Usefulness of supressive fire at area targets?

[Malakovski]

This is something I never, ever did in BO with MGs or squads, but I've seen it mentioned in several threads now. So...does it work? And if so, what is it's area of effect?

It always bothered me target a single point which was probably near, but not right on top of, an enemy unit, even though I knew there would be some spread, at least with support weapons.

A "suppress arc" command would be great, but since it's abstracted, does anyone know the unseen details of how it works?

Or do I just need to go RTFM?

[akdavis]

Hard to tell with MGs, but I did notice that when I gave an area fire order to a couple of 88s, they plastered an area about 100m deep and 20m wide around the target point. As a matter of fact, I knew there was some Russian inf about 60m or so back in some tall pines, but was unable to target them. Instead I targeted the edge hex of the forest along a straight line from the guns to the Russian squads. A percentage of the shells fell well beyond the aim point, causing a handful of casualties amongst the Russians.

Ooh, an interesting anecdote from this same battle: I previously had these same 2 88s firing repeatedly at a dead KV, try to make it brew up(which took and incredible number of penetrations, 88 AP is solid shot I guess). In the middle of a turn, I noticed one of my routed tank crews running behind the KV trying to reach a treeline. Just as the crew passed 20m or so behind the KV, an 88 shot ricocheted off the KV's hull armor. I watched helplessly as the shot flew off at an angle and intersected with the fleeing tank crew. Following a painful scream, the crew went from 3 to 2 men. I imagine that solid piece of 88 shot beheaded one of the poor bastards. War is hell.

[ October 01, 2002, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]

[sage2]

Assuming the painful scream came from the crewman that was hit by the 88mm shot, it seems unlikely he was beheaded. On the other hand, the scream might have come from the fellow that covered with the mushy bits of the actual victim.

You'd be surprised what CMBB models. :=)

[Renaud]

I regard suppressive fire as critical to keeping casualties down. I'll trade ammo for lives any day. As the US infantry adage states: "When in doubt, frag it out".

In the demo yelnia scenario as russians I can get a total victory with under 8% casualties by using all the ammo from all the support weapons and tanks to plaster all the likely enemy positions that may have LOS as my troops make their next move. This allows me to get in close with far fewer casualties and decent unit cohesion. If you get lucky you may take out a gun or arty spotter as a bonus.

In general I find it critical to suppress known and suspected enemy positions prior to making an observed move with my troops.

This game is starting to get pretty realistic... If you were running a banana republic military and needed to do some small-unit infantry training on the cheap, I think you could actually get some mileage out of this game.

Ren

PS when I win the lottery I'm going to write a check to BTS for a modern day version of CM!

[Grisha]

I firmly second Renaud's comments.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Grisha:

I firmly second Renaud's comments.

I will third them, if it helps. Without cover fire, the entire Russian army gets "squirm fever" really fast... At least for me.

But there's one thing I've had a problem with concerning "Area Fire" which y'all must have seen too. Suppose my tank is firing at an AT Gun, eg.

Then the Gun "disappears", replaced by just a symbol, say a Maltese cross.

Well I'm not about to forget that gun... I want my tank to flatten that whole section of forest, so I command it to give "Area Fire", possibly right where it says "foxhole". So I do.

Then the Gun *reappears*. OK, fine. But the tank I've ordered to give Area Fire CONTINUES to do so- it just ignores the Gun which is now out and firing!!! It will give Area Fire until the end of the game, or until it is fired upon.

Have you seen that too? I've tried everything, like giving arcs and whatnot. Surely the enemy in the foxhole is more important than the foxhole itself!!

Eden

[akdavis]

That's my biggest problem with laying down area fire. If I can't see the nme, I'd like to supress him, but I'd rather my support weapons switched to visible targets under most circumstances, but unless directly threatened they don't seem to. Oh well. Just hope nothing nasty pops up in the middle of a turn.

[Malakovski]

I know suppressive fire is critical, but I've always waited until a unit was actually visible to blow the hell out of it. In BO, that was good enough. Squads were pretty instantly surpressed by massed firepower and didn't do much harm if they did get off a few shots before hitting the dirt.

