Jason Cs training scenario 201

[McIvan]

Idly decided to give some of these a go the other week.

Came upon an instructive little gem in the one where there is a German HMG in the middle, against a green Russian platoon.

Anyways, the HMG unmasks and panics/pins a squad and the HQ respectively while causing three casualties. The other three squads area fire and gradually pin the HMG while the other two crawl to cover.

Now, what I noticed but did not know before is the following. Upon getting a squad close enough round the left flank to fully ID the HMG, I switched to direct fire, reasoning it would be far higher in firepower and get a better result.

Not so....the HMG promptly began to shoot back, much to my surprise.

I had to switch back to area fire to get a squad into close assault range and clean out the nest, although the HMG did start firing again once the assaulting squad got close. Too late for it by then.

Two lessons from this:

1. Pinning/panicking from not-terribly-lethal-fire depends more on frequency than relative lethality.

2. Troops have a higher rate of fire, except at close range, when area firing. They shoot a lot less when direct firing and the decrease in frequency can allow your enemy to recover. Area fire is better than direct fire for suppression because of the higher ROF.

The other lesson of course is not to put your squads too close together, especially green or conscript troops, unless you like watching them all panic in sympathy.

I think that intuitively I already knew area fire is carried out at a higher ROF, but I certainly hadn't fully appreciated that frequency of fire, for the purposes of pinning or panicking, can be more important than lethality. The scenario laid it out nicely.

Thanks Jason for a well thought out and instructive series of scenarios.

[ August 17, 2006, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

[John Kettler]

McIvan,

I didn't know that such an ROF difference existed, but I'll definitely keep it in mind in the future.

Shall be most interested to see what JasonC provides by way of reply.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

Aimed fire is considerably more likely to pin a unit in good cover than unaimed.

But when the spotting range is marginal and the cover is good, it is easy to "lose" a pinned target. Pinned units put their heads down, and they become more difficult to spot 10-15 seconds later. They aren't firing, and firing raises the spot range, so when they cease fire they can be lost. You will see the enemy unit turn into a flag when this happens.

If all your shooters lose the spot and all were ordered to use direct fire, then they will cease fire once the target is lost. Therefore, a bit after the target pins, they back off their fire.

Absence of fire on a pinned unit can allow it to snap back to cautious or shaken, which are morale states that allow firing (pinned does not).

There is no difference in rate of fire if the target remains spotted throughout, and the impact of the aimed fire is much higher. Therefore, to achieve the initial pin, aimed fire is superior. But to maintain it, some fire should continue, in order to prevent rally.

A single shooter using area fire is often sufficient. While it adds little to enemy suppression, it adds that little every 10 seconds, and pinned units rally quite slowly. Generally a pinned unit under continual fire has a very hard time rallying back to states that allow fire to resume.

So, fire directly with all but one squad, and use area fire with that one squad. Rotate the role to save ammo. Get a full squad to SMG range while the target is pinned, and it will usually finish it, both getting a spot so good you will keep it even when the target pins, and hitting them hard enough to make them get up and run. If SMG range does not do it, grenade range pretty much always will.

This is more effective than continual unaimed fire by everyone, even if the target location is known, in part because such unaimed fire cannot be sustained indefinitely. Typical infantry squads have only 5 to 7 minutes of fire for the whole battle. Once the target it pinned, it is also rather wasteful.

Occasional resumptions of fire are always a risk, because rally includes a significant component of randomness. The solution is to (1) leave one shooter on the target, (2) move redundant others close by bounds and (3) exploit all available nearby cover as shooter locations. If the target does resume fire, just fire back direct to resume the pin, and repeat the procedure.

[McIvan]

That is interesting, because it contradicts my observations of the battle. When I say I switched to direct fire because I had a "full id", I mean I switched because I was confident that I would keep the HMG spotted for the duration of the turn.....and so it proved; at no stage did it turn into a flag icon. I'm well aware of the propensity of units to lose the target from a distance and did keep one squad on area fire just in case.

Yet very soon after I switched from area fire to (mostly) direct, the HMG began shooting back.

