Supressive Fire

This is for topics that are out of date.
Font
MiniWarGaming Veteran
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by Font » Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:50 pm

Sounds pretty good, and it won't be a completely useless mechanic that noone will use, however i think cover shouldn't effect the defensive half of suppressive fire, because the point is getting them down, not getting them hit, So cover is removed from play.

Munchkin
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:14 pm

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by Munchkin » Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:09 am

Opps, well spotted, Font.

I completely meant to mention that suppression fire ignores cover when working out 'wounds'....



Or maybe the level of cover is reduced by one so Hard becomes Soft - Soft becomes none....

I imagine it would be harder to suppress a unit that is behind hard reinforced concrete walls, then one hiding behind bushes.... :)


Or maybe a unit under suppression fire gets to add the Cover bonus to their leader ship roll.

These will need to be play tested to see which plays best...

User avatar
saltinerunner45
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: That's What She Said

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by saltinerunner45 » Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:35 pm

Munchkin wrote: Or maybe a unit under suppression fire gets to add the Cover bonus to their leader ship roll.
i like this idea better. but maybe its just me.
saltine runner thanks you for reading this post, and is sorry for his ramblings.
"In the grim darkness of the future, there is only static grass." -Smurfyk
2000pts Tyranid

Munchkin
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:14 pm

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by Munchkin » Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:07 pm

Crunching a few numbers and this assumes that there is a squad of 6 trying to suppress a squad of 4.

Also, although I am not aware of any leadership/moral throw discussions, just for the sake of demo I have assumed a leadership of 8. This is what you have to roll under on 2d6.

Soft cover is 3, hard cover is 6.

So reducing cover by one grade:

vs soft cover: the firing unit will hit generate 5 wounds, meaning the leadership save becomes 8 - 5= 3

vs hard cover: the firing unit will generate 2 wounds meaning the leadership become 8 - 2 = 6


Ignoring cover, but cover bonus adds to leadership

vs soft cover: the firing unit will hit generate 5 wounds, meaning the leadership save becomes 8 - 5 + 3= 6

vs hard cover: the firing unit will generate 5 wounds meaning the leadership become 8 - 5 + 6 = 8(as you can't go above your base leadership).


So, looking at those numbers - you are much less likely to suppress a unit (with standard weapons) if the mechanic allows them to add the cover bonus to any resulting leadership test, compared to downgrading the cover status by one.

And in both cases it is significantly harder to suppress targets in hard cover….

Of course this assumes not particularly skilled guys with pistols as per Matts video…

I guess the question becomes - how easy or hard should it be to suppress a unit?

Jebus86
Now we're getting somewhere...
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:07 pm

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by Jebus86 » Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:04 pm

I think this could possibly made a little simpler.

The point of suppressing fire is, as font said, to get the enemies head down - usually to allow another squad to move. My experience of this in rl is that all aim goes out the window and you just fire as fast as you can to get off as many rounds as possible.

Also I don't understand the need to work out if it wounds. You don't know what is being shot at you until you are hit - so why is it relevant whether it would wound or not? You hear shots crack over head you get down and don't wait and see what damage it might cause.

So...

Why not make it quite basic.

You double the number of shots a squad fires. So if 2 (as in the vid) it is now 4. You multiply this by the number of men in your squad - giving you a total 'suppression score'.

To avoid being suppressed the enemy must beat this. They work out their score they must roll a die for each member of the squad and add up the totals. To this you add the squads leadership. You could also possibly add cover (3 for soft 6 for hard or whatever).

Point is a large squad should easily suppress a smaller squad. Also a squad with a weapon that fires multiple times in a row is better at suppressing - so a small squad of automatic/machine gun type units could suppress a larger squad (quite realistic).

By taking out any rolls by the attacking unit there is much less chance involved and making the decision more tactical. Can look at the board and have a pretty good idea if suppression will work or not.

Also the main variable becomes leadership so makes it an easy play around with different values until you get something that feels right for the unit.

Have run some basic numbers against it and looks reasonable.

Squads of equal or larger size are very hard to suppress - especially if in cover.
But if you have even a 1 or 2 man advantage it starts becoming much easier.

