Suppressive Fire as of .95, does it work?

[Arc_Shielder]

Absolute rubbish L4gi, thats just the way you play, which happens to work for you! Ofc defence can be totally impenetrable, to say that endless charging is the way forward is just not true, Ive seen waves and waves of squads die in front of a decent defence, you just have to actually do it!!

I agree, that's exactly the feeling I had of L4gi's post. But wasn't he exemplifying a case where you're alone though? If it's the latter then I fully agree with him...
But collectively, as a squad, if they cover every possible angle then there's no match. Defensive squads usually take the upper hand in PR.

[Wo0Do0]

Absolute rubbish L4gi, thats just the way you play, which happens to work for you! Ofc defence can be totally impenetrable, to say that endless charging is the way forward is just not true, Ive seen waves and waves of squads die in front of a decent defence, you just have to actually do it!!

believe it or not, if you play infantry with more of a COD mentality, you're going to end up with more kills and less deaths. (Medic is there for a reason xD) This is with teamwork and strategy already in place. Sometimes it just comes down to who can take out the other guy faster.

Alot of PR players nowadays are too defensive, they stop firing and start panicking, finding cover is #1, but also finding ways to re-assault is also key.

This does not mean rushing mindlessly into enemy lines, this is finding flanks and blast them when they don't see you. You can have a squad firing into another squad, both situated in houses with cover, for quite sometime, or you can get 1 or 2 guys to sneak and throw couple grenades and finish the fight. One person can take out 2 full squads in an alleyway with the right mentality, believe me it's possible

IMO deviation system works only if your target hasn't spotted you yet. period.

[Cavazos]

I can agree with that.

[Dev1200]

Suppressive fire works like a flashbang. If someone is still aiming at you, use it. If someone has already aimed at you and is firing, it doesn't work.

[Brainlaag]

Suppressive fire works like a flashbang. If someone is still aiming at you, use it. If someone has already aimed at you and is firing, it doesn't work.

Thats the problem.

To promote suppressive fire and actually gain an advantage out of it, you probably have to implement some slightly deviation when getting suppressed (if possible ofc). I think I've posted this already but anyway. Simply to make sure you cannot just crouch while having the enemy still pinpointed and then stand up and shoot him straight in the face, while having a whole squad shooting at you.

[Mantooth]

I dont know about you veterans, but as a new guy, I can assure you that suppressive fire does indeed work, at least on those who are less experienced. Whenever I take incoming rounds, I immediately dive for cover. Depending on the amount of incoming, sometimes I become combat ineffective. I cant manage to get a shot off. All I can do is keep my head down. That is the goal of suppressive fire after all, so I would argue that it does work.

[dtacs]

It works for you because you are romanticizing the concept by diving or hiding when being shot at.

There is nothing stopping you from popping up and firing at at a stationary target whilst under the suppression effect. I've sadly found that it does little to stop others firing unless the weapon in question has a huge ROF, such as a tank's coaxial.

[Mantooth]

It works for you because you are romanticizing the concept by diving or hiding when being shot at.

Romanticizing? I'd beg to differ on that analysis of what I said. When I am getting shot at, i do my best to get behind cover, and depending on the volume of fire, or the size of the caliber, I usually tend to keep my head down before poking my head around corners looking to get it shot off.

[cyberzomby]

Thats what you do. But thats not romanticising. Romanticising is why you do it. You do it because you think you need to. Thats what Dtacs is saying.

I do it 2. Because I know that if I will stand up theres a high chance I will get shot and get the bleed effect. It will make me more ineffective when shooting back. But thats just how I like to play.