It would probably help to outline the circumstances more.....I moved a squad to each of the two houses in the lower centre and right of the map, while the HQ and two squads went left, getting shot up by the HMG in the open between the SW woods and the woods about 150 metres west of the HMG. One squad made it to those woods, the HQ and other squad were pinned/panicked. I put area firers on the woods with the HMG from 2 and then 3 squads while the HQ & squad made it to cover. So the vast majority of the area fire was 150-200 metres away or more, and of low lethality. It took time to build up a pin, maybe three turns. Thereafter I advanced a squad to within SMG range in the scattered trees close to the SW of the HMG and then finally grenade range to finish it.

Very expensive of ammo as you point out, but in the circumstances it was fine.

I'm quite sure that the area firers fired more often than the direct firers. If you are certain that the ROF is the same, then the difference perhaps is due to the squads 200 metres away losing their red line momentarily even though the target has not turned into a flag icon as such. I do not recall whether that was the case....I certainly didn't watch a minute replay from the perspective of each squad. The end result is the same - for squads some distance away the ROF ends up higher for area fire for practical purposes because it doesn't rely on sighting the target and does not lose its track. At least in this specific circumstance it was. Whether the same applies in other games only time will tell.

[JasonC]

You were fooled by randomness then, the moment of rally had nothing to do with fire if you never lost the target and all units continued to fire. Units on area fire at the same range fire no faster than units with a direct fire order, that can see the target.

[para]

JasonC

see post below

[ August 18, 2006, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: para ]

[para]

JasonC

Where are these training scenarios located please

[tankibanki]

http://www.blowtorchscenarios.com/Jason%20Soviet%20Training%20Scenarios/Jason%20C%20Russian%20Training%20Exercises%20Details.html

[para]

Originally posted by tankibanki:

http://www.blowtorchscenarios.com/Jason%20Soviet%20Training%20Scenarios/Jason%20C%20Russian%20Training%20Exercises%20Details.html

Thanks

This looks like just what i need.

[SteveP]

Originally posted by McIvan:

It would probably help to outline the circumstances more.....I moved a squad to each of the two houses in the lower centre and right of the map, while the HQ and two squads went left, getting shot up by the HMG in the open between the SW woods and the woods about 150 metres west of the HMG. One squad made it to those woods, the HQ and other squad were pinned/panicked. I put area firers on the woods with the HMG from 2 and then 3 squads while the HQ & squad made it to cover. So the vast majority of the area fire was 150-200 metres away or more, and of low lethality. It took time to build up a pin, maybe three turns. Thereafter I advanced a squad to within SMG range in the scattered trees close to the SW of the HMG and then finally grenade range to finish it.

The way you are describing your approach suggests a possible answer to your question. The Russians start on the East side of the map. If you are getting a HQ and two squads to positions which are on the SW or West side of the map in any respect, that suggests you are moving around the southern flank of the HMG to get "behind" him, as well as having two squads to his East. This would be possible to do as this scenario is constructed. If you are area firing at him from two locations which are separated by 90 degrees or more, the HMG is going to pin and may eventually do more than pin (because regardless of how the HMG faces, one of the shooters is firing into his flank or his rear). Is that possibly what is happening?

[McIvan]

I'm afraid I didn't notice that my boys started on the east. My earlier posts should be read assuming that my starting position is "south"...er....even though as you point out it isnt

So, using the correct directions, I put squads into the buildings to the HMG's east, using move and then sneak commands, then used them to area fire.

The assulting squads went round the southern side aiming to get to the woods to the HMG's south.

As you suspect, the entire point was to get flanking area fire on the HMG if it started shooting at the flanking elements. Standard stuff, I would think, for most players. It was my second go at the scenario....keeping squads within command range and using advance moves "fire & movement" style hadn't worked out the first time. It seemed to me that there was insufficient firepower to pin the HMG as it was and that the flanking bonus would be needed.

The reason I posted was because of the perceived difference in result between area fire and fully spotted direct fire....that surprised me considerably. I am an intuitive as opposed to analytical player (although I do analyse a fair bit) and what I was seeing ran counter to my intuited knowledge of how the game works.

BTW I'm not talking about scenario 201 at all am I....its 110 or something? Anyways I sure you all know what I mean.

[ August 20, 2006, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

[McIvan]

deleted...accidental post

[SteveP]

It's an interesting puzzle. I know that I tried in the past to suppress the HMG using area fire, at the same distances (150-200m), after the HMG had already opened fire on my units. This seems to be what you are describing. I could never get the HMG to suppress. I could get it to duck from time to time, but never suppressed. Moreover, all my experience in other battles agrees with what Jason said: that you use area fire to maintain a suppression, only after direct fire has done it's work. So why area fire is working for you in this situation is hard to explain. That is why I was speculating on the possibility that it might have something to do with having your squads widely spaced and with the angles that created.

