Overwatch & Suppressing fire

[ShredZ]

Whats the effective difference?

You have an alien behind some cover, you can either overwatch him and if he moves you get to fire at him - if he fires, overwatch wont do anything (as seen in demo, sniper vs sectoid)

OR

If you have suppressing fire on him and he moves, I think you get a shot at him (not seen in demo) - but what happens if he fires at you, less effective accuracy? (seen in demo, gas pump hit instead[?] of Support unit)

Obviously a sniper cant lay down suppressing fire, only the Heavy and Support (tough in a lesser version). So actually my question only refers to these 2 character classes as they are the only classes that theoretically can do both - why would you choose suppressing fire over overwatch, or vice versa?

Maybe Heavys and Supports can't overwatch? Not sure that makes much sense / too gamey.

Do we know if overwatch can only shoot at one target like the original? Also we know that suppressing fire goes thru ammo at twice the rate before you need to reload... so there will be at least that drawback.

Sorry in advance for all the ( brackets )

[Inkidu]

Suppressing fire would be used to keep enemies from moving or firing. Overwatch does not stop the aliens from moving. Also, suppressing fire doesn't do damage, it just pins an alien down, overwatch seeks to kill. Suppressing fire could be used to let people move up without taking alien overwatch also.

[Huzardadi]

Suppressing would pin an enemy to allow for other units to take more advantageous positions on the map without the fear of being shot down in motion.

Overwatch serves to allow the alien to move away from cover providing a more deadly shot.

Any disagreement on this?

[Spleenslitta]

I clearly remember that suppressing fire reduced enemy accuracy because they don't dare peek out of cover long enough to take carefull aim and if they move the soldier using suppressing fire gets a free shot at the moving alien.

[ShredZ]

Ok so you physically can't mOve when you are being suppressed + your attacks are hampered ie. penalty to hit? Also I think you need to target a unit as opposed to an area? I thought in 1 interview I read that suppressing fire could do damage if someone moved from it, maybe not.

And over watch is more of putting pressure on an area when you have no target? The aliens seem to put themselves into over watch quite often even with targets for them to shoot at.

[ShredZ]

I clearly remember that suppressing fire reduced enemy accuracy because they don't dare peek out of cover long enough to take carefull aim and if they move the soldier using suppressing fire gets a free shot at the moving alien.

I just watched the demo again, and the first sectoid that is being suppressed by the heavy shoots at him and hits him from medium range even while suppressed - there didn't seem to be any free shot from the heavy but there was probably some accuracy penalties for the sectoid.

[ste-V]

I'd say one cancelles opposition movement (surpressing fire) and the other (overlook) embrases movement, in order to get a shot onto someone who moves out of their postion. if you think about it, if you were in "overlook" you'd what for someone to move, so you can play duck hunting...

another question arises (for me) though: can an already supressed character still go into overlook? and what are the consequences?

[Spleenslitta]

I just watched the demo again, and the first sectoid that is being suppressed by the heavy shoots at him and hits him from medium range even while suppressed - there didn't seem to be any free shot from the heavy but there was probably some accuracy penalties for the sectoid.

The soldier using suppressing fire would have gotten a free shot if the sectoid ran out of cover. Let's say that the heavy puts suppressive fire on a sectoid and another soldier throws a grenade at the sectoid.
-Now the sectoid must make a choice 1)Sit where he is and hope the grenade is a dud or 2) risk the hail of bullets and run for all he is worth.
The sectoid does get to shoot as much as he wants but with reduced accuracy.

I remember that part with crystal clarity despite the fact that i'm a real bumblebrain in just about anything else.
Books, manga/anime and games is just about all my brain pays any real attention to. Everything else gets stuffed into that miscellanious pile in the corner of my noggin'.

[Spleenslitta]

Oh yeah...i almost forgot. When a soldier get's into overwatch mode he gets a free shot at anything that moves across his line of sight.
I believe it wasn't keyed to a specific target just the first enemy that moves within the overwatching soldiers LoS. It's the only thing i don't remember clearly about overwatch and suppressing fire.

[Huzardadi]

Sniper also gets an overwatch perk to continue firing with each successive hit until he misses. Correct?

[ShredZ]

Also in the original, the aliens would take more than one shot in over watch, sometimes 2 or 3 - I wonder if they will keep it simple and only allow one shot, or one shot per enemy spotted ...

