire is a little bit OP as it is as accurate as fire on spotted target. 

Image you are a CO, you asked your sergeants to keep firing at the center part of the woods. In CM, everyone will fire at the same spot (grid) . IRL that's not possible, because different people have a different point of view, that will cause a different definition of  "center part". 

I am wondering if the future CM engine can give some penalty to blind area fire: For example , unit may aim at 1 or 2 grid away from intended target area. 

[KGBoy]

24 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

A little bit OT. I think blind area fire is a little bit OP as it is as accurate as fire on spotted target. 

Image you are a CO, you asked your sergeants to keep firing at the center part of the woods. In CM, everyone will fire at the same spot (grid) . IRL that's not possible, because different people have a different point of view, that will cause a different definition of  "center part". 

I am wondering if the future CM engine can give some penalty to blind area fire: For example , unit may aim at 1 or 2 grid away from intended target area. 

I am assuming that the tiled square is conceptual only. The square is different for each unit’s position already. Visually they tend to clump or interpret the square uniformly, but that isn’t how the AI figures it, I figure?

[KGBoy]

37 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

A little bit OT. I think blind area fire is a little bit OP as it is as accurate as fire on spotted target. 

Image you are a CO, you asked your sergeants to keep firing at the center part of the woods. In CM, everyone will fire at the same spot (grid) . IRL that's not possible, because different people have a different point of view, that will cause a different definition of  "center part". 

I am wondering if the future CM engine can give some penalty to blind area fire: For example , unit may aim at 1 or 2 grid away from intended target area. 

Sorry @Chibot Mk IX, just parroted you.

[A Canadian Cat]

6 hours ago, FogForever said:

Any thoughts?  Any other approaches for merging area fire with relative spotting?

Sounds like a job for the Hard Cat Rules:

@Bil Hardenberger and I played a demo match too:

 

[domfluff]

1 hour ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

A little bit OT. I think blind area fire is a little bit OP as it is as accurate as fire on spotted target. 

It definitely isn't - spotted targets are aimed at the centre of mass of the spotted model (and deviates from there), whereas area fire hits all over the square. Obviously with stuff like HE or suppressive MG fire that may not matter too much.

 

[MikeyD]

When building a scenario you can design-in blind fire into the AI opponent's order sets. Its pretty fun to do. I used it in CMCW and CMRT Fire and Rubble. The AI can't do it on its own, though. The AI in a QB is not going to fire a few rounds into a suspicious copse of trees 'just in case'.

[chuckdyke]

I play on Iron for exactly that reason. Before I start a new turn, I see which units are in visual contact with each other. Say a JS2 Tank (recent scenario). Infantry makes contact and wish the support of the JS2 tank. On Iron by clicking the JS2 tank I see he is in full visual contact so he will spot the infantry unit is firing at. He can area fire at the same building. He wouldn't know if the infantry didn't fire. The other technique is using the fire direction center. I use it also as a communication channel as every HQ can access it. An HQ unit of an armoured formation can also access it and can be directed to the area an Infantry HQ unit has plotted a support mission. To simulate a flare, I use a short smoke mission with a 15-minute delay which I cancel when the IS2 unit arrives.  CM doesn't have flares or field telephones therefore hypothetically it is justified. The problem is when you have house rules when you play with other people. Lucky I can play regularly on Hotseat with which it is easy to have a dialog. 

Edited August 20, 2021 by chuckdyke

[chuckdyke]

Area Fire?

[nik mond]

There is one detriment I experienced occasionally using blind area fire. That is the unit firing getting sniped by an AT gun. I'm not sure if that is because the unit conducting the recce is viewed as a sound contact or visually obscured then suddenly lights itself up as it starts firing. But I find blind area fire a risky endeavor at times.

[Zveroboy1]

In scenarios versus the AI, sometimes I do "no area fire unless the platoon commander has a line of sight to the action square AND the unit doing the shooting is in C2 of the leader." Only when there is no spotting contact at all though. It sort of mitigates the issue a little bit even though it is obviously not perfect.

[chuckdyke]

22 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:

it is obviously not perfect.

You can say that again as it is not realistic. You can assign an HMG or a light mortar team to a unit. An AFV can be assigned for support. A unit can have called in for artillery support. I can see no reason why armoured units can't support an artillery mission or be part of an artillery mission.. The fire direction center can receive references from any HQ unit. There are a lot more means of communication apart from the ones in the system. However, I like the suggestion of a HQ unit in close proximity of the unit not necessarily the same C2 structure. 

[Zveroboy1]

Well since it is just role playing really you can very well decide that an infantry commander right next to a tank could order the tank to area fire at an action square even though they're not in direct C2 link. Some people use these rules in PBEMs. I don't, it is simply in games versus the AI for me. At the end of the day, the way I see it, the point is simply to impose limitations on yourself so it is less unfair vs the AI. But yeah the more you start to add rules and exceptions etc, the more convoluted and impractical it becomes to enforce. Anyway half the time I start a game telling myself I am going to use these extra rules but halfway through the game, all this stuff flies out the window and I just end up shooting wherever I like.

[KGBoy]

12 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

. Anyway half the time I start a game telling myself I am going to use these extra rules but halfway through the game, all this stuff flies out the window and I just end up shooting wherever I like.

AIn't that the way! 

[Chibot Mk IX]

17 hours ago, domfluff said:

It definitely isn't - spotted targets are aimed at the centre of mass of the spotted model (and deviates from there), whereas area fire hits all over the square. Obviously with stuff like HE or suppressive MG fire that may not matter too much.

I hear ya 

Yes, you are right.  Targeting on the spotted units aim at the target so it is supposed to be more accurate. But it doesn't matter to large caliber HE round.  So I hope the Dev team can consider my suggestion, make the shooter randomly target 1 or 2 square away from intended area fire aim point.

[Chibot Mk IX]

14 hours ago, nik mond said:

There is one detriment I experienced occasionally using blind area fire. That is the unit firing getting sniped by an AT gun. I'm not sure if that is because the unit conducting the recce is viewed as a sound contact or visually obscured then suddenly lights itself up as it starts firing. But I find blind area fire a risky endeavor at times.

The muzzle flash will reveal the shooter so it is always a risk. But play it smart it could benefit the player

 

I remember there is a user made scenario in CMRT (probably it's AD Farmyard Skirmish ) , a German Straggler co. attack a village.   The weather is Heavy rain, visibility is very low. Soviet defender scatter in the village however you could run into a deadly SMG gunfire trap because effective spotting range is less than 80m (but muzzle flash can draw return fire 300m away). So here is the trick to break Soviet's defense. Make the whole Co. get into a fire support position 150-200m away from the village, send a two men scout team forward, then area fire any suspicious position. it will trigger Soviet's return fire and it is very likely they won't survive very long under the firepower of your whole company.        

[chuckdyke]

17 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

it will trigger Soviet's return fire

Unless under a cover arc, the AI is likely to fire at any full contact. A submachine gunner won't fire at a target a kilometer away. Or a rifleman at a tank. It is always a calculated risk but in city fighting you will run out of ammo if you turn every building into rubble.