Imagine that your infantry stands on the same hex as the enemy soldiers. You fire at the enemy and a 90% chance you will kill one or more of your soldiers but none of the enemy. This happens very often and makes me mad. It also happens when computer shoots at my troops within the same hex as his soldiers are. It is just too extreme.
I DO NOT LIKE IT. It would be best to fix it. It wasn´t present in the versions before. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
Killing my own soldiers
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
gappa
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Czech Republic - THE REAL HEART OF EUROPE
- Contact:
Killing my own soldiers
It is nice to be important
but is it more
important to be nice.
Gappa
but is it more
important to be nice.
Gappa
Actually, it was.
And, it's not broken, so it doesn't need to be fixed. Blue on Blue fire is very realistic, both then, and now, as the Marines in Saudi in '90.
Why do more of your guys die in that situation. Because, they tend to be in less cover then the enemy since they moved to contact.
The best way to deal with this is to suprress the target enemy infantry with covering fire, then move your guys into the the hex for melee/fire.
If the enemy moves into a routed/broken Blue unit, reaction fire tends to hit both squads evenly, and on your turn rally your unit and fire with it first.
Overall, IMO, we need *more* features like this that stress realism in combat.
A Proud Fan of the World Champion New England Patriots,
Alex.
And, it's not broken, so it doesn't need to be fixed. Blue on Blue fire is very realistic, both then, and now, as the Marines in Saudi in '90.
Why do more of your guys die in that situation. Because, they tend to be in less cover then the enemy since they moved to contact.
The best way to deal with this is to suprress the target enemy infantry with covering fire, then move your guys into the the hex for melee/fire.
If the enemy moves into a routed/broken Blue unit, reaction fire tends to hit both squads evenly, and on your turn rally your unit and fire with it first.
Overall, IMO, we need *more* features like this that stress realism in combat.
A Proud Fan of the World Champion New England Patriots,
Alex.
"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.
Originally posted by Gappa:
Imagine that your infantry stands on the same hex as the enemy soldiers. You fire at the enemy and a 90% chance you will kill one or more of your soldiers but none of the enemy. This happens very often and makes me mad. It also happens when computer shoots at my troops within the same hex as his soldiers are. It is just too extreme.
I DO NOT LIKE IT. It would be best to fix it. It wasn´t present in the versions before. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
It was fixed before, but has migrated back into the game. Some folks think it's realistic, but I agree it's a farce. If indeed casualties were inflicted evenly it would be a lot easier to swallow, but the disproportion is probably what angers players who agree it's excessive.
Perhaps if hexsizes were 10m instead of 50m it would be more realistic to imply 20 soldiers were engaged in hand to hand combat and not in line defence.
"In light of my experience, I consider that your conclusion that the attacker needs a three to one superiority is under the mark, rather than over it. I would say that, for success, the attacker needs six to one or seven to one against a well-knit defence
I too believe its a joke... Especially when it comes to armor in the same hex. I mean, come on, if the hex is suppposed to be 50 yards wide, and i'm right next to it, there no way in hell i'm going to hit my armor 9 times out of 10, instead of th enemy...
Thats almost as bad as your air support ALWAYS going after your armor, instead of the enemy, even when your armor is on the other side of the map as where you ordered your air support to aim at..
Both items are stabs at reality that need adjusting...
Thats almost as bad as your air support ALWAYS going after your armor, instead of the enemy, even when your armor is on the other side of the map as where you ordered your air support to aim at..
Both items are stabs at reality that need adjusting...
-
Belisarius
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
I don't mind having large losses amongst infantry due to friendly fire, but the tank part is just absurd. (ofcourse, there's limited visibility, problems distinguishing friend tank from evil tank in a battle - but not THAT difficult)
<font size=-2>and will you yanks stop calling your domestic leauge winners "world champions" already?...*grr* </font>
<font size=-2>and will you yanks stop calling your domestic leauge winners "world champions" already?...*grr* </font>
Got StuG?
-
Kanon Fodder
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Portland, Orrygun
- Contact:
While we're on the topic ...
Another thing that irks me is when the enemy unit still in the same hex as my infantry and/or tank takes Opportunity Fire through smoke at a unit (even as small as an FO) several hexes distant.
I would think they might be pre-occupied.
