News: Clark has announced that he has started to post old LoS content (in the Media Gallery section), and will be posting more plus new content!

Author Topic: Suppression Fire  (Read 9672 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #30 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.

Offline YojimboUsaka

  • Nightmare
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #31 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

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #32 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. 

Offline grendeljd

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
    • My Deviantart Gallery
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #33 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.
I hate people generally, but I like them specifically - John Malkovich

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #34 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.

Offline smokingwreckage

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #35 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!"...

Offline sergeant_hastp

  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #36 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.

Offline sergeant_hastp

  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #37 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.


Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #38 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. 

Offline grendeljd

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
    • My Deviantart Gallery
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #39 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.
I hate people generally, but I like them specifically - John Malkovich

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #40 on: April 20, 2011, 09:05:28 AM »
But could the enemy crawl under your suppression? Sauce for the goose and all.

Offline smokingwreckage

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2011, 09:17:12 AM »
How about ONLY the square immediately to the fore?

Offline grendeljd

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
    • My Deviantart Gallery
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #42 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?]
I hate people generally, but I like them specifically - John Malkovich

Offline SgtHulka

  • Predator
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #43 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.

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Suppression Fire
« Reply #44 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.