That sniper perk of continual shots sounds too powerful ! An alien ends up point blank in front of her sniper, the sniper is going to have like 99% chance to hit - so he can just keep firing til its dead or til he needs to reload...?

[Akinaba]

Owerwatch saves a soldier's action point (as when you put your soldier on overwatch his turn concidered ended) for she/he could do a free shot (or several) in the turn of enemy moovement if target gets within the range of his shot, I suppose.

Sniper also gets an overwatch perk to continue firing with each successive hit until he misses. Correct?

I hardly dobut that the sniper will be allowed to do more then two consistant shots while being put on overwatch with this perk.

[Sertun]

1) Suppressing fire hinders all actions of ONE chosen enemy.
2) Overwatch lets shooting at ANY moving enemy in sight.

[katscan]

The key here, as glazed over in the above posts, is that suppressive fire cannot do any damage. I don't believe you are allowed to break cover if being suppressed. If you are, then I'm not sure how they handle it since the suppressive fire cannot (not 'does not' - notice their choice of words) do damage.

[Inkidu]

The key here, as glazed over in the above posts, is that suppressive fire cannot do any damage. I don't believe you are allowed to break cover if being suppressed. If you are, then I'm not sure how they handle it since the suppressive fire cannot (not 'does not' - notice their choice of words) do damage.

Eh, I think there might be a chance to break suppressing fire. The G.I. article said that a heavy laid some down and the muton just said, "Nope!". Also, you could have another guy throw a grenade on the suppressor. It's a tool not some kind of auto-pin.

[katscan]

I still don't think so. They are treating suppressive fire as a debuff, and historically, debuffs do not succeed 100% of the time. What they are describing in that article is more consistent with the suppressive debuff failing, rather than it succeeding and the muton breaking through it. The difference is, in the first case, the suppressive fire debuff fails, and they don't have to explain why no damage was taken. Whereas in the second case, if it auto-succeeds, they have to explain how the muton breaks cover without taking damage while massive fire is raining down.

In other words, they are treating it as an auto-pin assuming you pass your debuff check.

[Gazz]

they have to explain how the muton breaks cover without taking damage while massive fire is raining down

That's the problem with turn based games. Some interactions between attacker and defender are difficult to portray.

However, suppressive fire could model this more closely if the (necessary) debuff included a "taking damage" modifier.

The morale / movement damage part of the debuff can fail.

The damage multiplier always works if the suppressed party runs out of cover.

That way the muton might berserk and charge your guys even though you're laying down fire.
The drawback (for it) is that it is taking more damage while advancing on your guys through open terrain.
The reactive fire could hurt like hell.

[katscan]

I think suppressive fire can be modeled well with a turn based game. For example, I agree with your portrayal.. That's the way I would have done it/how it should be done. That's the whole point of suppressive fire (it suppresses because of the high risk of taking damage). And if you decide to brave it/break thru it, you get damaged.

However, their implementation reduces it to a debuff, essentially. No chance for damage smacks of World of Warcraft debuff.

[b15h09]

I'm grooving the way suppression is being implemented over at Xenonauts. How I'm understanding it is, weapons and their different firing modes get a suppression value. So, say you do a fully automatic burst, your accuracy goes out the window. Might hit, might not, but your shots also sap any reserved APs (TUs). Once the enemies reserves are depleted, it starts reducing available AP for the next turn. Pretty good way to simulate things.

[Gazz]

Pretty good way to simulate things.

Only with humans...

A completely fearless alien might not honour the suppression and advance regardless.
That's what you cannot simulate with the basic movement-sapping approach.

The only advantage of that method is that it's easy to implement.




Another way to handle suppression: (easy to visualise, too)

The act of laying down suppressive fire builds up a virtual damage bar on the target(s).
Lots of bullets = lots of suppression,
high damage attacks / explosives = lots of suppression.

If it's your turn and if your soldier is suppressed and you decide to move into any alien's line of fire, the virtual damage is translated into real damage.

The bar (only visible on your own units) can reach and exceed the "action marker".

If your suppression bar has grown past the action marker then taking the action of shooting out of cover transfers a small amount of damage as well - by the amount that exceeds the action marker.


Every turn (or by certain abilities), the suppression is reduced by some amount.
Not taking any action reduces it by a lot.
Moving from one bit of cover to the next while not exposing yourself to an attacker also reduces suppression. You are "sneaking away while keeping your head down".


With this system, an actor can decide if the suppressive fire is too heavy or if the situation is too critical to just sit it out.
You can't do a decent AI if the actors can not make decisions because they are forced onto them.

[b15h09]

Only with humans...

A completely fearless alien might not honour the suppression and advance regardless.
That's what you cannot simulate with the basic movement-sapping approach.

The only advantage of that method is that it's easy to implement.

Aliens having varying resistances to suppression would be an easy enough way to simulate the 'fearless alien' scenario. When you realize that your inaccurate burst fire isn't doing much to slow the big guy down, time to slow down and aim your shots for max damage.

Overall, your approach makes more sense though, because yes, being suppressed is a decision of safety vs danger, not an affliction.

[Being]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but here goes anyway..

Situation:
3 Aliens, 1 soldier who can either overwatch or suppress. The chance to hit aliens directly is pretty poor (they're in partial cover) so the soldier opts not to shoot directly.

Case 1 - Suppression:
The soldier picks one target out of the three aliens. That alien is immediately debuffed but won't (immediately) take damage. The targeted alien is free to shoot (with a debuff to accuracy) on their turn. The targeted alien is also free to move, but doing so will give a free shot to the soldier, and this shot can deal damage. It's going to have better accuracy than the shot he could have taken on his actual turn.

The other two aliens can do whatever the hell they want without reaction from the soldier.

Damaging the soldier will break the suppression ability immediately and the targeted alien will then be free to do whatever they want without penalty or reaction from the soldier (assuming the suppressed alien didn't spend their turn already).

Case 2 - Overwatch:
The soldier goes into overwatch mode on his turn.
All three of the aliens are free to do whatever, but the first one to move is shot at by the soldier. Any further movement by any of the aliens does not provoke free shots.
Any shots taken by the aliens (before or after movement) does not provoke free shots.
The overwatch mode can presumably be broken by the soldier taking damage.

---
The above looks like the way things work in gas station demo (or at least the demo doesn't contradict the above) and when taking the descriptions of the abilities (also seen in demo) literally. I believe taking the ingame text literally is more likely to be correct than taking the narrator literally.
---

What looks impossible to me:
Putting suppressive fire to an area - You know an alien went hiding behind that fence (full cover, not in sight) and would like to debuff its accuracy if it returns into LOS (but peeking from behind cover) next turn. Since the alien can't be targeted your only option is Overwatch, but that does not come with a debuff and could be spent by another alien (which is a lesser threat, possibly) "eating" the reaction fire.

I also wonder if you can reaction fire to something that stops in cover, that cover being the first position it can be spotted at (cover spots are on a pretty clear grid, at least relative to the object in question.. a van has 5 "cover slots" on the sides and two at front/rear ends and not being on the corner slot can hide you fully. Perhaps even more appropriate when rounding corners of buildings).

To be quite honest, I think the entire game is on a grid, it's merely the graphics and movement paths being displayed/animated in such a way as to try and make you forget. Would be bit of a nightmare trying to move-action your way into a position you can shoot an alien from but without exposing yourself to any more incoming alien overwatch fire than necessary if the game was truly gridless, right? Move 2 pixels too little and you can't fire but used up your move anyway...

[katscan]

The targeted alien is also free to move, but doing so will give a free shot to the soldier, and this shot can deal damage. It's going to have better accuracy than the shot he could have taken on his actual turn.

Since there is nothing to support this I will have to disagree. Also, since they specifically state suppression cannot do damage, I highly doubt there is any free shot involved.

As I stated, I believe suppression comes down to an initial 'success roll' where it's either immediately successful or not. That way, there is no messing around with whether someone can break out or not, and whether they take damage or not.

BTW, I also suspect the game is on a grid, for programming simplicities sake... which is fine by me. The only worry I have is that the movement cursor appears to 'snap to' adjacent cover?? This may become annoying if you are trying to move next to it, but not behind it.

[Being]

I always have support for my arguments unless I state otherwise.

Since there is nothing to support this I will have to disagree. Also, since they specifically state suppression cannot do damage, I highly doubt there is any free shot involved.

The ingame text for the heavy soldiers Suppression ability says (exact quote):
"Reduce the target's Aim by 30 and take a free shot if the target moves."

The narrator says "locks down the Sectoid and prevents it from moving" or something to that effect. I put my money on the narrator not being literal about it.
---
I honestly thought the bit about free shots if target moves was common knowledge by now. It's certainly listed in the summarised information thread as such.
---
edit: If the ingame text is wrong and the narrator right, then we've already seen a bug. Even if you count it only as a minor one, a typo, it doesn't sound like something they'd not have spotted themselves on a hands-off demo like that. Like Inkidu says below, I think the narrator refers to the AI taking suppressive fire into consideration before moving.