(Pun intended)
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Another thing that irks me is when the enemy unit still in the same hex as my infantry and/or tank takes Opportunity Fire through smoke at a unit (even as small as an FO) several hexes distant.
I would think they might be pre-occupied.
(Pun intended)
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">
-
gappa
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Czech Republic - THE REAL HEART OF EUROPE
- Contact:
I agree that friendly fire is realistic.
But as I already said its just too much of it.
Its a paradox - you fire a 150mm round from a sIG33 for example to a hex with enemy soldiers, no one will die (higly improved in 7.0, i agre <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> )
if the hex is 50mx50m then its OK. But what about fire from rifles, MGs, SMGs? it is just TOO EFFECTIVE. Maybe it is caused by that the weapons used by my soldiers are tuned better to kill my own <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
In any case - SP WAW RULEZ!
But as I already said its just too much of it.
Its a paradox - you fire a 150mm round from a sIG33 for example to a hex with enemy soldiers, no one will die (higly improved in 7.0, i agre <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> )
if the hex is 50mx50m then its OK. But what about fire from rifles, MGs, SMGs? it is just TOO EFFECTIVE. Maybe it is caused by that the weapons used by my soldiers are tuned better to kill my own <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
In any case - SP WAW RULEZ!
It is nice to be important
but is it more
important to be nice.
Gappa
but is it more
important to be nice.
Gappa
I have had my tanks flattened by my own aircraft, my infantry and tanks hit by my offensive and defensive fire. This, I thought is what every one is griping anbout -- and it does stink...
Then, a few games later, an allied plane took out a british tank about 5 hexes from my line (was I relieved!). A MG opened up on a position an enemy squad moved into and took out two of my people and half of theirs. (I was extatic; my melee next turn was quite good.)
I note both, so I'm not sure that there is an actual imbalance, or a perceived one. When deciding whether something works as we see it, you need to record the times it works for you AND against you. After keeping notes on the occurrances over a few situations and games, you get a feel for the engine averages.
I find that if I isolate, suppress nearby units, then move to attack, I don't get nearly the friendly fire and opposition fire damages I used to get. Even when my own units DF into hexes I occupy, the losses (over time) seem to be about even. Firing into a hex you just sent troops into realy isn't a good tactical plan IMHO. <img src="redface.gif" border="0">
[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Challenge ]</p>
Then, a few games later, an allied plane took out a british tank about 5 hexes from my line (was I relieved!). A MG opened up on a position an enemy squad moved into and took out two of my people and half of theirs. (I was extatic; my melee next turn was quite good.)
I note both, so I'm not sure that there is an actual imbalance, or a perceived one. When deciding whether something works as we see it, you need to record the times it works for you AND against you. After keeping notes on the occurrances over a few situations and games, you get a feel for the engine averages.
I find that if I isolate, suppress nearby units, then move to attack, I don't get nearly the friendly fire and opposition fire damages I used to get. Even when my own units DF into hexes I occupy, the losses (over time) seem to be about even. Firing into a hex you just sent troops into realy isn't a good tactical plan IMHO. <img src="redface.gif" border="0">
[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Challenge ]</p>
Challenge
War is unhealthy for die-stamped cardboard and other paper products.
War is unhealthy for die-stamped cardboard and other paper products.
The issue of friendly fire, as I see it, is one of the elements of SPWaW that only adds to its realism. I've been a victim of it during gameplay, too. However, it has usually been as a result of getting my forward elements a little too close to called-in off-board arty. The infamous "short rounds" have given me grief too many times for me to count. I've also had squads blundering on top of a cave complex, and getting shot up by my own troops giving covering fire to allow them to escape. I do recall having read that during the Pacific War, the US Army did a study of this. In the battle for Bougainville, IIRC, the US casualties attributed to "friendly fire" was around 30% of the total losses, and the majority of those were due to small-arms, NOT artillery. In that light, the SPWaW model doesn't veer too far from historical reality. Another example is a scene from "Platoon". Taylor's outfit gets surprised by an NVA patrol in the middle of the night. Everyone wakes up and starts shooting. Someone from the back of the ambush position throws a grenade, and it lands short. One of the friendlies suffers the consequences. It's a simple fact that a bullet or shell doesn't differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys, if you're unfortunate enough to get in the way of one.
[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: KG Erwin ]</p>
[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: KG Erwin ]</p>
Freindly fire is a fact. I think it might be too extreme, but it should be there.
Remember, it is a fifty yard hex, measuring 50 yards from corner to corner. But also remember that in the game format when you enter a hex with the enemy you are considered in a melee type of situation. You know you can't even enter the hex unless the enemy has some disruption or your force is overpowering.
Now the picture here is that of soldiers only a few yards apart, blasting at each other, some locked in bayonet combat. Picture that. Friendly and enemy all mixed in together. That is what the game portrays when units of opposing sides are in the same hex.
Now picture firing a machine gun into that jumble of bodies or firing a tank gun or artillery. Of course there will be casualties on both sides.
In the real world of combat that would not happen intentionally. The only thing the supporting commander could do would be to try to get more men into that area to overcome the resistant enemy.
So this situation is indeed realistic. My only bitchbone here is that I think the results are too extreme. You lose more friendlies than enemy troops in most cases and that does appear to be lopsided.
So I'll agree that the results are a little out of whack but the concept is not.
Wild Bill
Remember, it is a fifty yard hex, measuring 50 yards from corner to corner. But also remember that in the game format when you enter a hex with the enemy you are considered in a melee type of situation. You know you can't even enter the hex unless the enemy has some disruption or your force is overpowering.
Now the picture here is that of soldiers only a few yards apart, blasting at each other, some locked in bayonet combat. Picture that. Friendly and enemy all mixed in together. That is what the game portrays when units of opposing sides are in the same hex.
Now picture firing a machine gun into that jumble of bodies or firing a tank gun or artillery. Of course there will be casualties on both sides.
In the real world of combat that would not happen intentionally. The only thing the supporting commander could do would be to try to get more men into that area to overcome the resistant enemy.
So this situation is indeed realistic. My only bitchbone here is that I think the results are too extreme. You lose more friendlies than enemy troops in most cases and that does appear to be lopsided.
So I'll agree that the results are a little out of whack but the concept is not.
Wild Bill
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
well said WB you beat me to it, as usual. It definitely is LOPSIDED. Correct me if I'm wrong on another item. Case in point divebomber bombardment.
Target hex has a unit two hexes away. Assuming aim point is center of target hex, that would put unit~125 meters away. (meter=40"> 125 X 40"=5000">5000"=~415')that's a long way for consistent shrapnel casualties is it not ? Hope my math is correct ? I also made the assumption that weapon landed in center of target hex. <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: chief ]</p>
Target hex has a unit two hexes away. Assuming aim point is center of target hex, that would put unit~125 meters away. (meter=40"> 125 X 40"=5000">5000"=~415')that's a long way for consistent shrapnel casualties is it not ? Hope my math is correct ? I also made the assumption that weapon landed in center of target hex. <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: chief ]</p>
"God Bless America and All the Young men and women who give their all to protect Her"....chief
I am not sure I agree. I think it is fine as is and I think Alex is right on target. Before you attack a hex loaded with enemy infantry, suppress them or you will have problems.I DO NOT LIKE IT. It would be best to fix it. It wasn´t present in the versions before. <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> [/QB]
Bruce
Semper Fi
Remember that Tanks of this period had 3x scopes for the most part and used steroscopic ranging, if they had ranging equipment. I think you need to borrow a scoped rifle from a friend and try to keep it focused on a target 500 meters away while driving through the forest in a jeep. Distinguishing one large blob from another large blob while bouncing around inside a steel can, with haze smoke dust etc. 'fogging' the picture is not as easy as you think it is. Most ATG guns of the period would make a guess as to range, observe the shot and then adjust from there. So Blue one Blue is very possible. How did Finlands FOOTBALL team do this year? Who is their quarterback?Originally posted by Belisarius:
I don't mind having large losses amongst infantry due to friendly fire, but the tank part is just absurd. (ofcourse, there's limited visibility, problems distinguishing friend tank from evil tank in a battle - but not THAT difficult)
<font size=-2>and will you yanks stop calling your domestic leauge winners "world champions" already?...*grr* </font>
T. (who is also curious about who plays first base, but will save it for another time).
"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http
Shouldn't that be "World's Series Champion"..... it's not as if they actually played a team from an other country.Originally posted by Alexandra:
<SNIP>
A Proud Fan of the World Champion New England Patriots,
Alex.
