09-26-2012, 09:24 AM | #11 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: What use is Suppression Fire?
Quote:
I'd guess your snipers weren't behind Cover but rather had only Concealment (or use of Camoflage Skill). If they don't have any Cover they can't drop back down behind it. By doctrine many snipers would move to a new postion when taking fire but that's a long-term thing and if preventing the opponents from recovering theri supplies (or whatever was in the trailer) before they get out of Dodge in their APC was important enough the snipers might have kept on shooting. The Cool under Fire rules are no panacea in thsi situation. The +5 to Fright Checks for heat of battle would apply and probably another +1 for being beyond 100 yards. Even with a -2 for probable ROF and maybe another -2 for near miss that's still a positive bonus. It also might be important if these were "real" snipers rather than just grunts taking semi-auto fire from Concealment. A fully trained sniper is a higher pt character than a basic soldier and the more training and/or base cp the less Fright Checks should be expected to affect the target. I might criticize the GM for not havng the snipers switrch targets to the new shooters but that's about it.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
09-26-2012, 09:28 AM | #12 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
Re: What use is Suppression Fire?
Quote:
Who knows, maybe the snipers were fearless fanatics with no sense of self preservation (kind of like many PC's). The rules that have been pointed out in TS were, in fact what I was looking for, as they add some way of having suppression fire achieve what it's supposed to, which is a psychological disincentive. My point was that with just what's in the Basic Set, it has no use whatsoever, without the GM making some kind of additional, subjective, common-sense ruling. |
|
09-26-2012, 09:34 AM | #13 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: What use is Suppression Fire?
You also want Fire and Maneuver, page 21.
With both those rules you need to to make a Will-2 roll to expose yourself to fire (PCs can still do so but now have -MoF to all rolls) and then make a Fright Check (penalized by the suppression RoF) for exposing yourself. It's fairly likely you'll spend a few turns confused and in the open searching for cover and exposing yourself to sighted shooting by the suppression element. Which is a pretty good model to how suppression actually works. And there's still the 9 or less that you get hit in the first place (even if it doesn't penetrate your body armor it's another -2 to that Fright Check). |
09-26-2012, 09:37 AM | #14 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: What use is Suppression Fire?
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
09-26-2012, 09:37 AM | #15 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
Re: What use is Suppression Fire?
Well, they were hand-held weapons, using just ROF 5, so 7 or less, but yes, those two pages together are exactly what I was looking for.
|
09-26-2012, 09:38 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: What use is Suppression Fire?
Quote:
|
|
09-26-2012, 09:42 AM | #17 | |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: What use is Suppression Fire?
Quote:
What kind of LMG doesn't have a high enough RoF for suppression? |
|
09-26-2012, 09:47 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
Re: What use is Suppression Fire?
Oh, it does. ROF 5+ is all that's needed for suppression fire, and he decided to keep it at that to conserve ammo (post-apocalyptic setting). My point was just that the effective skill cap is 8 + ROF bonus for vehicle mounted or emplaced weapons, but only 6 + ROF bonus for hand-held.
|
09-26-2012, 10:22 AM | #19 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: What use is Suppression Fire?
Quote:
Also, of course, aimed fire only happens every other turn at most, giving the target more opportunity to take action. Shooting somebody suppresses somebody a lot better than shooting near them, but there are times when it's more practical to not even try for the former.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
09-26-2012, 02:33 PM | #20 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denmark
|
Re: What use is Suppression Fire?
I have played several game where automatic fire, including suppressive fire have been attempted use more or less successfully and have come into play and reached a few conclusions.
There are basically 3 ways to use a full auto weapon. 1: Normal attacks. 2: Spraying fire 3: Suppressive Fire. Normal Attack fully automatic This will almost always be the best option. Even against multiple foes. Depending on how you interpret the strayshot/overshot and overpenetration rules it is even a far better option against a group of tightly packed enemies (such as a horde of zombies coming down a hallway). I say "depending on how you interpret, but unless all the examples I have seen still leave a normal attack better.
Spraying Fire Is also a very good manoeuvre, especially against a line of enemies close by (as the name also suggest). But at medium or long range or if needing to hit target more than once to ensure a kill a normal attack is usually better. Also, again depending on how you read the strayshot rules, a normal attakc will likely be better against a line of enemies (such as the aforementioned "shooting down a corridor").
Suppressive fire Only really good for two things.
-------------- So in the actual situation of the OP I would say Suppressive fire was indeed the right choice against the two snipers out of sight. But as soon as they came into view you should switch to normal attacks (as you also did). Last edited by Maz; 09-26-2012 at 03:06 PM. |
Tags |
rules, suppression fire |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|