User avatar
Soli
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 4:12 pm
Location: Bladehold

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by Soli » Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:16 am

I don't know Jebus, the rules you have outlined are some what extensive, but you make a very good pion about simply shooting lots of times to suppress the enemy, and the needless strength of the gun.

To sum up: Strength should make no difference, and the suppressing squad should just fire lots of times, in my opinion.
Organics fear us. We wish to understand, not incite.

Munchkin
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:14 pm

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by Munchkin » Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:56 am

The strength of the weapon is important when armor is a possibility. It doesn't matter how many rounds you saturate an area with, if you can not get through a units armor with your weapon then you will not suppress that unit.

User avatar
saltinerunner45
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: That's What She Said

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by saltinerunner45 » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:03 am

i agree. i mean a tank isnt gonna care if it has rocks thrown at it, it will still just push forward because its near invincible.
also pertaining to a bunch of shots, if a single rocket is fired at you, you can bet that your gonna drop to the ground quickly.
saltine runner thanks you for reading this post, and is sorry for his ramblings.
"In the grim darkness of the future, there is only static grass." -Smurfyk
2000pts Tyranid

Munchkin
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:14 pm

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by Munchkin » Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:25 pm

For simplicity sake I don't think you need to have a change in the firing mechanics for suppression fire.

The only difference is that you say it is suppression fire before the roll, and then you don't remove the casualties, instead they become a modification to some form of morale or leadership roll.

To my mind that makes the rules easier to learn. All you need to learn for suppression is the firing mechanics, remembering that wounds aren't removed but used as a modifier to the morale save.

This hits all the points Jebus86 mentioned-

Lager units will suppress better than smaller
Faster fire rate weapons will suppress better - eg: machine gun vs a pistol
You should be able to judge if you are going to be able to suppress a unit or not.

It also automatically takes into armour into account - if you are firing machine pistols at power armoured heavy infantry, you are not going to wound, and therefore won't suppress...

@Jebus86: I understand what you are saying about in RL you hit the deck if fire comes your way without knowing (most of the time) what is being fired at you.

But that is in RL. This is a game, and in RL there is no power armour, or Robots made for combat, or etc etc

And even if you were in heavy armour and hit the deck quickly when the initial fire came in (hence the cover bonus to defense) you are unlikely to stay with your head down when you realise that they enemy are firing pistols at you that aren't going to scratch the surface of your armour...

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it is a simple mechanic to offer a tactical option in a game, rather than simulate a real life effect.

In saying all that, you are right in that the numbers show your ideas would work in the game. I guess the question becomes - just how simple (or not) are the mechanics to be?

Jebus86
Now we're getting somewhere...
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:07 pm

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by Jebus86 » Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:00 pm

Very crudely

Your way is:

1) how effective is the suppression (attackers part)

2) Has the suppression been successful (defenders part)


My way is

1) How much suppressive fire is there (attackers part)

2) Is the squad 'brave' enough to overcome it (defenders part)


General thoughts:

I think both ways satisfy the general principles that crossfire should aim to achieve (larger units will suppress better than smaller etc).

I am not a massive fan of the fact your way would show me how many hits I would have achieved had I called a normal attack (this would bug the hell out of me if it had been a good roll). - likely a love/hate feature.

The first half of your mechanic is the same as normal firing therefore easy to remember. Although simply counting the number of troops in a squad and multiplying that by a double rate of fire doesn't seem too hard to understand (also no dice involved :P )

I am not too keen on the level of involvement of the attacker. Seems somewhat fiddly for what is trying to be achieved (these are not meant to be aimed shots after all) and think it introduces too much variance - you will likely get a different result every time for the first part of your mechanic before you even get to the defenders leadership test part. Personally I prefer the main determiner to be down to the defenders ability to overcome the effects of the fire.

I agree with your issues with armour etc, but still don't think that it should be dealt with from the attackers side (weapon strength). You could address this with the concept armour makes you more 'brave' so you would get an extra modifier. Also units like tanks arguably should be immune to suppression. Equally so might the salvagers - no emotion? In short things like leadership, cover and armour make it easier to beat the suppression score.

Anyways would really like to see some more alternatives to both.