[Inkidu]

I always have support for my arguments unless I state otherwise.



The ingame text for the heavy soldiers Suppression ability says (exact quote):
"Reduce the target's Aim by 30 and take a free shot if the target moves."

The narrator says "locks down the Sectoid and prevents it from moving" or something to that effect. I put my money on the narrator not being literal about it.

---
I honestly thought the bit about free shots if target moves was common knowledge by now. It's certainly listed in the summarised information thread as such.

They get pinned that's been stated in the videos and in the G.I. article, but it might be a case of A.I. programing favoring the stay-put method (like real life, soldiers are trained not to go against overwhelming suppression if they can help it. They're taught to break it with grenades.)

However, that might be for non-muton aliens. Mutons might just be General Badass McRuinyourday. Without hand's on knowledge I don't think we can rightly say how it works to the T. Honestly, if that starts coming out I'm out of here. I hate when people break a game into pure math. So boring.

[katscan]

Interesting. I have to find the in-game text. Because we have also seen it explicity stated that suppression cannot (not does not) do damage.

[Inkidu]

Interesting. I have to find the in-game text. Because we have also seen it explicity stated that suppression cannot (not does not) do damage.

Yes, but it does give the person a free, potentially-lethal shot, apparently.

[Being]

The difference between 'unable to move' and 'unlikely to move for fear of being shot' is quite significant and for my part I see enough evidence that it is the latter. Not to mention it makes much more sense as the latter, if you ask me.

If it were a magical immobilising and aim reducing debuff it'd be called something like "Throw Net" or "Entangle enemy feet with a Bola and somehow inexplicably tangle up Floaters too", wouldn't it?

The bit about Suppression not doing damage would be another (unintended) inaccuracy in speech or writing. Not strictly wrong to say the Suppression deals no damage as it will be the free shot that deals the damage.. but the free shot is tied into the ability and is not guaranteed to happen or hit if it does happen. Well, there are no indications one way or the other on the hitting bit, it could be a guaranteed hit too.. we haven't actually seen any free shots taken from Suppression, but Overwatch at least has been shown to miss.

[Inkidu]

The difference between 'unable to move' and 'unlikely to move for fear of being shot' is quite significant and for my part I see enough evidence that it is the latter. Not to mention it makes much more sense as the latter, if you ask me.

If it were a magical immobilising and aim reducing debuff it'd be called something like "Throw Net" or "Entangle enemy feet with a Bola and somehow inexplicably tangle up Floaters too", wouldn't it?

Well, yes, but I think it's a good representation of an abstraction like being pinned behind cover and having to risk getting shot by moving or just taking a tank in accuracy.

Also, for all we know the heavy has even higher perks to suppression that allows him to paralyze aliens into immobility or do small amounts of damage. I'm not going to think that the developers wouldn't fib to us to keep some of it secret.

[Being]

Sniper's Heightened state of Overwatch (http://www.nowgamer.com/pc/pc-previe...or_reborn.html) is said to be:

Snipers can also unlock a heightened state of Overwatch that means their turn never ends as long as they keep on landing hits on enemies.

..what I actually think it means is that Overwatch does not end if he scores a hit. The default overwatch says "free shot at first moving target" (or something to that effect, too lazy to check exact wording now), right? The perk-improved Overwatch would say something like "One free shot at each moving target until first miss".

That'd make it significantly less powerful in the case of single target moving an extended distance in line of fire or with very little chance to miss (close proximity). Still gamey, but imo less so.. could get really ridiculous in specific circumstances: 10 aliens all around the sniper, each one moves and the sniper hits each shot (Also miraculously they fail to kill the sniper).. while normally being limited to one shot per turn. At least a single target would probably die before 10 shots.

[katscan]

The difference between 'unable to move' and 'unlikely to move for fear of being shot' is quite significant and for my part I see enough evidence that it is the latter. Not to mention it makes much more sense as the latter, if you ask me.

I agree with hoping that its the latter. The latter makes sense, the former changes the game into World of Com-craft.

[Inkidu]

All this talk about being gamey, and all the literature I've ever read on playing XCOM outside of the manuals is some of the most gamey crap I've ever read in my life. You can literally boil Classic down to handful of things, methods, and formula and win it every time. Irony, she is palpable.

[rharris]

I just cant see how anyone would use fire (projectile) not to hit a target? it makes no sense.. You are always trying to hit the taget, surely? who does that?! I can just hear the command now:
"Smithy, I want to start firing at that car, two aliens are behind it, I want to to keep them there, while the lovely Alison here, runs round with her new shiny shotgun and shots them point blank.. ok?"
.........."err Boss, I ve had an accident..... I didnt mean to hit it, honest! Just the bullets have gone through the car and i fink one
could have died.... (BOOM) "ohhh, and I think the cars exploded too!"

my point... Its unrealistic. Especially not to have any chance of killing something. thats why we have half cover, right? and if you are hiding behind a car, and think its ok... You deserve it.
If you are a little further up the food chain however, I would recommend not wasting that many bullets to "just" pin an enemy down.. Its better dealt with by 250 gramms of Americas finest (M26A2) thrown in that direction....

[Inkidu]

I just cant see how anyone would use fire (projectile) not to hit a target? it makes no sense.. You are always trying to hit the taget, surely? who does that?! I can just hear the command now:
"Smithy, I want to start firing at that car, two aliens are behind it, I want to to keep them there, while the lovely Alison here, runs round with her new shiny shotgun and shots them point blank.. ok?"
.........."err Boss, I ve had an accident..... I didnt mean to hit it, honest! Just the bullets have gone through the car and i fink one
could have died.... (BOOM) "ohhh, and I think the cars exploded too!"

my point... Its unrealistic. Especially not to have any chance of killing something. thats why we have half cover, right? and if you are hiding behind a car, and think its ok... You deserve it.
If you are a little further up the food chain however, I would recommend not wasting that many bullets to "just" pin an enemy down.. Its better dealt with by 250 gramms of Americas finest (M26A2) thrown in that direction....

Actually no you're not always trying to hit a target. As far back as WWI people have been practicing the idea of saturation. Some people call it death tapping. The idea is that you move your full-auto machine gun slightly to the left and right and that fills the field in front of you with so much lead that no one moves. Sure, you might get someone, but it's not focused fire. I think how suppression is generally perceived to work now is pretty good.

They take no damage in cover, they can't really pop out to shoot back, and if they try to move then they might get hit (that free shot) It works with my example pretty well.

[Lochar]

My question would be, does suppression work as an overall debuff or arc related? Example sectoid covering behind auto is suppressed from moving away from car or penalized for shooting, but lets say a trooper moves directly into his path where he can shoot without peeking over the car, is it still a penalty shot?

Same question for escaping being pinned, if no LOS to the runner, does he still have any penalties? And is there area suppressive fire? You know an alien is hiding behind a wall but fully covered by wall, can you spray the edge of 1 side to prevent them from coming out that way during 1 turn?

I am all for hitting something during suppressive fire IF they leave cover but would be treated more of a low accuracy chance since the soldier isn't exactly aiming at any point specifically.

[rharris]

Actually no you're not always trying to hit a target. As far back as WWI people have been practicing the idea of saturation. Some people call it death tapping. The idea is that you move your full-auto machine gun slightly to the left and right and that fills the field in front of you with so much lead that no one moves. Sure, you might get someone, but it's not focused fire. I think how suppression is generally perceived to work now is pretty good.

They take no damage in cover, they can't really pop out to shoot back, and if they try to move then they might get hit (that free shot) It works with my example pretty well.

And you know this through fact? And thank you for you brief description from Wiki, most helpfull...

Xcom is set in a Theatre of modern day combat and future warfare. Please don't ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ me with 20th century tatics that are as outdated as your grandpa's Gaiters. Let me assure you that your Gallipoli rule book was thrown out with the emergance of an A-Symetric threat (Terrorism to the masses) which is effectivley what we are dealing with here.

FACT - If you dropping into a LZ with kit on your back and only the ammo you hold, your not wasting 13,000 rounds on spraying them everywhere to keep 1 or 2 in cover (based on a M60E4 for approx 13 seconds), your attemting to blow the cover away... (Quick secret Inkidu, but I have four medals... Real ones... That's how I know...)
If you have one guy smashing rounds out to keep someone behind a wall, there's only one reason, to capture. And if thats the case................. YOUR DOING IT WRONG.

I'm looking for realism... If were going to have destructable surrondings then a natural progression of that should be based on Supression being able to eventually go through it and hits/kills should be scored, wether that be a car, wall, tree etc. because eventually... it all comes down.

[Gazz]

a natural progression of that should be based on Supression being able to eventually go through it and hits/kills should be scored, wether that be a car, wall, tree etc. because eventually... it all comes down.

LOL! To the combat engineer, all obstacles are temporary in nature. =P

[Inkidu]

And you know this through fact? And thank you for you brief description from Wiki, most helpfull...

Xcom is set in a Theatre of modern day combat and future warfare. Please don't B*llsh*t me with 20th century tatics that are as outdated as your grandpa's Gaiters. Let me assure you that your Gallipoli rule book was thrown out with the emergance of an A-Symetric threat (Terrorism to the masses) which is effectivley what we are dealing with here.

FACT - If you dropping into a LZ with kit on your back and only the ammo you hold, your not wasting 13,000 rounds on spraying them everywhere to keep 1 or 2 in cover (based on a M60E4 for approx 13 seconds), your attemting to blow the cover away... (Quick secret Inkidu, but I have four medals... Real ones... That's how I know...)
If you have one guy smashing rounds out to keep someone behind a wall, there's only one reason, to capture. And if thats the case................. YOUR DOING IT WRONG.

I'm looking for realism... If were going to have destructable surrondings then a natural progression of that should be based on Supression being able to eventually go through it and hits/kills should be scored, wether that be a car, wall, tree etc. because eventually... it all comes down.

You do naturally destroy the cover, you just have to read the articles. I would imagine suppression would do superior damage to the cover, if it doesn't hit the alien behind it directly. So it stands to reason that it would cost a high amount of your current clip and do damage to the cover. Unless all that glass breaking and trees have burned away in the screen shots was just for show.

[katscan]

You guys are WAY over thinking this.

With all due respect, rharris, this is NOT real life. Your analogy stops with the following quote:
"FACT - If you dropping into a LZ with kit on your back and only the ammo you hold, your not wasting 13,000 rounds on spraying them everywhere to keep 1 or 2 in cover "
Here is a fact: Ammo is unlimited in this game. There we go, analogy over. While I would love for this to be a full realistic tactical sim, that's best left for a Jagged Alliance remake. That's also the reason I play Battlefront Normandy, to get realism. A realistic game would not limit smoke grenade use to a single class, nor have something silly like 'gunslinger' perks that allow you to use pistols equally effectively to an assault rifle.

I agree with your points about how suppression should work. But in this iteration, they are applying gamey mechanics. The correct questions to ask are the following (I think someone asked this above):

If you debuff one alien with suppressive fire, is it an AREA effect or a UNIT effect. It SHOULD be an area effect. But then again, suppression SHOULD be based upon the volume of fire, not upon activation of a debuff. Therefore, I don't put much faith in what should and should not be. So far, it appears to be a UNIT effect.

Inkidu- also suppression does not seem to damage cover. Just watch the gameplay videos. Glass does not provide cover, neither does tree foliage. They provide concealment (in Squad Leader based games)

[Inkidu]

You guys are WAY over thinking this.

With all due respect, rharris, this is NOT real life. Your analogy stops with the following quote:
"FACT - If you dropping into a LZ with kit on your back and only the ammo you hold, your not wasting 13,000 rounds on spraying them everywhere to keep 1 or 2 in cover "
Here is a fact: Ammo is unlimited in this game. There we go, analogy over. While I would love for this to be a full realistic tactical sim, that's best left for a Jagged Alliance remake. That's also the reason I play Battlefront Normandy, to get realism. A realistic game would not limit smoke grenade use to a single class, nor have something silly like 'gunslinger' perks that allow you to use pistols equally effectively to an assault rifle.

I agree with your points about how suppression should work. But in this iteration, they are applying gamey mechanics. The correct questions to ask are the following (I think someone asked this above):

If you debuff one alien with suppressive fire, is it an AREA effect or a UNIT effect. It SHOULD be an area effect. But then again, suppression SHOULD be based upon the volume of fire, not upon activation of a debuff. Therefore, I don't put much faith in what should and should not be. So far, it appears to be a UNIT effect.

Inkidu- also suppression does not seem to damage cover. Just watch the gameplay videos. Glass does not provide cover, neither does tree foliage. They provide concealment (in Squad Leader based games)

Well we don't know yet really, but when the heavy was suppressing that sectoid it was messing up the hell out of that late-model sedan. I think I've seen cover health indicators in some of the screen shots. Who knows at this point.