[Hensworth]

I haven't tested it, but in my experience McIvan is exactly right.

Units will relax their fire when they see the enemy unit is suppressed, presumably to save ammo.

If you order them to area fire, they will keep up the same rate of fire no matter what and burn through their ammo like there's no tomorrow.

When you're up against green troops, aimed fire once you have a positive location is best because any fire at all will keep their heads down once they're suppressed. Saves ammo.

Against tougher opposition, you're better off using area fire or you'll risk a recovery by the enemy unit just when your assault elements are halfway between them and the cover they've left...

This is notably why I hate the use of fanatic troops. In a foxhole or trench they're virtually unsuppressable and will eat huge (gamey ?) chunks out of the attacker's time and ammo. Fanatic troops should be used very sparingly and not in scenarios where the attacker depends heavily on small arms fire.

[ August 21, 2006, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Sgt_Kelly ]

[SteveP]

Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:

I haven't tested it, but in my experience McIvan is exactly right.

Units will relax their fire when they see the enemy unit is suppressed, presumably to save ammo.

If you order them to area fire, they will keep up the same rate of fire no matter what and burn through their ammo like there's no tomorrow.

When you're up against green troops, aimed fire once you have a positive location is best because any fire at all will keep their heads down once they're suppressed. Saves ammo.

Against tougher opposition, you're better off using area fire or you'll risk a recovery by the enemy unit just when your assault elements are halfway between them and the cover they've left...

This is notably why I hate the use of fanatic troops. In a foxhole or trench they're virtually unsuppressable and will eat huge (gamey ?) chunks out of the attacker's time and ammo. Fanatic troops should be used very sparingly and not in scenarios where the attacker depends heavily on small arms fire.

I think there may be some confusion (probably mine ) about what McIvan is reporting. Here is my take on it: The HMG opens fire on a couple of his units (meaning the HMG has detected them, turned around, and is now facing the Russians). The Russians are close enough to see the trench but not to fully ID the HMG. As a result, he does not have the option of using direct fire. Instead he uses area fire into the trench. He reports that this is effective in suppressing the HMG enough so that he can move one or more units close enough to get a full ID. At that point, the question becomes whether it is better to use only direct fire, only area fire, or a combination of the two to maintain the suppression in order to continue the advance.

What I was reacting to was the first part of that progression. My own experience had been that using area fire on the trench -- at those ranges and with vanilla green squads -- was not effective in the least at suppressing the HMG. As a result, I could not get any of the squads close enough, long enough, to get and hold a full ID. That he was apparently able to do this is the part that puzzled me.

[para]

Well i'm really pleased with myself.I have finally managed a major victory on the russian training map 411?(the one with the 4 tigers v 2 su122's)after about 8 attempts i finally managed to ko all the tigers and cause 1800 axis casualties. I used to **** myself when i saw tigers now i have learned how to use feints and tactics to outwit them. The feeling you get killing a tiger with a 57mm at gun is great. i love this game

[JasonC]

I think you mean 322. The Germans get a whole platoon of Tigers in that, attacking a Russian defense. The Russians get a 57mm ATG which as you found is their best Tiger-killing weapon. Also an SU-152 which can do the job but is also vulnerable itself in the duels. And AT minefields, and air support. It is meant to install confidence facing tough German armor, precisely by getting you familiar with all the Russian "trump cards" for dealing with them, and what those can do.

[para]

Those 152's reload bloody slowly.Took me a while to figure that out.

what do you think to my strategy?

I strung the at mines and the barbed wire along my right side of the map. This made the axis go up the middle and the left towards the flag.they sent men forward and came into contact with my defenders,the tigers joined in the assault.

i had hid the 57's either side of the map and waited till the tigers exposed their sides or rears. I had the 152's behind a little hill. i opened up with my 57's and then when the tigers turned to face the 57's i shooted and scooted my 152's.the 57's took out 2 tigers and my 152's the others.then i slaughtered their exposed infantry.

[JasonC]

Works for me. What's not to like?

Of course, the AI is a lot easier than humans are. But attackers still expose themselves and 57s still kill Tigers.

[para]

true about the ai.I always struggle against humans,but i managed a tcp/ip tactical victory attacking over one last week so i am happy.