What use is Suppression Fire?

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by Anthony

To be honest, of that portion of untrained people who manage to do anything at all (i.e. they don't just fail a fright check and gibber in the corner), having 25% be randomly recklessly brave is probably not out of line.

Note the numbers above - this is not 75% gibbering in the corner, it is more like 10% gibbering, the other 90% needing only 2-3 seconds on average to buck up before they pop up shooting (ineffectually). And again, I see nowhere that passing successive Fright and Will rolls indicates that you must be "randomly recklessly brave".

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Note the numbers above - this is not 75% gibbering in the corner, it is more like 10% gibbering, the other 90% needing only 2-3 seconds on average to buck up before they pop up shooting (ineffectually). And again, I see nowhere that passing successive Fright and Will rolls indicates that you must be "randomly recklessly brave".

MA p. 113. This answer also applies to your previous post.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Let's replace these "professional" infantry with ordinary people (i.e. All stats 10, no Adv/Disadv, no combat skills) and see what we get.

As Untrained Shooters, the rules in the box on page 47 certainly apply (and therefore the rules on MA 113 as well) restricting them to a randomized decision tree and limited options.

Assuming +5 for heat of battle (which to the best of my knowledge applies to everyone in GURPS)

Tactical Shooting more carefully defines the "heat of battle" bonus as only applying to characters in a Focused (Orange) or Triggered (Red) mental state. See Threat Recognition p. 33-34. As unprepared civilians coming under fire they are going to be Unaware (White) and subject to Total Surprise (B p393) and will initially "freeze" in panic for 1d seconds. This means they are Panicked (Black) and will not get the "heat of battle" bonus to any Fright Checks they have to make as long as they remained stunned. This is likely to push many of them into a panic spiral that will likely get them killed without ever getting a grip.

their 10+5-1 (assuming it applies, not sure where this is from)

Where what is from? The 10 is the Will you gave them, the +5 is the "heat of battle" bonus from B p360 and the -1 is the RoF bonus for RoF 8 from the table on B p548.

still hits the same rule of 14 as the soldiers so they still have the same 9.3% chance of failure.

Except most of them aren't ever going to stop being Stunned long enough to get Triggered. They're basically screwed.

And once that happens, taking your -5 to fright checks as gospel for seeing someone gunned down,

-1 to -3 for seeing somebody you know get shot, -1 per HP multiple they suffer, -1 if you got blood on you. I wasn't even counting the penalties for corpses from B p 360. -5 is actually kind of lowball for witnessing nearby friendly HMG casualties.

I am going to ignore the rest of the tactical scenario you posted, first because it lacks numbers,

The numbers would be just more of the same. Every SBF phase is going to be suppressing them by inflicting Will rolls to stay in cover and Fright Checks to punish them if they don't.

second because it is uncharacteristic of the vast majority of gunfights in GURPS or reality,

I just described the textbook doctrine on how you are supposed to employ fire support in the assault. I did it in training dozens of times. Later when I get home, I can get out all my technical literature and quote you chapter and verse if you really really want me too.

The point is you don't just set up a SBFP, lay in a gun, and then shoot people until you win. It's called "fire support" for a reason. Fire and Maneuver means that the maneuver element has to make contact. The purpose of support isn't to destroy the enemy, it's to suppress or maybe neutralize (but really just suppress) so that the maneuver element can safely do that.

I just dispute the ability of ordinary people to withstand the early stages as well as they can.

They really don't if you pull out all the stops. Total Surprise, Fright Checks, Untrained Shooters, Shooting is Loud, Shooting is Painful, Shooting is Stressful. Plus all the Harsh Realism rules from the boxes in High-Tech and Tactical Shooting. I'd be more worried that it's unrealistically harsh, than the other way around.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by Icelander

MA p. 113. This answer also applies to your previous post.

Ah, the "Coin Toss" optional rule. I would not personally use that option in a gunfight, it seems more suited to melee combat.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

MA p. 113 explicitly allows the heat of battle bonus for untrained fighters going into a battle, and for the sake of argument, lets assume that these ordinary civilians are from the present and neither have personal experience (which would merit a +1) nor complete ignorance (which would merit a penalty, but would suggest someone capable of being scared by a gunshot but being unable to quickly know what it was). By earlier calculations, this freezes up less than 10% of the individuals.

The +5 for heat of battle does not apply when battle starts without warning, such as when people come under fire from a threat they haven't spotted yet. This fits the situation you are imagining, it seems to me. Heat of battle requires you to be engaged at the time you make the Fright Check, not simply taking fire and not knowing where it is coming from.

And most people from the present would rate 'complete ignorance' of firefights. Having seen them on TV does not make them notably less confusing, overwhelming and terrifying if actually caught in one. In order to get +0, people need training for it or at least extensive experience around people who know them. +1 would be for people who have had experiences of their own.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Ah, the "Coin Toss" optional rule. I would not personally use that option in a gunfight, it seems more suited to melee combat.

*Shrug*

Read All-Out Attack nearest threat as 'fire wildly at the maximum RoF available to him' and All-Out Defence as running to the nearest place that appears safer to him and/or Dodge and Drop behind cover. It seems to fit it well enough.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

MA p. 113 explicitly allows the heat of battle bonus for untrained fighters going into a battle,

Tactical Shooting refines that. See p. 34.

Originally Posted by Icelander

MA p. 113. This answer also applies to your previous post.

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Ah, the "Coin Toss" optional rule. I would not personally use that option in a gunfight, it seems more suited to melee combat.

See the box on p 47. Now it (like all of Tactical Shooting) is optional, so you can freely ignore it, but it seems really weird that you are complaining about the "unrealism" that that rule directly addresses.

Originally Posted by Icelander

The +5 for heat of battle does not apply when battle starts without warning, such as when people come under fire from a threat they haven't spotted yet. This fits the situation you are imagining, it seems to me. Heat of battle requires you to be engaged at the time you make the Fright Check, not simply taking fire and not knowing where it is coming from.

Note that this is explicitly supported by Threat Awareness p33-p34.

And most people from the present would rate 'complete ignorance' of firefights. Having seen them on TV does not make them notably less confusing, overwhelming and terrifying if actually caught in one. In order to get +0, people need training for it or at least extensive experience around people who know them. +1 would be for people who have had experiences of their own.

In real life, I've seen Marines go into Condition Black both in training and in combat. If it happens to trained infantrymen, it can certainly happen to untrained civilians!

Apologies if I'm starting to sound like an Internet Centurion, here. I'll try to avoid reminders that "You weren't there, man."

Originally Posted by Icelander

Read All-Out Attack nearest threat as 'fire wildly at the maximum RoF available to him'

Specifically All-Out Attack (Suppression Fire) or even (Determined).

and All-Out Defence as running to the nearest place that appears safer to him and/or Dodge and Drop behind cover. It seems to fit it well enough.

Specifically All-Out Defense (Increased Dodge) which allows both Movement (at half Move) and Dodge and Drop.

[Earther]

Assuming one doesn't have the Tactical Shooting book, supression fire in GURPS on p. 409 allows a player to get some shots in and hit random body parts of an enemy if they have enough skill to do so. That's it.

If a player's aim is to scare an enemy with their bullets, maybe another action/skill is more useful.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

In real life, I've seen Marines go into Condition Black both in training and in combat. If it happens to trained infantrymen, it can certainly happen to untrained civilians!

Heck, forget real firefight. You don't even need that to see people get mental stuns.
I'm routinely seeing people become confused and 'locked up' in either a useless action or even total inaction in computer games. With a neat top-down view. And colour-coded allies/enemies. And easy visual indication of priority targets by teammates. And clear knowledge which of those are tough and which ones are squishy. This is for people who are familiar with the interface, experienced hundreds of both wins and losses etc.

If people manage to fail like that in games where all is clear, I'm pretty sure any sort of civilian in a real firefight can easily frak up in the most stupid (in retrospect) way possible.

Maybe GMs just don't focus on the confusion and scariness of gunfights, because they are used to protagonists in fiction being all-Rambo in figrefights, while fright is typically reserved for supernatural horror stories.

Maybe examples for Fright causes should've been more clear regarding such things in Basic Set. E.g.

Originally Posted by Earther

Assuming one doesn't have the Tactical Shooting book, supression fire in GURPS on p. 409 allows a player to get some shots in and hit random body parts of an enemy if they have enough skill to do so. That's it.

If a player's aim is to scare an enemy with their bullets, maybe another action/skill is more useful.

E.g. getting constantly shot at should be one of the default reasons for Fright Check (whether deliberate Suppression or something that only happens to be similar). Even without TS detailed rules.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The +5 for heat of battle does not apply when battle starts without warning, such as when people come under fire from a threat they haven't spotted yet.

One does not use Suppression Fire in an ambush situation. One attempts to fire with the greatest lethal effect possible.

There may be attacks against multiple targets but infliction of psychological effects on the enemy is not promary.