Now, this is no longer the case. It seems that squads supress easily unless they're shooting at another squad, in which case they will keep firing to the bitter end!

E.g., last night, I was attacking an objective in old BO style, with a dozen tanks in view of the area, with HMGs and mortars, just waiting for someone to poke their heads up. I moved one platoon into the open, which was promptly fired on by a platoon. Perfect, now I know where they are, and said platoon, of course, instantly drew the fire of all dozen tanks, HMGs, mortars, and two other squads in cover, all within 100m. Very impressive. The explosions looked like strobe lights. Tracers everywhere. The mad minute. However, the enemy was not surpressed by this, and mangled by squad in less than a minute.

Now, I don't think attacking infantry is too brittle in BB. Seems quite realistic, but shouldn't those defenders have been a little daunted by that barage?

Anyway, I'm getting off topic. The point is, my old supressive methods are inadequate. Question, then, is, will shelling/spraying suspected enemy positions before they start shooting at my boys do any more good than the old technique? And if so, how is this method employed? Target the suspected position, or behind it, as one post elsewhere suggested?

Just looking for some general discussion of a tactic I never needed before.

[Renaud]

Malakovski,

Sounds like you have the right idea. The reason it doesn't work as well in CMBB seems to be that you need to suppress the enemy BEFORE they open fire. If they get pinned they won't rise to start firing. Also I don't think they can spot your crawling troops as well. Of course the ammo usage is such that it's only possible in attack/assault scenarios and you are the attacker.

Make sure and combine your overwatch with stealthy movement on the part of your squads. Another option: break out a few squads into teams and have them crawl up slowly in order to force the enemy to open up. I'm able to get infantry into the russian positions this way in the 'Cemetary Hill' Scenario, by crawling a few squads up under an intense sheet of cover fire. Or, very short fast moves in and out of sight if you have that option, as in cities.

Also, I discovered that russian tank-riding infantry will cling to their tanks even under some MG fire. They don't seem to hop off as fast as CM, or maybe it's just my cover fire. They seem more 'sticky'. I've run them up the flank under a smokescreen before in Yelnia...it works if you simultaneously pound all the likely enemy positions in view of your route. Give them a good 6-10 minutes of constant pounding before attempting.

Ren

[dalem]

Area fire is key. I was a big fan of Area fire even in BO.

In CM:BO things were skewed toward the attacker because MGs were relatively weak and default infantry morale was relatively strong. Generally as we all played and played we got the impression that attacking was maybe "too easy".

Now in BB, in my first several games anyway, I see that things are now skewed in favor of the defender slightly: MGs are relatively stronger, default morale is relatively weaker, and that makes Area Fire for Suppression that much more important for the attacker, as others have already pointed out quite well. But since the current engine models Area Fire relatively (can you tell I like that qualifier?) weakly, the balance slides past "even" toward the defender.

Why do I say Area Fire is modelled relatively weakly? Well, because we can't really define a true "area" to suppress. I can't order an MG to "sweep" along a wall or treeline, and I can't order a tank or gun/mortar to string a pattern of shells into a certain area - instead I have to define a point target and the fire is presumably dispersed in area centered on that point. A subtle difference in some instances, a nasty one in others.

Hopefully the engine rewrite will give us the ability to "drag & define" beaten zones (or whatever they're called) for Area Fire. Obviously in that case the bigger the defined area the less effective suppression would be. I don't think it's any more game-affecting than the MG issue is in BO though.

Also, keep in mind that the manual points out that with Extreme Fog of War on, Area Fire is even more important because troops that are Suppresssed in cover often go prone, and drop to a contact symbol, whch isn't a valid point target. So to keep Suppression going through a turn, target the area right near the target more often than not.

I am already tending to stay away from point fire with my supporting MGs. I'll let the the AI switch targets for regular infantry, but if I see an MG or mortar that I want suppressed for the turn, I'll Area Target an MG or two near it myself.

-dale

[Grisha]

Again, Renaud is dead on. When I finally figured out suppressive fire's use in the demo, I played Yelnia Stare again. On turn one, my entire Soviet force opened up on the treeline of the two flag areas, continuing into next turn when I successfully got three platoons to their first objectives without a hitch. And this was against the AI, which doesn't hold fire if it can make a reasonable shot.