And the story I've heard is that the paper "The World" used to be a major sponsor of sport in the US... hence "World's Series Champion"...
Imagine if another country had a competition sponsored by "American...." and called themselves American Champion
Shouldn't that be "World's Series Champion"..... it's not as if they actually played a team from an other country.Originally posted by Alexandra:
<SNIP>
A Proud Fan of the World Champion New England Patriots,
Alex.
And the story I've heard is that the paper "The World" used to be a major sponsor of sport in the US... hence "World's Series Champion"...
Imagine if another country had a competition sponsored by "American...." and called themselves American Champion
A connected issue. If you _really_ want to hurt an enemy unit, aim at another enemy unit sitting in the same hex. Especially if your hit percentages are low to start with, the other unit will take proportionally higher casualties than the one you are actually aiming at. This seems to be an error in the routines.
This is probably why friendly fire seem to be too common as well when in the same hex. The fire at other units in the same hex follows another mechanism (more like indirect fire?) than the actual "aimed" fire. In some cases, this seems to go out of hand and provide some very strange results.
For the argument that your unit has moved makes it more likely to be hit.. try this:
Dig in one of your units, move in an enemy unit on top of it, and blast away at the enemy unit with a machine gun or infantry squad. The friendly fire will still be terribly effective, even though your own men are dug in (works the same way for two enemy units in the same hex, one dug-in, one that moved, you shoot at the moving one).
I haven't done it in tests enough to get statistically significant results, but I do see a trend, supported by actual playing experience <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
This is probably why friendly fire seem to be too common as well when in the same hex. The fire at other units in the same hex follows another mechanism (more like indirect fire?) than the actual "aimed" fire. In some cases, this seems to go out of hand and provide some very strange results.
For the argument that your unit has moved makes it more likely to be hit.. try this:
Dig in one of your units, move in an enemy unit on top of it, and blast away at the enemy unit with a machine gun or infantry squad. The friendly fire will still be terribly effective, even though your own men are dug in (works the same way for two enemy units in the same hex, one dug-in, one that moved, you shoot at the moving one).
I haven't done it in tests enough to get statistically significant results, but I do see a trend, supported by actual playing experience <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
"If infantry is the Queen of the battlefield, artillery is her backbone", Jukka L. Mäkelä about the Finnish victory at Ihantala.
I'm defeinately all for the rules of friendly fire. But after playing a whole bunch of scerios, you notice certain consistent patterns that come up all the time, that are obviously present because of the rules of the game. Exceptions to the rule have turned into the rule, and that's unrealistic.
But I've learned to live with these. Only using air support when the enemy armor or fortifications are around. Also, if you have a small unit that is going to get destroyed, throw it in with an enemy hex. It's the safest way to keep them alive, and have their squad destroyed by friendly fire at the same time!!!
But I've learned to live with these. Only using air support when the enemy armor or fortifications are around. Also, if you have a small unit that is going to get destroyed, throw it in with an enemy hex. It's the safest way to keep them alive, and have their squad destroyed by friendly fire at the same time!!!
Well, like in any situation, one could always take advantage of this quirk in spwaw.
1. Move an expendable units, preferably small size into the hex of an entrench enemy next to several different enemy. The op fire by the enemy units will often decimate the one in the same hex.
2. Always aim for stackup units because even if you miss, there would be a chance to hit the next guys.
1. Move an expendable units, preferably small size into the hex of an entrench enemy next to several different enemy. The op fire by the enemy units will often decimate the one in the same hex.
2. Always aim for stackup units because even if you miss, there would be a chance to hit the next guys.
"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators."
Les Miserables
Les Miserables
-
Capt Chris
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Rochester, NY
- Contact:
. Move an expendable units, preferably small size into the hex of an entrench enemy next to several different enemy.
Who is going to tell the small units they are expendable? I know this is off topic but I hate it when people bait my troops/tanks with their "expendable" units. This is a game tactic, not one that would sit well with real troops.
Who is going to tell the small units they are expendable? I know this is off topic but I hate it when people bait my troops/tanks with their "expendable" units. This is a game tactic, not one that would sit well with real troops.
Capt Chris
"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"
"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"