Author Topic: Pinning  (Read 5052 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Scoutzout

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Pinning
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2011, 11:40:34 PM »

/snip 
But that's just an opinion.  People react all kinds of ways to getting shot at.  God only knows how machines would react...or wouldn't.



This is an excellent point. There is no gut reaction. No feeling of fear for the machine. Are they still going to be "pinnable"


On the suggestion from sergeant_hastp

I just did a few rounds with PI and Machine and it seemed to be working pretty well. I used the the "exact number" needed as a TN for pinning. (I did like 3-4 exchanges, hardly scientific on my part)

I like the idea that a pin just makes the person "fired" There is no carryover and one can assume that the pinned model does what its trained to do on its next turn. One question..what if you pin a model thats already used its action?

Its perfectly inline with fire superiority. The more attacks I  make against the enemy unit the more chances I pin them and remove their ability to return fire.

The high RoF achieve kills or pins...like they are supposed to. They are designed to kill or keep their head down.

The shift in the percentage of pins by giving certain weapons a Pin Value is VERY interesting. It might make it even MORE tactical...if you dont use the appropriate moves and cover you will find your unit pinned repeatedly until dead.
I could see exact number as base and certain weapons given a +1 or +2 value max

The one thing I didn't try was the AoE effect of pinning after a kill..I could see  that a morale test or something to resist that effect. Seeing your buddy eat a deadbolt may give you pause (pin) or may inspire you to lay down some of your own fire.





Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 491
Re: Pinning
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2011, 02:02:08 AM »
The morale rules need to get streamlined but what happens now is that the  unit as a whole has to check morale every time a kill is scored on the unit. Generally, machines don't check morale.  But again, I envisioned pinning as being a physical effect of the bullets narrowly missing you rather than a psychological effect of how the trooper deals with that fact.  Viewed that way, machines can be pinned but could elect to wander into the hail of gunfire without the need for a morale check.  It's still abstract because you could get pinned by one guy, expose yourself and then a different guy would still get the bonuses to kill you. It doesn't completely make sense but enforces the underlying idea.

It does raise the question of what happens if you are already fired because if you aren't you would probably be covering and if that was the case you would proably have used your covering fire on the attacker before he pinned you.  If, for whatever reason you didn't take the covering fire then you become fired and then the next phase would proceed as normal.  So the only effect seems to be to blow your covering fire.

I took a look at Crossfire.  Their pinning stops movement, suppression stops movement and fire, a second suppression kills.  Fire has unlimited range which, as I mentioned, forces the game to have lots of terrain, something like a third or half your board will be covered with it to clutter line of sight. You get to keep taking movement until one of your unit gets suppressed or pinned or killed, and you get unlimited fire until one of your shots misses. It's highly abstract but the ground scale is assumed to be about 1"= 10m

Scoutzout, as sergeant_hasp mentions a section can realistically only handle a few enemies at a time. If you took two Nightmares at a range of, say, 45" and give them the initiative against a PI section.  The Nightmares stationary fire giving them each 17% to kill and 17% to wound so odds are (56%) that at least one trooper is pinned or wounded.  A whole assault group firing stationary would have something like a 67% chance to kill outright and another 24% chance pin. Even if the Nightmares were under cover to give the troopers -1, that's still 41% to kill and 25% to pin.  If we juice the flechette guns with +1 on pinning the kill chances stay the same but pinning gets increased to 29% and 42%. 

I haven't sat down to actually run these numbers before.  Relative to your chance of actually scoring a kill, you don't pin as often.  If you were leapfrogging by  assault group withh one stationary firing and the other running and firing it's something like 32% kill and 32% pin on each Nightmare but then your chances keep going up.  But just using those numbers, after 4 turns, each Nightmare would have almost an 80% chance of being dead but only about one-in thre of staying pinned from turn to turn.

Offline sergeant_hastp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Pinning
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2011, 02:26:45 PM »
On Pinning

First off, I want to say if my last entry on this thread came across as irritable, then I offer apologies.  I took offense where it was likely not intended, and I submit that I had just concluded a long night shift, dealing with a very belligerent criminal and was I was probably not in the best frame of mind for any sort of social discourse.