[Grisha]

And like dalem, I prefer area fire to actual targetting unless the target's destruction is of paramount importance or a certain thing. Area fire suppresses over a wider area, and will also inflict casualties over time.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Malakovski:

Now, I don't think attacking infantry is too brittle in BB. Seems quite realistic, but shouldn't those defenders have been a little daunted by that barage?

In Yelnia, it has happened a few times that an Axis HMG will draw my wrath very early, maybe first turn, and I will bring to bear on him six tanks (main ammo), at least that many mortars, and a bazillion MGs... so many yellow lines I can't see the ground anymore!

Yet for all that, HMG may very well remain at "Cautious" or even "OK"!!! That seems to me so much firepower that the foxhole itself will not be "OK"!! Earthmoving, Russian style!

That hasn't happened since I've been doing EFOW, though- those days were Partial. Matters? Anyhow,

Eden

[MrNoobie]

Hopefully the engine rewrite will give us the ability to "drag & define" beaten zones (or whatever they're called) for Area Fire. Obviously in that case the bigger the defined area the less effective suppression would be. I don't think it's any more game-affecting than the MG issue is in BO though.

what a wonderful idea..i like...

[Sabrewolf]

I have that episodes with gun disappearing and having to target the foxhole. In my case I find it really useful if they dont target the gun when it reappears cause when the gun is pinned it's gonna 'disappear' again and then you will stop firing.

Instead just area fire the exact foxhole with at least a tank and you'll be sure the gun will always be knocked out after a few direct hit to the foxhole itself due to the blast.

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by MrNoobie:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Hopefully the engine rewrite will give us the ability to "drag & define" beaten zones (or whatever they're called) for Area Fire. Obviously in that case the bigger the defined area the less effective suppression would be. I don't think it's any more game-affecting than the MG issue is in BO though.

what a wonderful idea..i like...</font>

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Sabrewolf:

Instead just area fire the exact foxhole with at least a tank and you'll be sure the gun will always be knocked out after a few direct hit to the foxhole itself due to the blast.

Hmmm I see what you're saying, but I think you see what I'm saying too- this maybe should qualify as a low priority quasi-bug or something. I don't have the feeling that leaving my tank on Area Fire of foxhole is as directly affecting the AT Gun as, well, targeting the Gun. Id est, it really is an "Area" fire, and the Gun is more free to blow my comrade tank away...

Next time I will try just giving a tiny little Cover Armor over the foxhole, with *no* Area Fire. That should "work", but still, we have to feel that it should be possible to give the command "Fire at that Gun until he's eliminated, whether you can currently see him or not, tovaridge."

Eden

[dalem]

Originally posted by Malakovski:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MrNoobie:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Hopefully the engine rewrite will give us the ability to "drag & define" beaten zones (or whatever they're called) for Area Fire. Obviously in that case the bigger the defined area the less effective suppression would be. I don't think it's any more game-affecting than the MG issue is in BO though.

what a wonderful idea..i like...</font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

Next time I will try just giving a tiny little Cover Armor over the foxhole, with *no* Area Fire. That should "work", but still, we have to feel that it should be possible to give the command "Fire at that Gun until he's eliminated, whether you can currently see him or not, tovaridge."

Eden

What you're describing is exactly what's modeled right now: firing at a point on the ground in hopes of affecting something that you know is there but you can't see.

-dale

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by dalem:

]Not a chance before the complete engine rewrite and CM II, Mal. I asked.

-dale

DAMN...oh well, I guess I'll just have to settle for playing the best tactical game ever created until then...*sigh*.

Regarding the targetting issue, I've always wished my units would be a little less bull-headed about following orders when a new, dangerous unit is spotted that's going to kill them, or, contrarywise, backing away from a unit I've ordered them specifically to engage.

Ah well...minor quibbles.

[Sabrewolf]

I found that you should not use a cover armor fire over a known gun position when it is hiding.

You should straight away area fire that foxhole cause gun seldom move from their initial position and you really want to get the initial fire over gun because they can take some punishment while most tank only take 1 hit to get knocked out or scared the crew to bail out.

If you use a cover armor your tank won't fire until the gun fire at you which often will be too late.