Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AFV suppression

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> AFV suppression Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AFV suppression - 8/2/2000 9:08:00 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		more so a comment rather than a nitpick. Let me say from the beginning that i much prefer the suppression rules the way they are now vs. how it was back in the SP-1 days when highly experienced German halftrack crews could regularily rout inexperienced (and low moraled) Soviet tank crews by spraying them with machine gun fire even at long range. one concern though. Been noticing of late that even intensive close range MG fire clattering against target AFV's is causing zero suppression (and hence no 'buttoned' status) Gets a little frustrating when one is doing all they can (including the tossing of pots, pans and old K rations) to distract/reduce the enemy's ability to react and/or hit accurately in the heat of battle only to see it all go to naught. I've noticed that close range (1-3 hexes) infantry fire can cause some suppression points but this does'nt seem to happen with AFG MG fire. comments?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 8/2/2000 10:10:00 PM   
Seth

 

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline 		Shooting anything at a tank should give it 1 supression. Hitting it gives more, unless it's just small arms. I guess it would be different for light tanks, but even in a Sherman, I would feel quite safe listening to the gentle patter of MG bullets. Unless I had jerry cans outside Too bad there isn't a message like "M 13/40 Front hull hit by Bren LMG. Headlight broken."

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 2
- 8/2/2000 10:43:00 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		hmm, so i guess i can tell my roommate that i'm not alone in the world when i compare the soft soothing sounds of the rain pitter pattering off the deck to the pitter patter of machine gun bullets bouncing off my cupola. ;-)

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 3
- 8/3/2000 1:51:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		They are getting suppressed, but the improved "end of turn suppression removal" is likely removing the little they get. Depending the situation (friends nearby, entrenched and hidden status and teh proxity to an "HQ tent") a certain amout of suppression is removed at the end of the turn whether you rally or not. Tanks inherantly "unsupress" quicker than transport classes and infantry. Try saving the game in the middle after you shoot the Tank and look at the file in Fred's Editor. You will probably see the suppressin, but if its fairly small, there is a good chance it will "evaporate" at the end of the turn. You need at least a whole platoon (with an MG or two) all shooting at the tank 4 or 5 times each to get enough suppression to worry it very much.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 4
- 8/3/2000 9:40:00 AM   
Redleg


Posts: 1805
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline 		Just yesterday, I caused 2 1943 German tank crews to bail out with concentrated MG/infantry fire. But I had to bang away on them for several turns..... This was default TQ setting so the German crews were quite high quality. Redleg

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 5
- 8/3/2000 10:38:00 AM   
Skotty

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 7/18/2000
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: offline 		Just a side tangent to this thread, but after a couple of accurate MG bursts on a AFV, would it not make sense that the AAMG become umanned and shots for that weapon become unavailable right away and then possibly a exp check before they become manned again. I would think this would especially apply to light tanks w/ 50cal AAMGs since the crewman manning the weapon would be outside of the turret. Just a thought.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 6
- 8/3/2000 12:54:00 PM   
Don

 

Posts: 810
Joined: 7/12/2000
From: Elk Grove, CA (near Sacramento)
Status: offline 		I find it funny that anyone would comment on a LACK of suppression, when all I find is way too much of it. This is a superb game, but I wish there was a way suppression could be included without being so dominate in some situations. In "Maleme", for example, I must have hit that damn "r" button a thousand times in the first 2 turns. I finally said the hell with it, and went to something else. This is not something the scenario designer can do anything about, it's just a feature of the game. Sometimes it just turns into a "battle of suppression", and that's not what I'm looking for. I believe that as the SP games have evolved, supression has been "adjusted" to make it more or less of a factor, and I for one would like to see it made less of a factor. Thanks to all the guys for a truly great game! Don

_____________________________

Don "Sapper" Llewellyn

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 7
- 8/3/2000 7:15:00 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		really? heh, well just goes to show how opinions and experiences can vary. me? I tend to see a surprising lack of suppression. Just finished the large Bleinhem Blunder scenerio. Once more found it a rare occurance when a unit, armored or infantry would flee (bailed crews excepted) Figured this was the previously explained end-of-turn suppression reduction built into the code. I understand the reasoning though at times have to admit, not sure i agree with them, mainly because it often results in units being decimated in short order. Does keep one on their toes though, advancing after a heavy fire phase is not the near-gurantee it used to be, especially for the grunts! only time i've seen mucho heavy after-turn suppression has been after a mortar bombardment

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 8
- 8/3/2000 7:21:00 PM   
Arralen


Posts: 827
Joined: 5/21/2000
Status: offline 		You really worry about suppression? Never had any problems with this - not too much, not too few, just right Ineffective dierct HE fire, "out of contact" problems with either Arty and Inf. - even when the HQ unit was in the same hex .. some nasty problems; but 'bout suppresion I can't complain. Arralen

_____________________________

AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Seagate Barracuda SATA III 1TB
Windows 8.1

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 9
- 8/3/2000 8:47:00 PM   
renwor

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: czech republic
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Seth: Too bad there isn't a message like "M 13/40 Front hull hit by Bren LMG. Headlight broken."
"Sherman motor cover hit by sniper rifle, luncheon can shot off."

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 10
- 8/3/2000 9:08:00 PM   
Epicurius

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Texarkana, AR
Status: offline 		This is a really intresting subject. More intresting then what I think most may feel it is. You see, the concept of suppression in any game of tactical combat is an attempt to duplicate the heat of battle that happens when you are fired on. Games have to do this in stages of higher and higher "levels" until the unit reaches some level of "inactivity" due to that fire. SPWAW does this very well IMO as far as the Ready, Pinned, Routed, and Retreating levels are conserned. I have seen infantry in a "buttoned" status which I passed off as just a little quirk in the code, because the infantry acted as if they were Pinned. My problem with suppression is that the HE of tanks and Arty are too little. MG fire is modeled pretty good. It is just really funny that A Tiger can fire its 88 into a squad of US infantry in open ground and not produce hardly any kills, and the suppression that it does cause is nullified at the end of the turn or in the first part of the next turn when the squad rallies all the way from pinned to ready and able to serve. All this after 4 rounds of HE from an 88 blowing up in a 50 meter area around these guys. I was never in battle or the military, which does not give me a very stable foundation to talk of such things, but still I feel as if the tactic of using your tanks to bombard a tree line so that your infantry can advance on it to "mop up" the shell shocked defender infantry is kind of nullified. Some have spoken of "combined arms" warfare in this and many other threads today. Due to what I speak of above, my tactics in this game have moved from keeping my infantry around my tanks to protect them from AT infantry but to keep my tanks around my infantry to protect them from other infantry. Mind you in this situation my main gun is not doing the protecting, it is the MGs on the tank. I would appreciate some input on this. I may be misplaying my units and would like to learn how others are doing this. I hear some high praise on mortar fire in some other threads. I have not seen ANY type of arty dropping HE on ANYTHING cause ANY thing other than negligable damage. The guys I play with agree with me on this so we have just stopped using arty for its damage value and only for its smoke value. Someone please give me some info on this. Thanks. Scott

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 11
- 8/3/2000 9:29:00 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		HE fire IMHO needs to be increased, and though this is probably 'the' most controversial topic in the history of SP (arty effectiveness, i've seen the same thing over in the SP:WWII camp) Though i can appreciate not wanting to have artillery be an overwhelming factor the game the resulting unbalance vs cheaper weapons like bolt action rifles and MG's always leaves a taste of the unreal in this one's mouth. Ironically enough, the game is based on the SP3 engine, which though a tad lethal seemed to have this elusive balance. MG's retained their lethality and had to be respected. Dedicated howitzer platoons (either towed or SP) that caught a moving inf group out in the open produced devastating effects) now though inf can pretty much ignore the rules of war vs singular HE peices. Indirect bombardment seems ok. Mortar's especially are effective at producing large #'s of suppression points. version 3 will allegedly increase HE for direct fire weapons somewhat. I'm eargarly awaiting getting my grasping paws on it to test it out! :-) [This message has been edited by Nikademus (edited August 03, 2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 12
- 8/4/2000 3:38:00 AM   
Don

 

Posts: 810
Joined: 7/12/2000
From: Elk Grove, CA (near Sacramento)
Status: offline 		It is interesting that others don't see the supression as a problem, as I do. Maybe it's because SPWaW is my first SP game and I'm not used to the feature. But having to hit "r" 1-4 times every time I return fire drives me nuts! Several times I've had a squad fired on by two squads and had supression of 23! I keep rout-rally at 200% or half of my troops would be useless. This is an interesting discussion, and hearing other's views helps alot. One problem I haven't seen is my armor getting supressed - just my infantry. Other problems like out-of-contact Arty, super tough fortifications, etc. don't bother me as I (in my inexperience) just figure that's part of real-life war and just see it as something to deal with. Supression is also a huge factor in war, but I would just like to see it handled a little differently. I can't wait for V3.0 and try out the new features! Don

_____________________________

Don "Sapper" Llewellyn

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 13
- 8/4/2000 3:51:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		Real small unit actions take a whole lot longer in reallife than they do in games. 3 or 4 hours for a Btn level action (several Companies on a side) was not uncommon. That is 60 or 80 turns in SP:WaW. Why? Becasue when folks are trying to kill you, self preservation tells you to keep your head down and stay put unless you have a VERY good reason to move. That "stay put with your head down" tendency is "suppression". AS it is the game allows it a wide latitude to "keep the game moving". If we were historical every 5 or 6 turns you might rally a platoon even to make a rush on the enemy , if you were lucky, you might get a whole company to do so in a somewhat coordinated manner. I posted advance rates and casualty figures from British War Office documents on another thread. They aren't fast. So while suppression might crimp your style, remember your little cyber Joe's in there and think about what it would take to run 100 yards to the stone building across the LOS of that MG...or stick your head up to fire a bazooka at the Tiger tank shelling you and your buddies. Its puts suppression in a different light :-)

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 14
- 8/4/2000 4:12:00 AM   
Don

 

Posts: 810
Joined: 7/12/2000
From: Elk Grove, CA (near Sacramento)
Status: offline 		Well let me confess what an idiot I've been. I was just informed by email about RIGHT-CLICKING just once to reduce all the supression at one time. I don't know how I missed this- I've been through the manual a number of times. Duh-wee! But it does make me very happy as now this great game will be even more enjoyable! It wont affect the amount of suppression the trrops are put under ( and you guys are correct - HE and Arty fire doesn't have the effect it should, like mortars), but just reducing all the clicking I was doing will help alot! And thanks for your answer, Paul! You guys are incredible - we take it for granted that you will see our posts and respond when this is a rare and very valuable asset to us gamers! Don

_____________________________

Don "Sapper" Llewellyn

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 15
- 8/4/2000 5:46:00 AM   
Windo von Paene

 

Posts: 174
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		yes what's up with that right-click business. I don't use it, butI'm interested in why it is there. What benefit is there to NOT right-clicking? I think I know the answer but I'd like to hear other's opinions.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 16
- 8/21/2000 9:06:00 AM   
Desert Fox

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline 		I think everyone can agree that direct HE fire on infantry is pretty much useless. I originally started a german campaign with the fantastic idea that I would have a designated infantry support platoon of AFVs. So I upgraded cheap units into SiGs and Brumbars, thinking they would decimate infantry, and eventually hoping to upgrade them to the Sturmtiger. Well I was unpleasantly suprised. My infantry support AFVs were not only useless against armor (Well not totally useless, I did manage to kill a few T-34s from behind at very close range, but they rarely, if ever, hit the damn things.), but these big 150mm guns did nothing to infantry. I was lucky if I got 1 casualty per turn, and that would only happen if I was shooting a full squad. Suppression was negligalbe as well. I don't know, but I think that if someone started dropping 150mm shells all around me, I wouldn't be getting up for the next half hour, whether I was physically able to or not. Anyways, I eventually gave up hope of every putting those things to real use. I do hope that this new direct fire modification significantly improves the effectiveness of these types of units. The sturmtiger could demolish a 3 story building with one round. Lets hope it can at least keep a squad from getting up for a few turns in v3.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 17
- 8/21/2000 10:49:00 AM   
orc4hire

 

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline 		Oh, I don't know... I've had US direct fire HE cause 6 casualties per shot on anti-tank gun crews. Repeatedly.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 18
- 8/21/2000 11:59:00 AM   
Desert Fox

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by orc4hire: Oh, I don't know... I've had US direct fire HE cause 6 casualties per shot on anti-tank gun crews. Repeatedly.
Yeah, but that is a feature. The logic behind it is that the crew is very close together, so one lucky shot could knock out the whole squad. This theory is applied to MGs too. Personally, I don't like it. The crews get no bonus for this increased vulnerability, nor is it even feasible to have an experienced AT gun force because of this. I also think it happens too often. It should happen just as often as turret ring kills. I also doubt how realistic this feature is. As far as I know, this kind of thing would only happen with a well placed airburst. And I don't believe tank-fired rounds did airbursts all that often, if ever. Of course, even then, the probability that it would wipe out the entire crew has to be 1 in 10000, at least. Anyways, I think it should be changed, probably just deleted, but its not high on my wish list since I focus on armor, not guns.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 19
- 8/21/2000 12:47:00 PM   
orc4hire

 

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline 		Oh, I figured it had something to do with the nature of the crew served weapon, but it seems to happen most of the time the crew is damaged... at least when it's happening to _my_ crews. I've never caused more than 1 casualty with any direct fire HE vs any target, but my AT gun crews seem to take 6 casualties more often than they take 1. It's either none, 1, or 6 (okay, there was a 5 once). Never 2,3, or 4. Perhaps I'm just chaffed because I'm always on the receiving end....

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 20
- 8/21/2000 8:37:00 PM   
Seth

 

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline 		Well, I see we are once more in the future. Anyone got Lotto numbers for me? Anyway, someone was asking what the possible benefit of NOT right-clicking was. One situation would be: Your 0 unit has 8 supression and your 1 unit has 68 supression. You could right-click on the 0 unit to rally it, but why risk having it fail going from 2 to 1, when it may be able to get your 1 unit from 34 to 17?

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 21
- 8/5/2000 2:51:00 AM   
Kharan

 

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline 		I think everyone can agree that direct HE fire on infantry is pretty much useless. You should have played SPWW2 2.x, in which all tanks were infantry fodder . You were lucky if your Tiger's MG got a kill, and it was a miracle of God if HE ever did anything. If I exaggarate a bit, one engineer squad could walk across a field picking flowers to where 3 ISU-152's were firing at him and nonchalantly blow them up with a few satchel charges. We ended up setting infantry toughness to 60% where tanks got kills occasionally, but where infantry vs infantry battles weren't total butcher. Still, I think our games were generally going to him who just bought more infantry, and we were seeing tanks less and less. (As a side note, when I finally voiced this lack of balance, it was the day before SPWAW 1.0 was released of which I had been completely unaware of.) Now with SPWAW and default settings, most of the time if the hit% is good, SIGs, Brummbars and Tigers get 1 kill with just their cannon rounds, and 2-3's aren't too uncommon (I just saw a Brummbar kill 1 man in 3 separate teams with one shot). It's also good that HE, both direct and indirect can cause suppression and casualties in adjacent hexes. Anyway, now tanks at least have a fighting chance against masses of infantry, and there has been much healthier combined arms-playing. Is handling of HE totally "realistic"? Probably not. Has SPWAW got good play balance? Yes, I would say so, although we're just starting . Oh, and I ran a test where one ISU-152 tried to stop a incoming platoon of 3 german engineer squads with HE only. The tank opened fire at a range of 9 hexes. The FIRST SHOT killed 2 men and caused 2 of the squads to become retreating and one to become routed. After that it got only a few kills and I had to turn the AAMG on to stop the enemy. So SP-guns without a MG can still be a bit toothless, I'll give you that. If Matrix tweaks (tank) HE to be a bit more deadly in v3.0, I'm not the one to complain. What are your experiences with aircraft? Comparing to SPWW2 v2.x, rockets and cannons have been toned down, bombs toned up, and AA fire has been made more accurate. These with the experience check to see if the plane will stay and heightened costs (?) does make buying them hazardous. I think planes like Stukas and Yaks which are about 150 points a pair can be useful. But 396 points for 2 Dornier 217E-2's! That's almost 4 Tigers. Guess which purchase is ten times more useful? I can't get SPWW2 v3.0 for a few weeks. What's the story with it regarding HE? And if you move a unit next to a enemy, does the enemy *always* get to shoot back like in earlier versions?

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> AFV suppression Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.297