[Mantooth]

So what your saying, is that once a firefight breaks out, the need for cover is negligible unless that's your style of play? I'm a little confused. How is the use of cover when receiving incoming not important?
I think the suppression effect is a life saver. Yesterday i was playing a game on Kashan Desert on the US side. I spawned at a firebase at North Bunker and moved south through the bunker complex to regroup with my squad. I met up with 2 people not from my squad who were moving in the same direction. As we got closer to South Bunker, we found the area to be crawling with MEC soldiers. Me and my new battle buddy ducked down in a ditch and engaged those soldiers closest to us. Soon, we had elements of squads bearing down on us. After my buddy was killed, I managed to fall back to the north using a combination of "shoot to keep their heads down" and "sprint to next cover point."
I can gladly report that it worked. By firing close to the enemies positions, I managed to single handedly keep their heads down and fall back. The use of a few frag grenades also aided in my escape. While i didn't score any kills with them, the explosions going off just to their front was more than enough to cause them to go to ground.

So I ask again, after my experience, how is the need for cover a romanticized concept? It seems pretty essential for survival to me.

[Ziriix]

Well the use of suppressive fire is almost impossible to explain. This is something you have decide at a split second if its needed or not. If you have a cover next to you and you know were the enemy are shooting from sure you can take cover and start suppressing him while your friend is flanking the enemy from another street. Suppressing someone without cover is suicide if he engaged you first. The only time you can do this is in CQB (50 meters and closer). For example the enemy just came down some kind of stairs and you see each other at the same time. If you turn around and run for cover you are dead if your not extremely lucky. Here you should use rapid suppressive fire just bursting all over the place ofc at the enemy and hope that he get scared and runs away or your friends kill him.

Something i have learned in the irl military is that if you get engaged first you take cover instantly! Communicate with your squad if anybody know were its coming from. At a special command from my squadleader we switch to automatic fire and shoot about half a mag at the enemy position at the same time. After that we can start moving since the enemy is now suppressed.

Short version:
If the enemy engage you first: Take cover or run to cover.
If you engage the enemy first: Cover is not needed since they should die before they can do you any harm.
If you are falling back from a firefight: Use smoke and grenades to confuse the enemy and maby shoot 5 rounds around them and run in sick sack. If you have a whole squad shooting at you don't even bother stopping to shoot again because you will die, Its better to just run like a mad man.

COVER WILL KEEP YOU ALIVE!

[cyberzomby]

Just watch some experienced players in more "gamey" clans like OD-S for example. Theres a reason those guys usually have absurd KDR's. Its because they don't stay down in surprising fire. They know where to aim despite the blurred screen. Of course you need cover to survive. Thats what I said as well. If you don't take cover, you have a high chance of getting hit.

But theres a lot of people who still peek up or even stand up and return fire when receiving fire. And they can fire back accurate as well. In BF3 your accuracy will be reduced. So than you won't be able to take out the surpresor.

I love the effect in PR as well btw. It really works on most players People do run for cover and than start returning fire. But I was just agree'ing with someone else in this thread that the OP romanticised the covering fire tool in PR.

[PFunk]

I think what Rudd said earlier about it being more important in a 128 server in the future is probably true. There are just not enough people in any given fire fight usually to make it so that gamey tactics fail. When you have only a handful of people to fight gameyness can win the day easily. However a gamey strategy is just a way of playing the odds in your favour. With more hostile guns facing you a lone soldier doing something heroic probably won't succeed nearly as well. With more people on the field, and the potential for even more disproportionate engagements (like 6 versus 16) suppressing fire can become a bigger tool since you'll have more rifles to suppress someone who has few and can ensure that your suppression is also going to probably kill more often give the higher volume of fire.

Now the thing to be determined is whether an organized unit of 2 or 3 squads can outplay, given equivalent skill regardless of tactics employed, an equal sized unit utilizing a more run n gun style. Things can change dramatically when you increase or decrease the number of people involved. Bigger units are harder to flank, have more flexibility in assaulting in more situations while suppressing whereas the average PR squad of 6 usually can barely get more than half its guns firing effectively at an enemy.

Really if you think about it our squads of 6 are held to a tactical imperative almost analogous to a special forces fireteam. They lack the brute force of a 13 person squad so they employ different tactics and those are more appropriate for units of that size. Suppressing a unit in a small squad is liable to just give away your position when you should probably instead be trying to close the distance and get them by surprise. The most successful experiences of suppressing a target in preparation for assaulting it is generally, for me, when a squad faces a lone soldier or pair of soldiers. In larger squad sized engagements most pubbies can't focus on firing at stuff other than literally what they see and usually I see one or two guys in a squad go down before all 6 guys have started shooting.

