Shooting at Unspotted AFVs in your LoS that are Spotted by Friendly Units Considered Bad Gameplay?

[Probus]

1. Is shooting at unspotted AFVs or infantry in your LoS that are spotted by friendly units considered cheaty?
2. Is shooting up a tree line that has zero spotted units but looks like where you would put defenses considered cheaty?
3. If an infantry runs into a building and disappears in the clutter, is shooting at their last known position in the building still considered cheaty?
4. If tanks are crossing a field behind a smoke screen or light woods and you are having trouble getting a hard spot on any of them, is it cheezy to area fire through the field hoping to get a hit or a suppression?
5. Also, how is it done in real life.  Does an AFV go rolling through an enemy village firing at windows in hopes of suppressing enemy bazookas or RPG teams? 
6. Do those rules change from WWII to the Cold War to modern combat?

Lots of questions, I know, but they all are related to the same question: Essentially, #7. Do you have to wait until your unit spots an enemy unit before shooting at it? 

[domfluff]

All of this kind of thing can't really be considered "cheating", but they are a gamey consequence of the game engine. This kind of problem has plagued wargames forever - it's no more gamey than the existence of a map edge, for example, they do represent the situations where the simulation breaks down.

As an aside, there's an interesting anecdote here. At the Battle of Balaclava, one reason that has been postulated for the disastrous Charge of the Light Brigade was that the position of the commanding officers was too high and top down - similar to what you might have looking at a boardgame. The end result is that they didn't have a good idea of the topography, and failed at their analysis of the terrain because of it.

The "Hardcat" rules are an attempt to get around that gameism. I sometimes use a simpler house rule of "No area fire without a spotting contact", which I think does 80% of the same thing, with zero overhead. That rule isn't perfect either, naturally.


5) However, has a definitive answer, and that is "sure". Rules of engagement differ, naturally, but recon by fire is a thing. There isn't the time or the ammunition to shoot everything, but if it's reasonable to expect enemy contact in the area, and no ROE to stop you, then yeah, this is pretty common historically.

 

[landser]

I don't find any of the first four items gamey but sound tactical game play. You counter your speculative fire with potentially giving up the spot on your own unit to the enemy, and expenditure of ammunition.

Number 2 for example is just solid tactics, recon by fire, and you hope to either have them shoot back, dislodge them or suppress them. I do this sort of thing all the time. It's why I buy MG teams.

Edited December 16, 2021 by landser

[Bulletpoint]

My personal take on it:

 

1 hour ago, Probus said:

Is shooting at unspotted AFVs or infantry in your LoS that are spotted by friendly units considered cheaty?

Yes, unless your infantry have informed your tank of the enemy tank (given your tank a contact marker).

1 hour ago, Probus said:

Is shooting up a tree line that has zero spotted units but looks like where you would put defenses considered cheaty?

No, this is fine.

1 hour ago, Probus said:

If an infantry runs into a building and disappears in the clutter, is shooting at their last known position in the building still considered cheaty?

This is also fine.

1 hour ago, Probus said:

If tanks are crossing a field behind a smoke screen or light woods and you are having trouble getting a hard spot on any of them, is it cheezy to area fire through the field hoping to get a hit or a suppression?

No, if you've seen there are enemy tanks moving in that area, you could argue it makes sense to shoot into the smoke.

1 hour ago, Probus said:

#7. Do you have to wait until your unit spots an enemy unit before shooting at it? 

No, again I think the main difference is whether your unit has a contact marker or not.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

Is shooting at unspotted AFVs or infantry in your LoS that are spotted by friendly units considered cheaty?

Reason I play on Iron, if a unit can see a friendly unit who is shooting at a target he can shoot at it too. Easy to see it before the command phase and during the replay.

No5 It is called recon by fire. Legitimate tactic. 

 

1 hour ago, Probus said:

Also, how is it done in real life.  Does an AFV go rolling through an enemy village firing at windows in hopes of suppressing enemy bazookas or RPG teams? 

[MikeyD]

'Recon by fire', putting a few rounds into a position 'just in case', before spotting anything. A legitimate tactic if you know the enemy is out there somewhere (a typical CM scenario). I suppose if your tank and infantry are close enough that you can imagine infantry waving down your tank and pointing in the direction of a hostile building it would be kosher to fire on the position. If you're talking a friendly sniper without a radio at the far side of the map spotting something but having no way to tell anyone else, using that info is a little bit gamey.

Edited December 16, 2021 by MikeyD

[Pelican Pal]

Engaging unspotted enemies (essentially skipping the C2 system) is probably the most gamey element listed here. If you are playing PBEM you essentially have to do this unless you have agreed to separate rules with your opponent and trust them. Within player vs AI gameplay its something you can avoid if you wish to make the scenario harder for yourself but odds are the scenario was tested/balanced with this gamey sort of play in mind.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Pelican Pal said:

essentially skipping the C2 system

Well put and TBH people do the game a disservice and themselves a disservice. TRP's encourages gamey play like this. FO hiding in the cellar and letting essentially a conscript doing the spotting without any C2 connection. Using and respecting the C2 makes it much more enjoyable. 

[Redwolf]

If anything TRPs are underutilized in CM.

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Redwolf said:

If anything TRPs are underutilized in CM.

I agree if used in a realistic fashion like a rolling barrage. The FO should be able to have an LOS somewhere in the proximity. 

[Pelican Pal]

I wouldn't say they are OP by any means. Although I haven't done extensive testing with them.

I do wish there were a cheaper version that didn't give ground units the combat bonus when engaging targets.

[Redwolf]

3 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

I do wish there were a cheaper version that didn't give ground units the combat bonus when engaging targets.

Yeah, those two features should certainly be in separate "units".

 

[Codreanu]

I would say no for all of them, but what about shooting at gunfire noises that give you no contact markers at all? Is that gamey? Personally I would say no against a human player because it encourages them to shoot and scoot as you would do in real life. Doing it against the AI does make the game a little easier but not having gunshots generate sound contacts is an oversight in my opinion so I'm not too bothered by doing it. One thing that IS without a doubt gamey is using knowledge of enemy positions that you should have no idea of, like if you had played a scenario before and remember the locations of certain units. If they're in an obvious spot you believe you would have shot up anyway then that might be okay but if it's a tiny little FO team hiding at the back of the map at the edge of a forest then you should pretend that they don't exist unless you start hearing gunfire or get a contact icon.

[chuckdyke]

11 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

but what about shooting at gunfire noises that give you no contact markers at all?

That is why we have camera position one. You can hear where the noise comes from by getting to the POV position. If the unit can hear it he can shoot at it.

[Pelican Pal]

You can get very gamey with that where you move the camera around to locate the source of the sound. Against the AI it can make things a lot easier but this is really a discussion about your personal difficulty settings. You can do certain things to make scenarios easier for yourself and thats fine. However, if you start to notice that many games against the AI feel too easy and thus less fun it might make sense to increase your personal difficulty.

[Probus]

I've never tried the POV trick. That does 'sound' a bit gamey.

[chuckdyke]

4 minutes ago, Probus said:

I've never tried the POV trick. That does 'sound' a bit gamey.

If you bypass the C2 structure but to check the sound near your units is more realistic. 

[StieliAlpha]

On 12/16/2021 at 10:08 PM, Pelican Pal said:

Engaging unspotted enemies (essentially skipping the C2 system) is probably the most gamey element listed here. If you are playing PBEM you essentially have to do this unless you have agreed to separate rules with your opponent and trust them. Within player vs AI gameplay its something you can avoid if you wish to make the scenario harder for yourself but odds are the scenario was tested/balanced with this gamey sort of play in mind.

I would not necessarily say so. You might call it „initiative“ instead of „skipping the C2 system.

@MikeyD „recon by fire“ is certainly no unrealistic procedure. Why not shooting at the famous church tower, expecting there is a FOB hidden? Or at the only building or patch of wood on the open plane in front of you?

I agree, this can become pretty gamey. Therefore I try to avoid it in too extreme situations. E.g., if there is nothing suspicious in a certain spot, except knowing that some guys far away spotted an enemy there.

For me a, much more annoying practice are for the „mad last turn rushes“, which some people seem to like. Though, indeed, one even can construct reasonable excuses for those.

In the end, CM is a game and when playing H2H, one should agree on a common understanding and set of rules first.

[Probus]

1 hour ago, StieliAlpha said:

For me a, much more annoying practice are for the „mad last turn rushes“, which some people seem to like. Though, indeed, one even can construct reasonable excuses for those.

Those mad rushes never seem to work out for me.  I always end up KIA. That kinda takes the mad rush right out of me.

[Bozowans]

Recon by fire does seem like pretty standard procedure irl. I dont think the game represents it as well as it could though. I wish that CM had another fire command -- something beyond the target light command. Target Lighter maybe?

I remember watching syrian civil war footage of BMPs firing randomly at various targets while driving slowly around the streets. They would put just one single 20mm cannon round through a window or whatever, then wait a while, then fire another round somewhere else. They weren't taking any return fire or anything. It's like they were trying to maintain a constant but very low rate of fire so they save ammo while at the same time keep the enemy harassed and on their toes. They would do this again and again while driving back and forth.

In CM though, even with the target briefly command, a BMP gunner will hold down the trigger and hose down a target for that whole 15 seconds, burning through dozens of rounds all on the same exact spot. What if you just want to fire one round off and on with the main gun and not the machine gun? There is no setting between "hold fire" and "fire as fast as you can with everything you got" or "fire as fast as you can minus the heavy weapons".

[Erwin]

48 minutes ago, Bozowans said:

gunner will hold down the trigger and hose down a target for that whole 15 seconds, burning through dozens of rounds all on the same exact spot. What if you just want to fire one round off and on with the main gun and not the machine gun? There is no setting between "hold fire" and "fire as fast as you can with everything you got" or "fire as fast as you can minus the heavy weapons".

Yes, this is a particular problem with the Russian BTR4 something or other as it has a very fast firing gun and more than a 2-5 seconds burst is a waste.  It can run through all its ammo in less than 60 secs IIRC.

[Codreanu]

2 hours ago, Bozowans said:

I wish that CM had another fire command -- something beyond the target light command. Target Lighter maybe?

A harassing fire option would be great, seems like it would be pretty easy to code and they could add "harrassing fire briefly" and "target light briefly" along with it. I think the BMP-2 has a slow and fast rate of fire toggle in real life too which could be used for just throwing out slow, short 2-3 round bursts, just enough to keep the enemy's heads down.

[Probus]

Good ideas. A 'Target Single' command or 'Single Burst' command would be good, no Great!

Also a 'supressing fire' command may be what you are looking for.  Something that uses less ammo but lasts for a period of time and is in the form of an arc so you can tag the whole treeline or front of buildings.

[chuckdyke]

Basically area fire and it comes down to logistics. I think mathematically it is rare to hit anything firing at unspotted units. I unloaded Katyushas Rockets 32 in an area which I knew enemy troopers were in a foxhole position. Result nil it pays to use scenarios and campaign for testing after you play them. WW2 with semi trained conscripts you have cannon fodder to find enemy positions. In modern warfare technology and get used to the idea a single trooper maybe more valuable than a MBT.  

Edited December 20, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Redwolf]

Area fire with smallarms seems pretty effective to me, that does cause casualties.

But you burn through ammo quickly, especially with automatic-heavy squads.