Legions of Steel Forum

Legions of Steel => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: Clark on April 10, 2011, 06:35:38 PM

Title: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 10, 2011, 06:35:38 PM
As a sibling post to Leadership, the other complex rule (at least in the basic rules of engagement) is suppression.

As any of the military guys can confirm, the advantage of a machine gun (or automatic rifle like the C2) is not in its actual rate of fire.  For instance, the C9 (M249) actually has a lower rate of fire than the C7 (M16A2).  In game terms we tend to juice the support weapons to make them more dangerous.  The thing is, if you were to run into an enemy on the fly in a complex of twisting corridors, you would actually want the lighter rather than the heavier weapon.  The advantage of a machine gun is its effective rate of fire and sustained rate of fire. Back in the days when some sods had bolt action rifles or semi-automatics, then the distinction between an ROF 1 weapon and ROF 2 could be easily supported.  But the reality of modern warfare is that every soldier carries an automatic weapon.

My point is that the Heavy RAM Laser and Heavy Deadbolt Launcher are more than simply two weapons strapped together, and a C9 is not simply a C7 that kills twice as many bad guys. An infanteer turned engineer pointed out to me: automatic rifles are point weapons, machine guns attack an area.  The 30 rounds a C2 had were simply insufficient to attack an area.  A true machine gun with hundreds of rounds at the ready can lay down a spindle-shaped beaten zone, which is particularly effective in enfilade fire (attacking from the flank).

So here are some suggestions that I toss into the ring.

1) Machine gun type weapons will always autofire but with no penalty.

2) Machine gun weapons do not suppress a single row of square but rather multiple rows of squares, generally 3 or 5 wide.

3) Machine gun weapons can spread fire more effectively, only losing a die for each two or three squares between targets.

Setting aside machine guns, there are a couple of other mechanical questions.

I think we should dispense with the modifiers for the target and intervening squares.

The rules for blocked and unblocked suppression should be reworked to prevent various possible abuses.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 10, 2011, 06:59:29 PM
The other thing that we may not have to deal with now is the interaction with the pinning rules.  To my mind, suppression fire will generate more pins than regular fire.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: sergeant_hastp on April 10, 2011, 07:54:13 PM
I think for an indoor-based engagement, the machinegun type weapons are represented pretty well.  In that case it's the high rate of fire that makes them effective, not precise, but saturation.

Maybe something like the K-pulse grenade effect when it fires, every time: 'X' chance to kill the main, central target. 'X'-1 to kill adjacent targets.



It's when you get to 'outdoor' engagments that the effects like beaten zone start to appear, where you can attack everyone in that long zone more or less equally.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Dave Chase on April 10, 2011, 08:32:34 PM
If using morale rules in Planetstorm, why not have the addition effect that morale of a soldier ordered to move into a suppression area is effected negatively equal to the ROF of the said weapon causing the suppression zone.

Dave Chase
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Arfiel on April 10, 2011, 09:54:44 PM
I remember the indoor suppression working better and being more effective than in the outdoor system.
Now having said that I sure wish i could play a few games to get a feel for the rules again.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: YojimboUsaka on April 12, 2011, 05:09:59 AM
Couple of possible ways to go with this.

1.  If you want to model the high ammo consumption rather than high rate of fire you can spend extra ammo to increase the suppression zone.  4 ammo for normal suppression (equals the ROF of the weapon), 8 for double the ROF and 16 for triple the ROF.  A heavy flechette gunner going full out (X3) will be covering 9 squares/inches but dumping a hell of a lot of ammor (16).  Vehicle and static mounted weapons with large ammo capacity will be very deadly.  Ammo based weapons would have an advantage over heat and energy based ones in this regards which is a good thing in my humble opinion.  Different weapons should be better at different things.

2.  The area of effect , secondary fire in all adjacent squares would leave some odd issues.  Still need to trace line of sight to the target I would assume.  What about the targets between the firer and the target square?  I might not be understanding the intent on this one.

Morale/Stress - The way I handled it is that every time a figure spent movement or actions in or adjacent to a square being suppressed they tested for stress for each ROF in that square.  Keeping someones head down even if they were hiding around a corner became a viable tactic as targets under heavy suppression tended to not move much as to avoid all the extra stress.

Charles
(pardon the lack of posts lately please.  Something to do with earthquakes, tidal waves and nuclear meltdowns here in Northern Japan keeping us a tad busy as of late.)
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: smokingwreckage on April 12, 2011, 05:50:20 AM
I'd keep any extra ammo-tracking out of the basic rules. Nobody likes to track ammo. The suppression rules seemed to work OK, although I'm a little fuzzy on them now. Perhaps non-machine-gun weapons simply don't get the option of subsequent suppression? They get one turn then they have to do something else?

In some systems, the primary effect of suppression fire is to instantly force a morale check. Perhaps with pinning rules in play suppression fire gets to roll again and pin on a 6 regardless? Perhaps it pins on one less than a normal pin, for example, if under the old rule a roll of 6 kills and 5 pins, NEW suppressive fire kills on a 6 and pins on a 5 or 4?
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 12, 2011, 08:14:49 AM
Pinning is a whole other barrel of monkies, as is morale.  I don't think either fit into the indoor game.  I'll start separate threads at one point to discuss them but a few comments while we are touching on the subject:

I viewed pinning as a physical effect rather than a morale effect.  To expose yourself, you would have to pass a morale check, and getting pinned might trigger a morale check rather than the other way around. Fail your morale check and you blow your fire action, which means you can't unpin yourself.

Suppression fire should cause more pinning than regular fire IMO.

I think morale should be switched to a straight line rather than using the 3d6 bell curve because failed checks are so uncommon using the latter.

Ideally, pinning and wounding would be covered by the same mechanism so that they are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 12, 2011, 09:07:07 AM
For your typical weapon, suppression fire is long burst followed by sporadic bursts; it's not a six-second long blaze of gunfire.  An assault rifle could empty its magazine in about 2 seconds that way and then overheat the barrel if you reloaded and did it again.  However, a true machinegun has a heavier barrel that allows for sustained fire.  Perhaps they should get double dice on suppression (ie.  Autofire suppression).
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: sergeant_hastp on April 12, 2011, 01:58:16 PM
Does not even have to be bursts.

Once you 'win the firefight' and have the target 'pinned' or behind cover, then you only need a single round to pass near that location every couple seconds at random intervals.  More than one shooter staggering the rounds they fire just makes it even more effective.

The target has to *know* that if he pops his head up, there is a better than even chance it is going to coincide with the moment a passing round is assuming the right-of-way.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: bobloblah on April 12, 2011, 03:19:14 PM
I remember the indoor suppression working better and being more effective than in the outdoor system.
Now having said that I sure wish i could play a few games to get a feel for the rules again.

Just to stress a point that Arfiel made: the rules for Surpression indoors (i.e. in Legions of Steel) worked pretty well; I think it's a mistake to mess with rules that work well, no matter how good the intentions.

Surpression outdoors (i.e. Planetstorm) is another story...it wasn't bad, by any means, but the results never quite felt satisfactory. I've been thinking about that and how other games have handled this kind of thing. I don't think that many other games (that I've played) have done anything quite like Surpression, but there are some similar things. Off the top of my head, those that did:


What if Planetstorm based it's Surpression off of a calculated area (similar to the Heavy Gear example), placed that at a given range bracket, then attacked anything in a "cone" formed by the area template (a circle) and imaginary lines between the edges of the template and the shooter? See below:

Shooter}<0

Anything under the zero or inside the less-than symbol is attacked.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Arfiel on April 12, 2011, 04:35:26 PM
I agree. In the outdoor system it was easy to avoid a suppressed area.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 12, 2011, 08:06:28 PM
I had come up with the idea of Panic Fire - or Spray and Pray - which is basically emptying your magazine into your front arc out to a range of 15". The following turn you had to reload. Somewhat different than suppression.

In tabletop you have it easier to calculate strange angles and such so the template plus cone approach might work.

In other games you have heavy weapons that can only fire if they don't move. What I was thinking is that support weapons fire normally if you move but you get an increased rate of fire if you don't including for suppression. And if you blow a fire action to "set" (pop the bipod and hunker down) you can lay down some sick suppression, like the template plus cone.

Or why not simply make it a cone? Your ROF gets divided by the width where the target is standing. Less than a full die is one die at -1. Less than half a die is one die at -2

A UNE Flechette gun has an ROF of 3. Say we double that for suppression to 6. Your gunner could hose down a cone 30" long with a base a full 12" wide. Everything within 15" would be attacked at 5+ and everything between 15"'and 30" would be attacked at 6+. From 30" to 45" would be 8+ because you are now at long range with less than half a die, but at its terminus the base of your cone would be 18" wide(!).

The maximum width of your base would be 150% of the range (ie. your entire front arc) or otherwise:
ROF at XX
2xROF at X
4xROF at L or closer

A ZSU can suppress its entire front arc to a range of 10" or so.

Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Arfiel on April 12, 2011, 08:31:15 PM
you could also look at giving figures that are covering an earlier fire action.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 12, 2011, 11:19:10 PM
you could also look at giving figures that are covering an earlier fire action.

Covering can interupt new suppression but not suppression already laid.

Changing that allows you to cover and then use leadership to walk into the suppression but fire first.  I don't think so.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Arfiel on April 12, 2011, 11:30:33 PM
Sorry I forgot to include stationary covering and suppressing figures get earlier fire actions.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 12, 2011, 11:44:35 PM
I'm not sure what you are on about .

Laid suppression trumps
Leadership which trumps
Covering which trumps
Normal fire (and new suppression)
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Arfiel on April 13, 2011, 12:37:54 AM
well you mentioned a figure could use leadership to move ... so I thought it might be important to point out that it was a stationary figure.

but awesome ... the game is perfect 
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: sergeant_hastp on April 13, 2011, 01:37:39 AM
I co-developed a modern skirmish system with another guy in my Regiment several years ago (Presently the CO of that Regiment).

We used 1/72 scale and the ranges involved were all based on the real effective ranges of the weapon systems.  We used a big f'n table.  No where was technicallly 'out of range' for an assault rifle, let alone a machine gun.

In that system we had a Beaten Zone template for the machine guns. It was of course based on the shape of actual beaten zones according to the military publications.  There was one for the LMG, one for the GPMG, one for the HMG and even one for chainguns and light automatic cannon.

When it came time to fire one of these fully automatic weapons, you just placed the template, cut out of clear film, onto the table and oriented it properly based on the position of the gun.  It had a minimum range from the gun, not a maximum that it could be placed, because it takes distance to get the round dispersion.  Firing closer than 100m or so and you just treat it like you are firing at a point target.

Whatever figure was under the template got attacked with the gun.

If you gave the gunner an order chit for maximum fire, then you got to lay the template twice.  You could lay it end to end to make the beaten zone long and thin, or you could lay it side by side to make it shorter and wider.  You could even just keep it in the same spot and attack everyone in the zone twice rather than once.

If you spent the time to 'dig in' you could have your weapon in the sustained fire mode, which allowed you to lay the template 3 times.  Again, end to end, side to side or overlapping.

I don't recall if we had suppression per se, as in LoS or Planetstorm.  I'd have to go over it again to find out, but I believe that it was more of a covering-type system.  If you go out into that area, where the gunner has oriented himself to face, then said gunner gets to shoot first.

Just food for thought to mine for ideas.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: smokingwreckage on April 13, 2011, 05:58:23 AM
Just to second the idea that Suppression worked well indoors in LOS. I'd be hesitant to change that. While it's nice to have a detailed sim., the guts of a game, especially a board game, is tactical options. You need to have clear options with clear differences. In LOS suppression seemed to me to be the option you used to try to deny moves to EITHER multiple targets OR targets with Ld points. It worked very well as a game option.

You don't want, except for in a super-realistic supplemental rule perhaps, to go beyond a few distinct options. Stand for a +1, move, or run. Fire, cover or suppress. Leadership: Use, assign, or save for the initiative. Most of those also break down into immediate benefit, tactical benefit, strategic benefit. That is elegance, man. You don't mess with that!

Yeah, except for when you're setting up extra rules for people who really want the realism. That's cool too, but it needs to be clearly a rule for realists rather than straight-up game players.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 13, 2011, 06:29:10 AM
It depends on your time and range scale.  While LOS figs are 28mm (about 1/48th) the ground scale of 1" = 2m (a bastardization if ever there was one) which amounts to about 1/79th.  However, the time scale is on the order of 6 seconds per turn.  I recall that 'rapid fire' by army standards was the equivalent of one round every 6 seconds, never mind automatic bursts or anything.  To use the published effective ranges you would probably have to compress the time/ground scale by a factor of 3 to 5 or more.  That would give you 2 to 4 turns per minute and 1" being 5 to 10 metres.  But it depends on who's numbers you use.  The C1 had an effective range of 600 m and 1000 m with section fire.  I googled the M16A2 and the stats seem to say its range is 550 m for point targets and 800 m for area targets.  Meanwhile, the C7 comes up as 400 m,  but my memory tells me the number we worked with was 300 m as the effective range.  Anyways, with the most compression, then your mythical 4' x 8' gaming table is just shy of half a grid square and your C7 effective range would be 40"


But check this out:

canadian b-gl-382-003pt-001 - 2002 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/3617434/canadian-bgl382003pt001-2002#)

I found it mid-post.

The assumption in LOS is standing shots with instinctive shooting, that is only using the front sight which is why your short range for rifles is only 40 to 60 metres.  If you set a turn to aim with your sights from the prone position, the range bands of most weapons would be increased by a factor of 5 to 10.  The arbitrary maximum range of 75"  would go up to 750 m to 1.5 k which is basically your maximum range for small arms fire engagements
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 13, 2011, 06:33:16 AM
For LOS (indoor) I would want to keep things close to what we have but maybe clean up things like blocked suppression.  If there are going to be changes to reflect the concerns I am discussing about support weapons, we can have one or two quick fixes but nothing elaborate like beaten zones and area suppression.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: bobloblah on April 13, 2011, 09:30:07 AM
For LOS (indoor) I would want to keep things close to what we have but maybe clean up things like blocked suppression.  If there are going to be changes to reflect the concerns I am discussing about support weapons, we can have one or two quick fixes but nothing elaborate like beaten zones and area suppression.

What were you thinking of as a problem in terms of blocked surpression? What are your thoughts on what to do with support weapons/surpression in PS?
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: sergeant_hastp on April 13, 2011, 02:06:44 PM
  If you set a turn to aim with your sights from the prone position, the range bands of most weapons would be increased by a factor of 5 to 10.  The arbitrary maximum range of 75"  would go up to 750 m to 1.5 k which is basically your maximum range for small arms fire engagements

And yet there is no option for this, leaving the gamer with the impression that shots that exceed the listed range in the chart just...drop off or fizzle out.

The aforementioned game, as i said, is just for ideas.  If I remember correctly we used 1/72 scale soldiers, but the ground scale was 1cm=1m.  I do not recall what the time scale was.  Weapons fire was handled at section level, making the effective range of the C7A1 600m, or 6m table.  We used a large table, but it was not 6m.  Hence there was no where out of range.

Quote
Meanwhile, the C7 comes up as 400 m,  but my memory tells me the number we worked with was 300 m as the effective range.
Range for the C7 with iron sights was 300m.  With the addition of the C79 Optical sight effective individual range was increased to 400m.  Both incarnations were considered to give effective section level fire to 600m.