Anyways, in the following….essay….I will try to clarify my ideas for how pinning can work in a new and improved Planetstorm setting.  I offer these ideas to debate their merits with others of the forum.  Moreover I present it to Clark to twist, mould, chop or abandon however he sees fit to use in *his* game, and with the understanding I will likely use some variation in my own house games regardless, because I truly believe it can work as the most effective solution to modeling Canadian battle drills, circa 1990s.

Background
In the past when my friends and I played Planetstorm, I personally was always a big proponent of using the pinning rules, as I saw the intent of them.  Most often however I was overruled by the others I gamed with.  To paraphrase the typical argument I heard against using Pinning:  “Pinning rules suck.  If I hit the guy, I want to kill the guy.  A lot of the time I can only kill on a roll of an exact 6…I don’t want to waste that lucky shot for what amounts to an inconvenience and then have my own guy get killed right after.  Besides, it slows the game down too much, and we want to play with big armies.”

(I had an equally hard time promoting the decimation rules…but considering that my group actually played with decimation rules from time to time, it is quite telling of the bias against the present state of the pinning rules.)

What we don’t want:  (‘We’ meaning myself and gamers that think like me…if any.)
We don’t want to have to use counters: Having counters like ‘pinning’ and ‘exposed’ add more clutter to the board.  It’s not TOO onerous fishing them out, but if they can be avoided that’s a big plus.

We don’t want to have extra dice rolls: Any way we can cut out an extraneous die roll is for the better, for overall game play and time.

We don’t want to have to shuffle and draw cards…for the same reasons as extra dice rolls.

What is the purpose of Pinning?
Pinning is the term that Planetstorm has adopted for the real-world battlefield effect of ‘Winning the Firefight’.

A firefight is when two factions are shooting at each other.  Without pinning rules of some kind, this is the status quo for a game of Planetstorm. A firefight. Both sides shoot at each other whenever and wherever they can.  Sometimes they hit, sometimes they don’t.  If you want to reduce the chances of getting hit, you stay out of the range of your opponent, or get behind cover or concealment. These are player-controlled actions.

With pinning, you can win a firefight.  This involves delivering accurate fire upon your enemy to the point where they cannot fire back effectively.  Ideally it will also ‘fix’ the enemy, which means they can’t move from their present location.

Thus the purpose of pinning is to deprive your opponent of the ability to shoot back at you, and keep him from advancing, running away, or maneuvering to counter your actions.  Killing the enemy is always preferable to pinning him, as killing all of your enemy will automatically guarantee that you win the firefight.  The less enemy you have shooting at you also reduces the chance that they will be able to turn the tide and pin your own forces down.

How does pinning work?

Pinning is intrinsically linked to the psychology of the combatant.  A fighter can already  make the tactical decision to take cover on his turn.  This is in the basic game system.  The player can look at the board, assess the opponent figure’s weapon and line of sight and make an educated guess as to how much danger his own figures are in.  He can then move his figures to a more advantageous spot or he can choose to shoot from where he is.

Winning the firefight goes beyond this theoretical threat of harm.  It uses the drive for self preservation as a tool to make the enemy stop whatever it was that he was doing or intended to do and ‘get down’.  In its most essential form…it takes away that figures next action.  What will cause this instinct to manifest?  The perception that the figure nearly died or is about to die.

This, in the game, is represented by a near-miss.  You need a 5 to kill the figure…if you roll a 4…that is close enough to a kill that it is likely going to force the figure to ‘get down’. (Note that the classic pinning rules required a hit on the exact number.  To me this is a kill.  Anything else just gives the player a feeling of being cheated as a kill is always better than a pin.)

A figure forced to ‘get down’ is pinned.  That figure immediately places a ‘Fired’ counter next to it.  It cannot move, it cannot fire, because it is too busy reacting.  Some weapons have a better chance of generating this effect, because of rapid-rate multiple, nearly simultaneous bullets or blasts, or perhaps there is a bigger effect, a louder weapon signature, a more horrific effect…in general a bigger ‘pucker factor’.  To put it another way…getting hit by an automobile of any kind is something that most people would not want…but when facing down a honda civic or a Peterbilt truck, there will be a different perception of danger.

This is how one machine-gun like weapon might be able to pin a target just as well as 3 or 4 rifle-like weapons.

To reiterate; being pinned is linked to the psychological.  In many cases it would be foolish to react to the shot.  The guy who fired at you obviously didn’t kill you.  If you have an action available, it would be logical to use that action to eliminate the threat rather than to ‘get down’.  But living creatures, being what they are, react to that near-miss by ‘getting down’, (unless they have access to superior training, instincts or guts…ie leadership or hero points).

What happens if you shoot at a figure that has already used his action this round (and is ‘fired’), or is already affected by a pin effect, and gets another pin result?

  Nothing!  That figure has already done what he had set out to do for that instant.  I would liken this to a guy in a firefight who is shooting at a target, who has several rounds kicking up dirt right next to him…that he doesn’t even notice!  You need the psychological engagement to have a pin effect.  If he doesn’t know he was almost killed…then how does he react to it? Likewise, if he already has his head down in the mud…and another round smacks dirt into his visor…what is he going to do that he isn’t already doing? Now if he was actually hit…then that effect takes care of itself.  We are still talking about a near-miss causing a pin effect. (as opposed to the classic Planetstorm pin resulting from a hit on the exact number requited).

So now what?
If the pinned figure survives the rest of the turn, and his side wins initiative, he has the opportunity to act as normal…he is no longer ‘fired’…he can try to move or shoot…but if one of the assaulters in the fire base has planted himself downrange with a covering-0 action…

Initiative

Initiative is of the utmost importance in this system, and therefore bonuses to initiative such as leadership and command points can prove decisive in a long-term firefight.

Consider: Whichever side has the initiative has the first chance to get into position and start trying to win the firefight.  If the opponents are already there, (or start the scenario with covering actions) they may get to take a covering shot first…which may kill the figure, cause a pin effect, or miss entirely.  A kill or a pin effect is what we call ‘effective enemy fire’.  A miss is not.

Once a firefight has begun, both sides are striving to neutralize the other’s fire, through killing or pinning.  When one side starts losing actions because of pin effects, it will free up the other side to start moving.

Ideally, only half will move though, leaving the other half stationary and covering…why?  Because if the side being pinned wins initiative they will get their fire actions back and become a threat.  The half of the assault force that has stationary cover will have the opportunity to fire on the figures that are no longer pinned…whether they try to fire or move to try to kill them or keep them pinned.

If the assault force chooses not to have sufficient numbers of their unit as a ‘fire base’ to keep covering the enemy, the pinned opponents may win initiative and see that the assaulters are advancing…all fired or covering -1 or covering -2. 

At the very least it proves why we train to do ‘Cover and Movement’, ‘Fire and Move’, ‘pepper-potting’, or whichever term you choose to use. ‘One foot on the ground’.

If this technique were not used, the defenders would have decent odds to survive the weak or non-existent covering fire, and score some kills or pins against the advancing assaulters.  This is where the assaulters may lose the firefight.  They would have to stop their advance and put effort into trying to win it back.  A big part of it comes back to initiative.

Morale?

My suggestion is to bin the morale rules for Planetstorm, not re-vamp them.  I don’t think my group ever used the morale system, and I for one never pressed for it.  It seems like a hold-over from fantasy and historical wargaming that has no place in a modern or sci-fi game.  I think this was talked about elsewhere on the forum. 

The idea that a modern combat unit would suddenly get a ‘de-moralized’ and fall apart as a cohesive unit to flee the fight, unless rallied by a commander is a little silly.  Do combatants in real life leave the field before fighting to the last man?  Sure, but this is better handled as part of victory conditions for the scenario.  When your position is untenable, you just end the game.

The most pressing example of ‘morale’ in a firefight is in the pinning effect.  I feel it starts and ends there.  What other effect would you want to model?  Units that are forced to retreat off the battlefield or disintegrate due to a die roll or a card draw?  I truly believe the momentary ‘flinch’ as a result of a volume of accurate firepower is all that is necessary for this simulation.

The buddy-effect:
The only other additional effect I would think about adding by way of Psychological effect is that of having a team mate go down.  This can be linked as a part of the pinning process.   When a guy actually gets killed, those figures immediately nearby become pinned.  This can be a function of what kind of weapon does the killing (once again, it’s all about perception. Someone blown to pieces by an anti-armor missile might have a greater pinning-effect on those nearby than its 1 ROF would warrant.  Likewise a sniper’s shot can be particularly unnerving.

I propose it as an area-effect.  Everyone in the designated area automatically becomes ‘fired’ as per the pinning effect above.


Machines
Which brings us to the machines.  Can machines be pinned?  I would tentatively propose ‘no’.  The machine player can make the logical decision to have his forces use cover where possible, but not react to a near-miss (see above to the illogic of it).

So perhaps that’s part of what makes machines so scary?  Of course Omega Fiends would be pin-able.

Or perhaps you can have machines be pinned, but only on the exact number minus 1…assuming they are hits that don’t penetrate, the shock of which disorients the machine…like in The Terminator where Arnie gets repeatedly pumped with shotgun blasts…to no real effect, other than he gets knocked off his feet…losing his next fire action.





Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 491
Re: Pinning
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2011, 10:53:14 PM »
I'm glad we didn't lose you.

Your affection for the Decimation rules warms the heart of a fellow sergeant.

Let me digest this.

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 491
Re: Pinning
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2011, 10:55:45 PM »
And I may have to rethink my idea that "pinning is a physical effect" because virtually no one gets the idea.

Offline bobloblah

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Pinning
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2011, 11:40:20 AM »
And I may have to rethink my idea that "pinning is a physical effect" because virtually no one gets the idea.
It totally made sense to me. I think that keeping Pinning along it's current lines is a large differentiator for Plantstorm. It can be a bit of work to use, but the effects on how things are played on the tabletop are significant. I'd hate to lose that flavour. I also like the thinking of Machines ignoring morale, but still being subject to pinning (unless they choose to ignore it - and get shot!).

Clark also mentioned what seems like a non-sequitur when a Pinned target is attacked by a second shooter who still gets a bonus. That never seemed far-fetched to me; the first shooter simply closed down the target's movement options, making it easier for the second shooter to get a bead on the target.

For what it's worth, I'm also a big fan of Decimation. While I can see it being an optional rule for casual play, I'd definitely want to see it used in more structured (read: tournament) game settings.

I'm still reading and digesting sergeant_hastp's post/essay, but I think I disagree on some of his points (forgive me if I'm not understanding them correctly yet):
  • I really don't see Pinning as a purely psychological effect, I see it as trying to avoid getting perforated - which has a significant, detrimental impact on one's combat effectiveness (Machine or otherwise).
  • I tried changing the Pinning numbers to one less than the Kill number early on with the game, probably for similar reasons (i.e. feeling cheated by making that 6+, but only Pinning), but it has a really radical effect on gameplay. There just isn't enough probability spread on a d6 for that kind of change, I think...
Best Regards,
Bobloblah

Offline SgtHulka

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Predator
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Pinning
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2011, 12:54:34 PM »
I always used both the pinning and the decimation rules in Planetstorm. My own, merely anecdotal experience is as follows:

I'm still reading and digesting sergeant_hastp's post/essay, but I think I disagree on some of his points (forgive me if I'm not understanding them correctly yet):
  • I really don't see Pinning as a purely psychological effect, I see it as trying to avoid getting perforated - which has a significant, detrimental impact on one's combat effectiveness (Machine or otherwise).

By the current rules it doesn't really have a strong detrimental effect. A minor inconvenience.

  • I tried changing the Pinning numbers to one less than the Kill number early on with the game, probably for similar reasons (i.e. feeling cheated by making that 6+, but only Pinning), but it has a really radical effect on gameplay. There just isn't enough probability spread on a d6 for that kind of change, I think...