CptYellow
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:29 pm

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by CptYellow » Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:30 pm

I am not a massive fan of the fact your way would show me how many hits I would have achieved had I called a normal attack (this would bug the hell out of me if it had been a good roll). - likely a love/hate feature.
I'm not entirely sure that that should be relevant... if you're always thinking about what "might" have happened, then you're not thinking about what did, and what will, happen. Remember, it was your choice to suppressive fire, so if you wanted to kill the unit then you would have fired normally... don't blame the game for your tractical decision.
I think both ways satisfy the general principles that crossfire should aim to achieve (larger units will suppress better than smaller etc).
thats not what Matt wanted, he wanted 2 smaller units to suppress better than 1 larger unit.
Although simply counting the number of troops in a squad and multiplying that by a double rate of fire doesn't seem too hard to understand (also no dice involved )
Don't worry it's not :D
I am not too keen on the level of involvement of the attacker. Seems somewhat fiddly for what is trying to be achieved (these are not meant to be aimed shots after all) and think it introduces too much variance - you will likely get a different result every time for the first part of your mechanic before you even get to the defenders leadership test part.
I guess that's where opinions differ, I view it as the attacker "Intimidating" the defender, and the best way to intimidate him is to mean what you are doing. i.e. shoot AT the target, not AROUND the target, once he's down shoot at his cover. The target then has to see if he has the brains to do the right thing and hide. If he doesn't, he dies.

Gah, these are all quotes from Jebus86, I can't figure out how to credit him on the actual quotes :oops:

Munchkin
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:14 pm

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by Munchkin » Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:54 pm

This all seems to come down to semantics.

Suppression fire is the act of firing into an area to intimidate any enemy within that area rather than aiming directly at a specific target. So, I can see where you are coming from, Jebus86.

I think we are coming at the same problem with a different mind set. I can see that your way would work, and is easy.

But personally, in my turn I want it to be my units action (the firing mechanic) to be the main cause of the effect, and not the failure/success mainly resting with the defending unit... that makes it seem like a passive attack to me.

However, I know this is just a personal preference I am putting on this, and would also like to see if any one else has alternatives.

Phatty
MiniWarGaming Veteran
Posts: 157
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by Phatty » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:27 pm

what i got from all of this mechanic wise:

1)declare suppressing fire

2)normal attack stuff

3)double ROF

4)"wounds" are a negative modifier to a leadership test the defending squad has to take right after the attack.


As for that last point ill explain what it means. Attacker tries to suppress, defending squad can
A) quickly duck down say "oh snap" and hide rending them suppressed or
B) quickly duck down say "stuff happens" and then compose themselves to continue fighting

Munchkin
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:14 pm

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by Munchkin » Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:30 pm

The thing is, if you double the rate of fire, then I think it becomes too powerful.

For eg

Here is a 10 man unit with light assault riffles (skill 2 rof 3). Firing on a squad with def 10 in soft cover so:

7(2d6)+2 (skill) + 10 (number in squad)= 19

defence= 10 (dfensce) +3 (light cover) = 13

So, 19-13= 6 * 3 (rof)= 18 hits if 50/50 wound rate that is 9 wounds.

Double RoF = 19-13=6*6 (rof*2)= 36 hits if 50/50 wound rate that is 18 wounds.

That 9 wounds is already a hefty modifier to any leadership test... but 18! That's way too powerful in my mind...

User avatar
saltinerunner45
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: That's What She Said

Re: Supressive Fire

Post by saltinerunner45 » Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:35 pm

Munchkin wrote:The thing is, if you double the rate of fire, then I think it becomes too powerful.
Munchkin wrote:For simplicity sake I don't think you need to have a change in the firing mechanics for suppression fire.

The only difference is that you say it is suppression fire before the roll, and then you don't remove the casualties, instead they become a modification to some form of morale or leadership roll.
again, with both of these. we want this game to have tactical strategy, but we also want it to be easy to learn, mostly for that poor soul who hasnt done tabletop gaming before.
i mean your enemy is going to look for cover if he is being shot at regardless of its to kill or to supress, but if they see tracer rounds flying way above their heads they will be more likely to press on. also from a real life standpoint, i think ammo will be limited in a a setting like DP's, so every shot would count, spraying wouldnt be a good use of your valuable resources.
saltine runner thanks you for reading this post, and is sorry for his ramblings.
"In the grim darkness of the future, there is only static grass." -Smurfyk
2000pts Tyranid

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest