Covering fire

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

Stef Cascarini
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:49 am

Covering fire

Post by Stef Cascarini »

Couple of questions from last night's game

1. When a unit is under covering fire is its grenade to hit roll affected if it throws grenades?

2. When putting down covering fire I assume it doesn't matter if the LOF to the targeted cover is later blocked (eg by another team moving to assault)?

Good game those US paras are tough cookies and I got throughly trounced.

User avatar
John Thomas8
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:10 pm
Location: Fuquay Varina, NC USA
Contact:

Re: Covering fire

Post by John Thomas8 »

1. Throwing grenades puts the thrower in the open, probably not a good place to be when getting shot at.

2. You can't shoot through your own troops, so LOF is blocked when your troops pass through the covering fire LOF.

JimLeCat
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:57 pm
Location: Durham, England

Re: Covering fire

Post by JimLeCat »

Hi,

1. Rich has previously said not, but if you want to play it differently then no-one is going to object, least of all him.

2. I would entirely agree with John Thomas on this - if you mask your own covering fire, then you aren't covered any more!

Cheers,
Jim

Stef Cascarini
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:49 am

Re: Covering fire

Post by Stef Cascarini »

2. So my problem with this is it makes covering fire almost useless.

If I have a section with LMG and rifle teams the LMG team puts down covering fire the rifle team leap forward - and immediately negate the covering fire ?

Even if the covering fire team is offset the covering fire is going to be negated as the assault team moves forward - the covering fire is going to have to be at pretty well 90 degrees not to be cancelled at some.

Further this implies there is a 'zone of fire' from the frontage of the firing team to the covered terrain - if any friendly figure moves within 2" of that in the rest of this and the next activation is the fire cancelled ?

Cancelling seems to open up a whole load of issues - I'm dubious this is what was intended.

hedgehobbit
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:49 pm

Re: Covering fire

Post by hedgehobbit »

It's Find, Fix, Flank not Find, Fix, Charge.

The rifle team will seek to move to the flank of the covered enemy.

If the situation is such that you can only attack an enemy by moving through your own fire, then the LMG team, in this case, should just suppress the enemy with regular fire, not use Covering Fire.

Stef Cascarini
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:49 am

Re: Covering fire

Post by Stef Cascarini »

Seems to me that covering fire could include the idea of a 'mad minute' which suppresses the target area but then a team can advance through the original LOF.

I'm happy to go with the covering fire getting cancelled but it seems to be a bit like purgatory - a logical extrapolation of the rules without any explicit basis. :-)

It would be good to understand what cancels covering fire (smoke?, vehicles?) and what the conditions for cancelling are - any part of the zone entered - the whole zone blocked etc etc ?

hedgehobbit
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:49 pm

Re: Covering fire

Post by hedgehobbit »

Stef Cascarini wrote:I'm happy to go with the covering fire getting cancelled but it seems to be a bit like purgatory - a logical extrapolation of the rules without any explicit basis.
I agree that the rule is kinda gamey (and by the rules it doesn't seem to be stopped by LOS blockage nor does it restrict the firing unit. If you get two phases in a row, you can lay down covering fire on the first phase and that same unit can move or charge on the next). I'm not sure why the rule even exists. Regular fire produces shock which reduces the effectiveness of the fire of the target so that can model what Covering Fire is supposed to do already. Since Covering Fire seems to have a few issues (Elites being immune to fire, a two man team suppressing as effectively as a belt-fed MG), I'd be happy to see it removed entirely.

User avatar
John Thomas8
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:10 pm
Location: Fuquay Varina, NC USA
Contact:

Re: Covering fire

Post by John Thomas8 »

There's nothing "gamey" about not shooting your own troops.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7662
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Covering fire

Post by Truscott Trotter »

I think you are thinking of covering fire in the movies or comic books
In real life if no one is firing at you at all you have a much better chance of aimed fire at the enemy
If you realise someone is already firing at your position you are much more cautious in exposing yourself or taking your time to aim.
Whether it is 2 bullets or 100 it only takes one with your name on it.
The first-hand accounts I have read of WWII inf combat suggest the vets ignore enemy covering fire and got on with the job carefully - green troops usually got killed pretty quick as they could not tell the difference between covering fire and the real thing!
I think the rules reflect this in a reasonable manner - given it is a game not an actual simulator.
Last edited by Truscott Trotter on Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

JimLeCat
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:57 pm
Location: Durham, England

Re: Covering fire

Post by JimLeCat »

If you get two phases in a row, you can lay down covering fire on the first phase and that same unit can move or charge on the next).
Not by the RAW you can't - the unit laying down the covering fire can't do anything else while they are doing it! Which makes perfect sense, since the whole idea is that the covering fire is a continuous laying down of fire while other troops do the moving...

Post Reply