The radical effect the current rules have on gameplay is to re-design your forces so that they have a better chance of killing than pinning. As you play more and more planetstorm, you inevitably begin to optimize your force just like any other game. You avoid weapons like the flechette gun, if possible, in favor of weapons like the autoram laser. You avoid weapons like the AK Rifle in favor of the PKM. You avoid any armor that gives your opponent a kill bonus, with the possible exception of sprint-capable or jump-capable troops. Entire units go out the window, like Fantasian Powered Infantry Squads. Fantasia as a whole, by way of example, only remains competitive with T85-heavy units once you're playing against someone who understands how to properly optimize a force.

Like I said, merely anecdotal evidence from one group's play fifteen or so years ago.

Offline bobloblah

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Pinning
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2011, 02:20:04 PM »
I always used both the pinning and the decimation rules in Planetstorm. My own, merely anecdotal experience is as follows:

I'm still reading and digesting sergeant_hastp's post/essay, but I think I disagree on some of his points (forgive me if I'm not understanding them correctly yet):
  • I really don't see Pinning as a purely psychological effect, I see it as trying to avoid getting perforated - which has a significant, detrimental impact on one's combat effectiveness (Machine or otherwise).

By the current rules it doesn't really have a strong detrimental effect. A minor inconvenience.

 :o
Getting perforated (i.e. suffering a Kill) is a minor inconvenience? I don't think you understood what I was saying...
 ;)
Best Regards,
Bobloblah

Offline sergeant_hastp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Pinning
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2011, 08:06:41 PM »
And I may have to rethink my idea that "pinning is a physical effect" because virtually no one gets the idea.

Okay,

Just to make sure I understand it right;

The classic pinning rules look and behave like this:

Quote
4.32 Pinning

If a die of the attack roll equals the modified kill number then a figure is pinned

A pinned figure had a close brush with disaster.  It must take time to avoid leaving itself open to further attack.

4.321 A Pinned figure is marked with a Pinned counter.

4.323 To remove the “Pinned” counter, the figure must remain stationary and expend all of its Fire Actions.

4.324 A Pinned figure which moves or fires becomes “Exposed” and the Pinned counter is replaced with an “Exposed” counter.

4.325 If the figure was Pinned while activated, the figure must immediately end its movement and cover as its fire action to avoid becoming Exposed.

4.326 A Suppressing (4.84) figure which is Pinned must either stop Suppressing and have a Fired counter placed next to it or become Exposed.

4.327 Exposed targets are easier to target.  They have a -1 general modifier while Exposed.

4.328 A Pin result scores a Kill on an Exposed figure.

4.329 Certain weapons score kills on a Pin result. These will be specified in the rules for the weapon.

Okay, so as I see it:

Pte Bloggins the UNE trooper extraordinaire is walking along in arrowhead formation, watching his arcs. (for sake of the scenario, he has just completed a full action of walking, and is Covering -1)

A soulless Nightmare lurking downrange comes into view.  Pte Bloggin’s covering shot misses.  The Machine immediately snaps off a bolt of collapsed steel in his direction.  (He needs a 5 or better to kill him…and gets a 5 exactly).

Pte Bloggins’ proximity sensors are bleeping like mad…by all rights that bolt might have killed him, but luckily it did not.  Just as he’s trained, he seeks cover.   (He could theoretically choose not to take cover…but this isn’t allowed at this stage of the game.  Because he just technically got threatened by a shot that would have killed him…the alternative is to just kill him if he refuses to react as dictated….but in-universe…what makes him?)

 This takes his full attention. Even if he were to get off a double tap, then it likely wouldn’t hit the Nightmare anyway, so we don’t bother with that.

He is now taking the best advantage he can with the nearest bit of cover.  It may not be big enough to be represented on the gaming table top, but to Pte Bloggins, a simple rut in the ground that might otherwise go unnoticed is as welcome as a fully riveted fighting trench.

Now that he has that bit of cover…he is immune to similar shots from the Nightmare.  Exact ‘5’ results hit the cover…not him. (since further pins are ignored).  As long as he does nothing, he stays pinned…but keeps the protection of that piece of cover…  The Nightmare might still hit a part of him not protected…or even manage to put a good shot right through his cover ( roll a 6 or higher), but he is that bit safer as long as he chooses to do nothing.

