Snicky said:
You've nailed it on the head. You don't always need dice in this game to render units ineffective (or put them in a downright precarious position!).
Question Suppression and "Allocated" dice
- Thread starter Bede
- Start date
You've nailed it on the head. You don't always need dice in this game to render units ineffective (or put them in a downright precarious position!).
hithero said:msprange said:hithero said:Like trying to get blood from a stone this isA yes or no answer to clarify would be appreciated Mathew, and if the squad in question cannot be suppressed then this is yet another serious flaw in the rules over common sense.
I am very sorry you feel that way. However, we have answered the question at least twice in this thread, plus given it space in the Player's Guide. I cannot agree that it is a flaw, serious or otherwise. YMMV.
It's not a flaw that you can deliberately keep 1 model hidden to prevent any suppression? Suppression is a big and important part of the game and at a stroke it has been reduced to almost nothing, hiding 1 man at the back should not prevent his comrades from ducking down out of the way of incomming fire.
I think what he means is that is seems a bit odd that you can pour enough fire onto 9 men to make them be suppressed but because one of them was not in the fire zone (doesn't matter whether it's LOS or just out of the zone) the entire unit is unaffected.
I chalk it up to a game design decision to keep things simple.
I do admit that I had been playing it so that if enough dice were thrown at a unit in one shoot action it was suppressed regardless of whether all the models were in a fire zone.
The way it's written (as opposed to the way I played it) makes suppression much less likely.
Bede said:
To avoid getting suppressed the player keeps one model out of sight; but that means that one model in the unit can't shoot; the unit also cannot move as far as it would like, because it has to keep all models within command distance.
And sometimes, just the threat of another unit is enough to keep a player from moving a unit into a better position.
OK here's an extension of the example that happens almost every game:
Said unit is defending a position in a ruin and will now keep one man safe out of sight and within 3" of all of the unit - immune to suppression.
The attackers across the street now wish to advance, maybe even assault the position. In real life you would now poor bullets into the building forcing the defenders heads down as your force manuevres - this can be done if you allow suppression dice to those out of sight and how most seem to be playing now.
But with the new rules you cannot do this because as soon as you move, possibly in the open as you cross the street, you will now be cut down by reaction fire and following that by normal fire. The game could now just end up as a static fire-fight.
So why the rule change? The new rule is not more accurate, easier or in any way better than being able to allocate suppression dice to models out of sight.
Said unit is defending a position in a ruin and will now keep one man safe out of sight and within 3" of all of the unit - immune to suppression.
The attackers across the street now wish to advance, maybe even assault the position. In real life you would now poor bullets into the building forcing the defenders heads down as your force manuevres - this can be done if you allow suppression dice to those out of sight and how most seem to be playing now.
But with the new rules you cannot do this because as soon as you move, possibly in the open as you cross the street, you will now be cut down by reaction fire and following that by normal fire. The game could now just end up as a static fire-fight.
So why the rule change? The new rule is not more accurate, easier or in any way better than being able to allocate suppression dice to models out of sight.
The tactics in the game do change with the different suppression rules, and I have no idea how realistically either way simulates warfare in 1944. Each way seems reasonable to me and each one would require a different way of playing the game. Either way of suppression doesn't break the game, just changes it.
-snick
-snick
hithero said:
If played as written, then that one guy who can't be hit, cannot shoot either. Depends on how large your unit is really. So you have five guys in a building, one is hiding. You pour fire into the building, hit one guy, only three is shooting back now, because the last one is still hiding.
Now, to assault a building, proper tactics dictate that you assault with at least twice the number to succeed, the more the better really. If it's a large unit inside the building, then you might not see everyone anyway because not everyone can fit in a window.
As Snicky said, the tactics change, not necessarily for worse. Never played the modern version either, so I don't know if it's a change or not.
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Laffe said:
It's definitely for the worse - if you could suppress the unit, you wouldn't have to worry about a "defensive fire" reaction if you were assaulting an enemy position (i.e. enemy in cover, buildings etc). As it stands, keeping one guy out of LOS makes it impossible to suppress the unit, and thus makes assaulting that much harder - yet assaulting should be the best way to root out entrenched infantry.
Regards,
Dave
Foxmeister said:
Umm. . .
Running towards entrenched infantry with bayonets and knives is the best way to root them out?
I understand what you are saying, but one unit charging another unit in this way does not work in this game, or in real life - you need a combination of units to do what you say.