Another thing to note is that I believe, and I may be wrong, that real life soldiers don't suppress a target the way most people in PR tend to. Usually you see people shooting and you get the feeling its like "well I'm suppressing so I don't have to bother trying to be accurate, I'll just put as much lead over there as possible". Usually that means your bullets trigger the suppression effect but most people know its not gonna be as likely to hit you. In real life I think most suppressing fire is like a shot every second at the most and thats enough time to start aiming better than a lot of people do when you say "suppress that marker". As I understand it in real life suppressing fire is more like a high volume of aimed fire with much less reliability cause soldiers get less time to settle for their shots.

[ComradeHX]

Suppression does not work when you know that the one trying to shoot you can only hit the cover, and not you.

There should be smaller effective areas for suppression; it should only come up if the bullet hits the cover/ground directly in front of the person, not half a meter away.

[Wo0Do0]

Just watch some experienced players in more "gamey" clans like OD-S for example. Theres a reason those guys usually have absurd KDR's. Its because they don't stay down in surprising fire. They know where to aim despite the blurred screen. Of course you need cover to survive. Thats what I said as well. If you don't take cover, you have a high chance of getting hit.

But theres a lot of people who still peek up or even stand up and return fire when receiving fire. And they can fire back accurate as well. In BF3 your accuracy will be reduced. So than you won't be able to take out the surpresor.

I love the effect in PR as well btw. It really works on most players People do run for cover and than start returning fire. But I was just agree'ing with someone else in this thread that the OP romanticised the covering fire tool in PR.

In PR, "gamey" clans completely and utterly destroy "realism" clans, history has shown itself.

[Spec]

Luckily that's irrelevant as PR isn't as much about clan competition as it is about unique gameplay.

[cyberzomby]

Actually it was relevant. Realism clans would order there SM's to surpress that target! While gamey clans would just rush the surpressors and take them out. If they where a realism clan they'd hit the dirt and scream for there mothers.

Funk I agree with your post there. One of the things that hit me when I got off the 128 player server for the first time was the Spec. Ops gameplay we have. Its more like teams of commandos fighting each other rather than squads of infantry.

[PFunk]

Funk I agree with your post there. One of the things that hit me when I got off the 128 player server for the first time was the Spec. Ops gameplay we have. Its more like teams of commandos fighting each other rather than squads of infantry.

Thats why I believe that 128 PR is the future of this mod. Without it the gameyness will just get more acute. A 10 person squad has the survivability to lose 1 or 2 people in the opening volley of fire and still return a significant amount of bullets. Its basically just fractions.

A 10 person squad losing 2 men (usually the guys on point or at the front of the blob) has only lost 10% of their effective firepower. losing 2 out of 6 means losing 33%.

Compare it to losing 2 fingers versus losing a whole hand. Which of those two will put you at a worse disadvantage?

Larger squads are the only way to go, and this means it forces a higher lever of leadership and cooperation. Lone wolves would really suffer in this situation and I think smart team play overall would get a significant boost in appeal.

There will always be pure skill at the forefront of success in this game, but thats true in any situation.

Whats more is that a 10 man squad can by default become 2 fireteams at almost the exact same level of firepower as 2 regular squads in PR but with a unity and flexibility you won't see in two strange squads operating with SL mumble. Whatever a super skill player will tell you, splitting up and hitting someone from behind while you're still shooting from the front is always a good way to kill lots of mofos.

[Cossack]

What PFunk is saying - it's 100 % true.

And about those commando battles - it depends on situation and/or enemy.
If you want to win the battle, you must be aggressive to make pressure on enemy and overwhelm it.
And yeah, probably it looks like commando rushing.

[Agemman]

A 10 person squad losing 2 men (usually the guys on point or at the front of the blob) has only lost 10% of their effective firepower. losing 2 out of 6 means losing 33%.

Do you mean 20%? But yes, I agree on the whole. Leading a 10-man squad would be pretty awesome.