Idea... How about a covering fire arc command???

[Lordfluffers]

Just had this minute flash of inspiration!

Why not have a covering fire arc command so support units such as mgs etc dont just aim at one place but try to spray fire across the area that the player tells them too. THis would be especially useful for covering troops crossing streets etc, because at the moment you can only tell a unit to fire at a specific point!

What do you think?

[Peterk]

Ummm...that's in the game already. Set up a normal firing arc and move your guy accross - any enemies in that arc that shows will get targetted. That's basically what you're asking for.

To fire at hidden enemies you have to use area fire - and that's not really specifically at one point, the effect area is larger than just the point you choose.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Peterk:

To fire at hidden enemies you have to use area fire - and that's not really specifically at one point, the effect area is larger than just the point you choose.

In fact it's TOO large, judging by the effect of Area Fire on an inhabited foxhole, to supress the unit *in* the foxhole. Area Fire "targetted" at a foxhole allows the unit in that foxhole to fire more easily than targetting that unit directly.

I've complained about the irony of area fire more than once- it fails to do just exactly what it is meant to do- suppress the enemy. And that happens every single game. LordFluffer's idea makes perfect sense and seems like a perfect solution to me .

Consider the sequence:

1) Enemy AT Gun in foxhole is firing

2) You fire at him

3) AT Gun "disappears"

4) You target the foxhole with Area Fire

5) AT Gun "reappears"

6) Your unit *continues* with Area Fire on the foxhole, rather than electing to directly target the unit, and the enemy remains unsupressed.

I don't know about you, but #6 doesn't float my boat. LordFluffer's idea seems to me a natural way to provide Area Fire over some certain arc, in a way compatible with the idea that an appearing enemy should be targetted directly should it be within that Arc.

Set up a normal firing arc and move your guy accross - any enemies in that arc that shows will get targetted.

NOT true. They *may* be targetted- the stated effect of an Arc is to *prohibit* fire outside the Arc. The manual does NOT state that giving an arc will make the unit *more likely* to open fire on an enemy appearing within range. Possibly they do, but for myself I've found them to be just as trigger happy without one. The unit's notion of what consitutes a worthwhile target seems independent of the existence of an arc, IME.

Getting back to LF's idea, a few Arcs would be neat:

1) Open Fire on anything appearing in this Arc, regardless of how dismal the chances of inflicting true damage are.

2) Add to #1 suppressive fire over the space of the arc, even when no enemy units are visible, (but they were seen previously).

3) Add to #2, suppressive fire over the space of the arc, even when no enemy units are known to have existed.

Eden

[russellmz]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

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

To fire at hidden enemies you have to use area fire - and that's not really specifically at one point, the effect area is larger than just the point you choose.

In fact it's TOO large, judging by the effect of Area Fire on an inhabited foxhole, to supress the unit *in* the foxhole. Area Fire "targetted" at a foxhole allows the unit in that foxhole to fire more easily than targetting that unit directly.

I've complained about the irony of area fire more than once- it fails to do just exactly what it is meant to do- suppress the enemy. And that happens every single game. LordFluffer's idea makes perfect sense and seems like a perfect solution to me .

Consider the sequence:

1) Enemy AT Gun in foxhole is firing

2) You fire at him

3) AT Gun "disappears"

4) You target the foxhole with Area Fire

5) AT Gun "reappears"

6) Your unit *continues* with Area Fire on the foxhole, rather than electing to directly target the unit, and the enemy remains unsupressed.

I don't know about you, but #6 doesn't float my boat. LordFluffer's idea seems to me a natural way to provide Area Fire over some certain arc, in a way compatible with the idea that an appearing enemy should be targetted directly should it be within that Arc.

Set up a normal firing arc and move your guy accross - any enemies in that arc that shows will get targetted.

NOT true. They *may* be targetted- the stated effect of an Arc is to *prohibit* fire outside the Arc. The manual does NOT state that giving an arc will make the unit *more likely* to open fire on an enemy appearing within range. Possibly they do, but for myself I've found them to be just as trigger happy without one. The unit's notion of what consitutes a worthwhile target seems independent of the existence of an arc, IME.

Getting back to LF's idea, a few Arcs would be neat:

1) Open Fire on anything appearing in this Arc, regardless of how dismal the chances of inflicting true damage are.

2) Add to #1 suppressive fire over the space of the arc, even when no enemy units are visible, (but they were seen previously).

3) Add to #2, suppressive fire over the space of the arc, even when no enemy units are known to have existed.

Eden</font>

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by russellmz:

are you sure about that?

Am I sure about what? There was a pretty beefy quote before that question.

could it just be hard to suppress that particular gun?

It may very well be. However, one thing we can all be sure of is that the gun will be more suppressed when directly targetted, than when area fire is laid down in the area of the foxhole. That seems prima facie evident, and it also seems to be the behaviour of the game. I'm not asking for a guarantee that the gun be supressed if I target it- I haven't said that at all.

from the demo tutorial scenario i remember seeing the gun, have it disappear due to efow, then i area targetted everything to supress it, and the thing did not fire again.

From the demo??? I observe this behaviour in virtually every scenario or QB I play, which is quite alot! I don't see how you could play a scenario with enemy AT guns and fail to witness this behaviour; it's truly common. At any rate, your observation that area fire *may* supress the gun does not alter the usefulness of the nifty ideas here. Once again, we are beginning with the belief that area fire is *less* supressive than direct targetting, not that area fire is completely useless.

Eden