I'm not advocating any of this for Planetstorm.  My point is to illustrate that beaten zone effects of support weapons are meant for use when distance is involved, not at short range skirmishes or indoors.  However, if something was to be included along the lines of suppression fire for the next incarnation of Planetstorm, I would prefer to see templates you could lay down.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 13, 2011, 03:22:47 PM
Mechanically speaking, it would not be too difficult to allow for real firing ranges and firing positions. However, the bookkeeping/counter clutter would increase and the game would be slowed down due to that, plus - depending on the lay of the land - static positions and long range fire (which would be realistic but boring).
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: sergeant_hastp on April 13, 2011, 06:41:22 PM
I'd be happy if Planetstorm had a nod to long range direct fire along the lines of:

Perhaps an 'extreme' range band used by full battlefield sized weapons (non-carbine, pistol or wrist rocket types)

A range band that is 'effectively unlimited' at the chosen scale. 

A range band that can only be accessed when the shooting figure is already kneeling (as per LoS), remains stationary and expends a fire action. (no covering fire shot).

The chances of hitting don't have to be very good at all, just shy of impossible perhaps, but the possibility lets the gamer know that the hardware these troops are using are truly capable of open battlefield engagement.

Just mull it around.  Long time yet before PS gets re-released I take it.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 13, 2011, 07:17:38 PM
The Joker: Do I look like a guy with a plan?

The "plan" is to get the basic rules out in a couple of months, a 3e compendium for 11-11-11, Planetstorm for next spring, Stormfront (as it was) for next GenCon.

Yes, that would be a relatively simple fix.  Maybe this: a figure can set and brace with a fire action.  It doesn't move but places two fired counters next to it instead of one to indicate it's status.  In the next initial phase you can take a shot at 7+ at anything in in LOF and LOS regardless of range.  If you don't take the shot, you are considered set and braced for the next round and get the option again next initial phase.  If you take the shot, you become fired and then proceed with the action phase. For these long range shots we use "me too" firing that is resolved simultaneously.  There are about half a dozen points to this proposed rule where you might ask "why?" and I can elaborate if anyone cares.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 13, 2011, 08:56:28 PM
How about this for LOS - indoor - suppression:

First is that we get rid of the distinction between primary and secondary squares.
Further to the, the question remains whether all square should be at 0 or -1
Second is that the target square doesn't change when blocked
Third is how to deal with suppression that is blocked and then unblocked in the same turn.

The latter interacts with covering fire and leadership and the fact that a player could potentially orchestrate the blocking and unblocking of suppression if unblocked suppression gets a new attack roll.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Dave Chase on April 13, 2011, 09:51:37 PM
Something that my friends always talked about, it would be interesting if the doors had a possibility of jaming close if hit during a suppression fire. We never did it but our suggestion back then was if the hit number was exactly rolled the door was jamed closed and not destroyed.

Dave Chase
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 14, 2011, 07:16:58 AM
Something that my friends always talked about, it would be interesting if the doors had a possibility of jaming close if hit during a suppression fire. We never did it but our suggestion back then was if the hit number was exactly rolled the door was jamed closed and not destroyed.

Dave Chase

Referring to the Rule Matrix, I think that would be an excellent optional or experimental rule.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 14, 2011, 07:35:32 AM
I've gone back to the Blue Box Rules of Engagement and here are the key points

There is a distinction between the primary and secondary target squares.  Basically, you lay down suppression on a square at no modifier and anyone who walks in the way takes an attack at -1.

Does it make sense that you can attack one square with suppression but it won't affect the square that is 1" further away?

Would it be mechanically easier to eliminate the distinction between primary and secondary target squares? If so do we impose a -1 penalty on what was formerly the primary target, or elimiate the -1 penalty for secondary target squares?

Eliminating the distinction could make blocked suppression simpler in that you don't need to move the "Suppressed" counter about: your target stays the same but targets behind obstructions don't get attacked.

Mechanically, there was a possible abuse with a forcewall or door in that you could lay suppression, block it with a forcewall, kill your own forcewall so the suppression gets laid again thereby generating a second set of attack rolls.  Obviously, no thinking gamer would permit this but we didn't want to leave that as a loophole for rules lawyers to exploit.

For the indoor game the only fixes for support weapons that I am contemplating are: 1) a bonus like double dice and 2) the option of suppressing a 3" wide path so you can cover the large corridors.

For Planetstorm I am leaning towards a cone of suppression where you designate a target area that is X" wide and anyone who steps into the intervening area gets attacked.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: YojimboUsaka on April 14, 2011, 08:12:59 AM
For the longest time we played with suppression not having the -1 for any square.  Just made more sense.  We didnt see it being overpowered during play.

I like the doubling of dice for suppression indoors but woudl it consume more ammo when you took that option?

The cone is a good idea and simplifies things quite a bit.

Charles
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 14, 2011, 08:31:53 AM
There is a certain logic in that you are actually firing at a particular square so someone who who just happens to jump in front of you won't be as easy a target.  But really the issue is about game balance.  If eliminating the -1 for the secondary squares is not a serious issue then I am all for it.

Ammo isn't much of an issue because the weapons that would be able to do this should have a ridiculous ammo count anyways.  A C7 has 30 rounds while a C9 gets 100. 
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: grendeljd on April 14, 2011, 09:25:36 AM
Does it make sense that you can attack one square with suppression but it won't affect the square that is 1" further away?

Kinda doesn't

Quote
Would it be mechanically easier to eliminate the distinction between primary and secondary target squares? If so do we impose a -1 penalty on what was formerly the primary target, or elimiate the -1 penalty for secondary target squares?

Eliminating the distinction could make blocked suppression simpler in that you don't need to move the "Suppressed" counter about: your target stays the same but targets behind obstructions don't get attacked.

I like both of these ideas - and I support eliminating the -1 penalty altogether. Seems to me that even if you are focusing on an area at the end of a hallway for example, the bullets are still travelling down said hallway to reach the area at the end. They can't tell they aren't aiming for someone who steps in the way halfway down the hall, they just punch through anything on their journey.

The idea of keeping the counter placed on the original target seems more elegant too - the target may be blocked but you know its still gonna be there when you blast through an obstruction, and chances are you'll want to continue suppressing the target once its out of the way. I don't see it being hard to keep track of blocked suppression.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 14, 2011, 10:32:47 AM
Is it plausible to to select a target square short of your full line of sight?  Can you check fire on targets beyond that or otherwise shoot at the ground.  I'm talking about indoors at closer ranges.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: smokingwreckage on April 14, 2011, 10:59:21 AM
Well, I think that if you have to suppress everything, that makes for interesting tactical decisions and means suppression won't always be appropriate. It makes sense that if you need to suppress here, and a buddy for some reason needs to cross your line of fire at the end of the corridor, there's a good chance you're going to put a bullet in him, right? Would an infantryman consider that firing at the ground, in a tunnel, 10 metres to the front, makes it safe and acceptable to cross that line of fire at 20 metres? I would hazard a "hell no".

Maybe fire beyond the target point gets the -1?? To allow tactics of desperation? So you COULD arc up the floor, but it doesn't guarantee that the area beyond is "safe".

Not being any kind of soldier, I always thought of "fire" as burst fire, "auto fire" as two quick bursts, "cover" as finger on the trigger waiting for a target, and "suppression" as NOT waiting for a target but going to some degree of "Hollywood auto fire" in order to render the forward region uninhabitable (hence no Leadership dodging: you don't get to dash across extra fast and not get shot at because at any given moment there are already bullets/beams/particles flying through the area).

Now, don't get me wrong, by "Hollywood auto" I don't mean running out into the corridor , standing feet beyond shoulder-width apart, gun held at groin level bellowing "GRUAAAAAAAAARGH!" while smoking hot brass piles up to your ankles and the band plays "America! **** YEAH!"...
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: sergeant_hastp on April 14, 2011, 01:54:59 PM
There is a certain logic in that you are actually firing at a particular square so someone who who just happens to jump in front of you won't be as easy a target.  But really the issue is about game balance.  If eliminating the -1 for the secondary squares is not a serious issue then I am all for it.

Ammo isn't much of an issue because the weapons that would be able to do this should have a ridiculous ammo count anyways.  A C7 has 30 rounds while a C9 gets 100.

Actually, you may recall the C9 has a 200 round box feed.

As far as ammo goes, I remember we adopted a rule from Tony Lin...where every weapon had a ammo number.  Ammo never came into play as long as you fired normally.  If you autofired, you roll a die, if you are above the number then you are out of ammo and have to go to one of your re-loads.  If you suppress then the number drops by 2.

I found it very elegant in that you don't need lots of bookeeping, (none really, unless you want to track how many re-loads a trooper still has left.  If you don't then you just count the reload as a wasted fire action and troop on) and there is still a nod to ammo depletion.

Is it plausible to to select a target square short of your full line of sight?  Can you check fire on targets beyond that or otherwise shoot at the ground.  I'm talking about indoors at closer ranges.

I'm thinking 'not really' at the range and distance of an indoor battle.  I'm thinking ricochets, and asking why are shots being fired at the floor in the first place?  That's only 'first graze'.

On a tangent...I hate that about hollywood, where the hero is running and getting shot at.  The dirt is always kicking up from the bullets just behind their feet.  Why are the bad guys shooting at their feet?
(unless there is a handrail or metal post, in which case you always see the sparks closer to center mass)

However, I like the other option, that of being able to use the 'kneel' option to actually crawl under suppression, at least for half the length of the suppressed area.  This allows someone to suppress a spot, allowing a teammate to crawl up and potentially toss a grenade with a degree of accuracy.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: sergeant_hastp on April 14, 2011, 02:05:29 PM

Not being any kind of soldier, I always thought of "fire" as burst fire, "auto fire" as two quick bursts, "cover" as finger on the trigger waiting for a target, and "suppression" as NOT waiting for a target but going to some degree of "Hollywood auto fire" in order to render the forward region uninhabitable (hence no Leadership dodging: you don't get to dash across extra fast and not get shot at because at any given moment there are already bullets/beams/particles flying through the area).

Now, don't get me wrong, by "Hollywood auto" I don't mean running out into the corridor , standing feet beyond shoulder-width apart, gun held at groin level bellowing "GRUAAAAAAAAARGH!" while smoking hot brass piles up to your ankles and the band plays "America! **** YEAH!"...

For common reference, if LoS is indeed based on CF tactics circa 1990s,

Fire is a single shot.  If its a weapon that doesn't allow single shots, then it is a very short burst.

Autofire is a 'double tap' or 2 rounds fired in quick succession. In the case of a weapon that doesn't allow single shots, its a burst.
Suppression fire isn't necessarily about lots of fire.  It's firing to keep the enemy's 'head down'.  It's firing when you don't actually necessarily have a target in your sight.  It's rounds going 'to whom it may concern' in an area you want to deny to the enemy.  He has to know that if he sticks any part of himself in that area that there *might* be a round coming at that same moment.

To do this, you do not need to 'hose it down'.  It's a shot every coupld seconds.  The actual number of seconds being random.  It works really good if you have more than one person plinking away, because it allows you to stretch the ammo conservation by alternating who donates a round to the cause.

Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 14, 2011, 03:36:48 PM
My bad: 200 rounds.  So that is almost 7 times the capacity of the C7.  You could go full auto for what amounts to 2 or 3 turns solid before reloading.

Otherwise, you are spot on with the interpretation. 
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: grendeljd on April 20, 2011, 08:57:48 AM
However, I like the other option, that of being able to use the 'kneel' option to actually crawl under suppression, at least for half the length of the suppressed area.  This allows someone to suppress a spot, allowing a teammate to crawl up and potentially toss a grenade with a degree of accuracy.

This is a really good idea - potentially a very lethal combo. I think the limit of moving only half the distance of the suppression line is about right, and a key factor.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 20, 2011, 09:05:28 AM
But could the enemy crawl under your suppression? Sauce for the goose and all.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: smokingwreckage on April 20, 2011, 09:17:12 AM
How about ONLY the square immediately to the fore?
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: grendeljd on April 20, 2011, 09:26:10 AM
But could the enemy crawl under your suppression? Sauce for the goose and all.

I don't think so - if you are suppressing an area, I think you'd be very aware of a squadmate who has probably communicated his/her intention to crawl under your firing lane as opposed to having an enemy figure show up anywhere in said firing lane...

If you by chance mean a situation where you have a squad member already crawling [re:kneeling] in your firing lane and suddenly an enemy fig crawls in at a point closer to you than the friendly fig, well that may be an interesting wrinkle. I would then think you'd be forced to roll to hit your own friendly in order to take a shot at the closer enemy fig, or else ignore the enemy [and really, who would do that?]
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: SgtHulka on April 24, 2011, 08:57:27 AM
Would it be mechanically easier to eliminate the distinction between primary and secondary target squares? If so do we impose a -1 penalty on what was formerly the primary target, or elimiate the -1 penalty for secondary target squares?

This is what I was gonna suggest for Planetstorm when I started reading the thread, so I'm glad to see you're already contemplating it. If given the factors, I'd say eliminate the -1 penalty.

Here's the one danger, though. Right now the underground game plays very exciting. It is a very mobile game. The game is all about movement. You move your forces, they get stuck by suppression and or covering and have to find a new path. Your move is counter-moved and you have to find a new path. And so forth. Unlike 40K where you line up your forces and just start shooting at eachother in a musket line until someone wins.

It's possible (though I think unlikely) that if suppression is *too* good you could suppress all lanes and then you end up with a World War I simulation where everyone's afraid to move. Like I said, I don't think that will happen, but it's worth playtesting.

In planetstorm, as others have mentioned, suppression is just too easy to walk around, and the secondary target is a prime culprit of that. Your uses of suppression are already limited in an outdoor environment, anyway, so it's only really good for preventing people from coming around a corner or popping out of window. At least the no secondary target rule would help the coming around a corner part of it, but it would still be easy to crawl to a different window, or a different portion of a wall you're hiding under. Maybe in Planetstorm make Suppression effect entire terrain features instead of fixed areas. So you can suppress a treeline and anyone trying to emerge from that treeline will be effected. Or a wall that a squad is hunkering under. Or the lip of a roof. Or a ruined building.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Clark on April 27, 2011, 05:53:12 PM
The rules we have are that you don't have to attack a kneeling figure that is adjacent to a suppressing fig. Other than that, the idea of crawling under suppression gets tricky, especially indoors.  The moving fig would need comms with the suppressing fig, or they would have to otherwise be warned that a friendly was going low across your line of fire.  Difficult to coordinate.

Having said that, in Planetstorm it becomes more flexible.  For ON GUARD '90 the engineers prepared a live fire assault course for the commandos to run through.  Having set it up, we had to test it.  One portion involved involved a river assault and we had Cougar AFVs behind us firing their GPMGs over our heads as we paddled across to the other side.  They were on a hill, which gave them an elliptical area to beat down rather than a cone from the muzzle. It's pretty wild seeing the tracers zipping by over your shoulder.
Title: Re: Suppression Fire
Post by: Dave Chase on April 27, 2011, 07:29:49 PM
The rules we have are that you don't have to attack a kneeling figure that is adjacent to a suppressing fig. Other than that, the idea of crawling under suppression gets tricky, especially indoors.  The moving fig would need comms with the suppressing fig, or they would have to otherwise be warned that a friendly was going low across your line of fire.  Difficult to coordinate.
I am for just saying it can't be done.

Quote
Having said that, in Planetstorm it becomes more flexible.  For ON GUARD '90 the engineers prepared a live fire assault course for the commandos to run through.  Having set it up, we had to test it.  One portion involved involved a river assault and we had Cougar AFVs behind us firing their GPMGs over our heads as we paddled across to the other side.  They were on a hill, which gave them an elliptical area to beat down rather than a cone from the muzzle. It's pretty wild seeing the tracers zipping by over your shoulder.
It's even more wilder and more intense, when you have grenades and live rounds coming back at you.

Dave Chase