It is highly unlikely (in the Real World) that one squad could do this to another squad. Once infantry become rooted in cover, they are very, very, VERY difficult to shift (check out reports from Stalingrad where a handful of Russians were able to hold off much larger numbers from a single building). This is the strength of infantry and I think it is very well modelled in the game. A squad in cover is a pain in the rear end, and you can see in the last WaW battle report what happened when paratroopers tried to storm ruins held by Volksgrenadier - it wasn't pretty!
There _are_ ways around the denied LOS tactic when you are facing a squad in cover. Use multiple units to flank them and get that LOS back. Even better, call in the big guns - mortars to lay Suppression Dice on all models regardless of LOS, tanks to blast buildings apart. And if that fails, a 500 lb. bomb or two will usually do the job.
You should have little trouble suppressing infantry caught out in the open (if they manage to survive the machine gun fire in the first place). But there is no easy route to lynching infantry from cover unless you are able to seriously outnumber them (applying overwhelming force on one specific point of the battlefield). In this, BF Evo models things nicely, I think.
A glory charge across open ground against an enemy hidden in cover is not the way to do it, and anyone who tries deserves the mountains of casualties they will suffer.
Although a human wave might have a serious go. . .
msprange said:
How would a combination of units help? If you can't include all the figures of a target in a fire zone, you can't suppress the target, period, regardless of how many units are shooting at that unit. So to avoid suppression you simply keep one figure out of LOS, 6" behind the leader while the rest of the models man the windows./doors.
What am I missing here?
MaskedFrog
Mongoose
The unit in cover can only react once. If you have multiple units charging, one unit can suck up the reaction fire while the other unit charges in.
Also, if a unit is large enough to be strung outside a Fire Zone, you are not going to be suppressing it anyway (though there are some weapons in the works that could have a serious go!).
msprange said:
I guess the presumes that there are no auto weapons firing. Is there any way to spread your men out far enough to avoid an auto weapon's fire zone? (not including putting one out of LOS). I can't think of how.
By the way, this implicates the question I've read before (and which I dont' think was answered) about what you do when you've got a squad with an auto weapon also firing regular weapons (e.g. a German squad firing Kar's and an MG34).
I presume the MG 34 has a 6" fire zone, the Kars have a 3" zone and if between those two you can put a die on each soldier in the target unit you could suppress it. Do I have it right?
It seems that one aspect of this discussion is about the ability for one squad to assault another squad that is in cover. I would think that any squad in cover would have an advantage, and it shouldn't be a forgone conclusion that a single assaulting unit can take them out. Multiple squads firing and maneuvering, use of weapons with lethal zones all used in a coordinated fashion would work best, but then the assaulting units will grossly out number the defenders in cover, which sounds like it would mimic historical accounts.
As the assaulting player I'd like to be able to suppress the enemy easily, as the player with defending units, I don't want to be easy cannon fodder for the opposition no matter what I do.
Still haven't played enough variations of the game to appreciate all of the nuances of the rules.
-snick
As the assaulting player I'd like to be able to suppress the enemy easily, as the player with defending units, I don't want to be easy cannon fodder for the opposition no matter what I do.
Still haven't played enough variations of the game to appreciate all of the nuances of the rules.
-snick
Bede said:
Aside from splitting fire teams, not in WaW. It will be possible in Modern Combat, though not common.
So what about the other part of the example and a unit just wants to suppress another so it can move? And the big question is, why can't a squad now suppress another?!! This is totally wrong, you keep saying, bomb 'em, nuke 'em or whatever, but the fact is a unit should no way be immune to suppression from another.
And I'll ask again, why the change from BFE which had suppression right and worked?
And I'll ask again, why the change from BFE which had suppression right and worked?
Snicky said:
That is precisely what we aimed to model with these rules.
Snicky said:
If you could, assaulting infantry in cover would be easy
Put another way, getting one guy to keep his head down might be relatively easy, but an entire unit, scattered around cover, would be very, very difficult. They are going to get their shots off at some point, which is what happens in the game.
_If_ you wanted some advanced rules, we did look at units retaining some of their Suppression Dice each time they are shot at, so multiple units will gradually suppress them, regardless of what they did individually. However, it is a level of complication that does not suit the game, and was so rarely used anyway to any good effect - it wasn't worth the inclusion (and went right against our mandate for keeping dice and counters off the table whenever possible!).