Now Pte Bloggins is green, but he’s no coward.  He gathers his wits and spends his next action shifting himself so that he can get a decent shot, or find a relatively safe route to advance.  The fire position he finds or the route he takes will be no safer than he was originally when the Nightmare first fired on him…but at least he isn’t flagrantly exposing himself to every single enemy that has a line of sight to him.  (heh heh….exposing himself.)

Now if we bring in the classic Morale rules here…

Quote
14.8 Pinned Figures
A Pinned figure must pass a basic morale check to expose itself.
In this case, the player rolls three dice and compares the result to the figure’s basic morale.

So…Pte Bloggins may be brave enough to not take the time to squirm around for a safe-er avenue or fire position.  If something is really pressing…like Nightmare’s buddies advancing on his position, or a priority target is in the open…Pte Bloggins can exert his force of will to just take the shot or move to a critical spot.  If he does manage to convince himself to do this, anything that can see him has a 2 point better chance to kill him…since there is a +1 to hit him for everyone who can see him…AND since he is acting so bravely…he will obviously not react by taking cover if he is shot at with a near-hit. (pin result on exposed=kill).

Now we will assume that Pte Bloggins took the time to do things tactically and not heroically.  He spent a full action planning his route to his next position of fire.

When he does start moving, he passes through a Gremlin’s arc of fire.  (shudder).  That little bugger needs a 5 or better with his carbine, and has been sitting there, just waiting for this opportunity (covering-0)

He gets exactly what he needs, and Pte Bloggins again finds himself courting disaster. He dives for available cover, for the alternative is certain death.  But…now he still has his fire action which is converted to Covering….

(This is a bit confusing. (rule 4.326).  Does this mean he is pinned, and thus ‘fired’…or is he pinned…and still has a Covering 0, -1 or -2?)



So hopefully, I’m getting your intent that the Pinning effect is the actual action...the physical response of realizing you nearly died…and thus taking a dash and getting to cover, or just plain ducking if you are near cover or in a fighting trench.

The question remains for me…what makes him go to cover?  Is it a training drill?  Is it fear of almost dying? Is it just good sense?  A bit of all of the above? 

You have the morale-factor for getting back up…but what MAKES him dive for cover, without any choice?

Offline bobloblah

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Pinning
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2011, 09:52:57 PM »
And I may have to rethink my idea that "pinning is a physical effect" because virtually no one gets the idea.

Okay,

Just to make sure I understand it right;

<snip>

The question remains for me…what makes him go to cover?  Is it a training drill?  Is it fear of almost dying? Is it just good sense?  A bit of all of the above? 

You have the morale-factor for getting back up…but what MAKES him dive for cover, without any choice?

This is obviously Clark's ball o' wax here, but, for my part, I took it to be some of all of the above. And the figure does have a choice...it just takes guts (or programming) to make it. Hence the Morale check to stand in front of incoming fire. Diving out of a firelane is common sense - running into it takes some stones.
Best Regards,
Bobloblah

Offline sergeant_hastp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Pinning
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2011, 10:15:16 PM »
And I may have to rethink my idea that "pinning is a physical effect" because virtually no one gets the idea.

Okay,

Just to make sure I understand it right;

<snip>

The question remains for me…what makes him go to cover?  Is it a training drill?  Is it fear of almost dying? Is it just good sense?  A bit of all of the above? 

You have the morale-factor for getting back up…but what MAKES him dive for cover, without any choice?

This is obviously Clark's ball o' wax here, but, for my part, I took it to be some of all of the above. And the figure does have a choice...it just takes guts (or programming) to make it. Hence the Morale check to stand in front of incoming fire. Diving out of a firelane is common sense - running into it takes some stones.

I think you miss my point.

To clarify further:  From the pinning rules: (bold added for emphasis)

It must take time to avoid leaving itself open to further attack.

4.321 A Pinned figure is marked with a Pinned counter.


So...when you get the exact number to kill...the figure MUST take the required actions. (pin) The figure does not get a morale check until the following round when it decides whether to try to expose itself, do nothing and stay pinned, or spend the additional time to act while not exposing.

I was pointing out that there is likely psychology of self preservation at work when someone is initially pinned.  Clark posted earlier that the psychology and the physical effect of pinning were completely separate.  He was considering rethinking that idea because no one was 'getting it'. 

I think I 'got it' but still don't agree with it.  I maintain that it's at least partially psychological, even if you mix it with training, good sense, and battle drills.

Offline bobloblah

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Pinning
« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2011, 11:23:53 PM »
I think you miss my point.

To clarify further:  From the pinning rules: (bold added for emphasis)

It must take time to avoid leaving itself open to further attack.

4.321 A Pinned figure is marked with a Pinned counter.


So...when you get the exact number to kill...the figure MUST take the required actions. (pin) The figure does not get a morale check until the following round when it decides whether to try to expose itself, do nothing and stay pinned, or spend the additional time to act while not exposing.

I was pointing out that there is likely psychology of self preservation at work when someone is initially pinned.  Clark posted earlier that the psychology and the physical effect of pinning were completely separate.  He was considering rethinking that idea because no one was 'getting it'. 

I think I 'got it' but still don't agree with it.  I maintain that it's at least partially psychological, even if you mix it with training, good sense, and battle drills.

I get what you're saying. I think I just have a different mental picture or justification for it. Is it possible that's my lack of exposure to combat or appropriate training? The closest I've come is paintball...

Anyway, Pinning models the enemy's ability to constrain my troops' mobility with semi-accurate fire. Incoming fire alters how troopers move about. If they do not alter their movement, they die. My first thought is that that's as much psychological as, say, taking cover. Sure, it could be because you're frightened, or that support weapon pointed your way represents a real threat. And you have to mentally decide to take cover. But cover is a real, physical thing; it's between you and the oncoming lead that happens to have the right-of-way. You could ignore the available cover (standing instead of kneeling behind a half-height wall, for example), but why?

Similarly, with Pinning, you could assume your trooper just keeps moving forward into enemy fire without taking time to avoid leaving itself open to further attack; in that case, just treat that Pin as a Kill instead.

Is that making any sense (I'm dead tired right now, so it may be gibberish)? As a follow-on question: if the effect of incoming enemy fire is purely psychological, why doesn't one move across a combat zone fully upright at a brisk trot from point A to B (as you would if noone was shooting at you)?
Best Regards,
Bobloblah

Offline Dave Chase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: Pinning
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2011, 11:38:57 PM »
I think my concern is with just how real do you want the combat and pinning to be?

What if there is not cover with in the figures allowance of movement in one turn?
What if there is no cover available for the weapon type that just pinned the figure?

I don't mind the pinning rule desire for the game. But just how realistic are you attempting to be?

And how simple are the desired pinning rules?

Dave Chase
Freedom is the right to speak your mind.

It is also the right to walk away from those you don't want to listen to.

Offline sergeant_hastp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Pinning
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2011, 01:22:57 AM »

Quote
Is that making any sense (I'm dead tired right now, so it may be gibberish)?

Makes perfect sense to me.  The concept of pinning is the same in paintball, albeit with less mortal imperative.  You can afford to take more chances and possibly ignore incoming 'fire' more readily than if your life was at stake.

   I remember one (low budget) exercise we did demonstrating 'pinning' with tennis balls.  It was to illustrate the effect for new troops learning section battle drills and the effect of fire control.  Had 1 guy behind a low wall. with a box of a half dozen tennis balls.  His job was to throw a tennis ball and hit one guy, without getting hit himself.

On the other side were 8 guys, each with their own box of tennis balls.  Their job was to use theirs to keep the other guy from his task for at least 1 minute. (or something similar).  Fun way to learn.

You also see it in first person shooter videogames.  There is the conscious choice to take cover, but there is no..'pinning' effect per se, because you will never have your self preservation instinct override your tactical sense.  This is why a lot of newer games give you the reward of healing up if you take cover...most players need this effect or they would not play conservatively and thus trying to pin someone down would never work.

Anyways, back on topic; what you say makes sense.  And none of what you just posted is at odds with the suggested pinning system I posted earlier.  Is there something specific you don't like about it's streamlined nature, or is it that you would rather not change the pinning system on general principle?

Quote
As a follow-on question: if the effect of incoming enemy fire is purely psychological, why doesn't one move across a combat zone fully upright at a brisk trot from point A to B (as you would if noone was shooting at you)?

I never meant to imply that the every effect of incoming fire was purely psychological.  As I said earlier, you always have the choice to move tactically and take advantage of the terrain.  It's smart to do so.  What I did mean is that when rounds are landing very close, the decision to take cover may be taken away from you by your own mind and body.

Consider a make believe scenario that you are alone in a dug-in position.  You see 8 assaulters heading your way.  You mission is to kill at least one of them, hopefully at least 2, thereby slowing down their advance and then to get the heck out of there.

You take your shot, but they quickly locate your position.  The incoming rounds are now whizzing past your head and landing so close that the dirt-spray is hitting you.  You know, by studying their doctrine, that they will continue to fire at you in this manner.  Half will be shooting, the other half moving closer to you, and then they will switch roles.

They only have a 1 in 6 chance of actually hitting you, but as they get closer, the chances will increase.  When they get close enough, a grenade will drop into your trench, bounce around once or twice and then you WILL be dead.

Knowing all of this, it is logical to keep your head up and shoot at them, because you have the cover of the trench and they are in the open.  You've got a 1 in 3 chance of killing them...or better. It would also be logical to get out of the trench and take off before they get too close.

Why would you ever choose to duck down into your trench and wait for the inevitable?  Logically it would be suicide.  At the very least, if you knew you were going to die anyway, you might want to take a few of them with you.

This is why I say that there has to be a psychological motivation, at least in part.  If not, pinning...forcing the target to give up their fire action...wouldn't work. 

The reason I used that scenario is because that is the standard situation we set up when training infantry candidates the basics of section battle drills.  The trainees are the assaulters.  We train them to win the firefight, and tell them that the overwhelming firepower WILL keep the enemy's head down allowing you to move up in leap-frog style in relative safety and post a grenade into his position.

Ironically however, when we are training them how to defend a position, we train them to never cower down into the trench even when under fire.  They have to trust their cover and concealment of their position.  They have to watch and shoot: To keep their heads and weapons up and engaging, or the bad guys will come right up on them and destroy them.

So..its a paradox.  I mentioned in a previous post that it was in contention in another game I co-designed.  The thing at stake was whether pinning should be a mandatory effect, or should the player be the one to decide when and if the figures stop shooting and duck down for cover when fired upon.

Sorry for the text-wall replies.  I'm just trying not to be misunderstood.  I don't want to be in the position of a back and forth arguer.  If my position is understood, it will speak for itself.

Offline sergeant_hastp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Pinning
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2011, 01:35:55 AM »
I think my concern is with just how real do you want the combat and pinning to be?

What if there is not cover with in the figures allowance of movement in one turn?
What if there is no cover available for the weapon type that just pinned the figure?

I don't mind the pinning rule desire for the game. But just how realistic are you attempting to be?

And how simple are the desired pinning rules?

Dave Chase

Sorry Dave, if this is not directed at me.

Here's my thoughts on your concerns if they are:

I believe the pinning system should only be realistic enough to generate the effect of being able to use your weapons to restrict your opponent from moving or firing on a turn by turn basis.

Besides the terrain pieces intended to be used as cover, I think the idea of cover can be abstract enough to assume that there is always someplace better to go when being shot at...even if it means just dropping down on your face in an open field or empty parking lot.  In my proposed system, being pinned never makes you harder to kill...it is a reaction from the realization of almost being killed.

I think the pinning rules should be very simple; no specialized counters, dice or cards required.  No extra game phases or extra effect determinations, just harnessing what is already in the game for a specific purpose.  No need to necessarily tie them into a 'morale' system.