Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Graht Graht@**********.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 17:01:08 -0500
IronRaven wrote:
/At 15.56 09-09-99 -0400, you wrote:
/>BTW, is it just me, or is not enough made of suppressing fire in SR? One of
/
/ Field os Fire, p78

And I for one make good use of it. It's a shame I'm the GM though <EGMG>

-Graht
--
ShadowRN GridSec
The ShadowRN FAQ: http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3
Geek Code: GCS d-( ) s++:->+ a@ C++>$ US P L >++ E? W++>+++ !N o-- K-
w+ o? M- VMS? PS+(++) PE+(++) Y+ !PGP t+(++) 5+(++) X++(+++) R+>$ tv+b++ DI++++
D+(++) G e+>+++ h--->---- r+++ y+++
http://home.att.net/~Graht
"I don't know what I don't know."
Message no. 2
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 23:10:15 -0400
At 17.01 09-09-99 -0500, you wrote:
>And I for one make good use of it. It's a shame I'm the GM though <EGMG>

Grant, you'd propably have the same results as a player I have. GMs on
the very of either crying, giving up or running in terror. <g>



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 3
From: Lars Ericson lericson@****.edu
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:51:11 -0500
Graht wrote:
>
> IronRaven wrote:
> /At 15.56 09-09-99 -0400, you wrote:
> />BTW, is it just me, or is not enough made of suppressing fire in SR? One of
> /
> / Field os Fire, p78
>
> And I for one make good use of it. It's a shame I'm the GM though <EGMG>

I agree wholeheartedly. My NPC thugs use suppressive fire a lot,
especially after a light or moderate wound. I like it because, a skilled
person is still better off using a normal shot than suppressive fire
unless they are seriously wounded.

My suppressive fire rules are a little different (slightly more deadly).
They can be found at:

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/sr3house.html

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Lars Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Smalley Research Group, Rice University
E-Mail: lericson@****.edu
WWW: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/

Life is like a Wankel Engine. In between the emptiness of boredom and
despair, and the compression of stress in one's life, there's that one
spark of enjoyment that keeps you going.
Message no. 4
From: K. Suderman suderman@*****.ocean.fsu.edu
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 08:15:00 -0400
Okay, I've always liked suppressive fire- it makes cover very important and
makes full autofire more useful (so do Marc Renouf's house rules, I can't
wait to see the 3rd ed. version).
However, I'm not sure if Cannon Companion's suppressive fire rules
accomplish what they set out to do. I think suppressive fire should "make
it dangerous for your opponents to do anything but duck and hide." (CC
106) [In a nutshell, the rules are: Attacker's ROF and area of attack
determine # of bullets per meter. Defender makes a dodge test and must
achieve successes equal to the number of bullets in the area he crosses
through. If he fails, the attacker rolls to hit.]
So, if you are caught in the open, what should you do? Let's say my
attacker is a gangsta with a TEC-9 locked on full auto (so he's doing
nothing but suppression fire) spraying 10 bullets over 5 m. My defender
has Q 3 and a Combat Pool of 5. He's 3 m from cover.
He's got two choices (okay, he has more- let's just consider these two):
duck and hide or stand in place. If he ducks and hides, he must cross 3m-
so he needs to roll 5 dice and get 6 successes or he gets shot (ouch). If
he stands in one place, he must get 2 successes to avoid being shot (~80%
odds). Obviously, he's better off if he just stands there. Am I
misreading something?

Keith

ps. I've never fired an automatic weapon, nor have I been shot by
one. It's all theory to me. If I'm totally wrong, please correct me.

Keith Suderman
Florida State University
Department of Oceanography
850-980-3218
Message no. 5
From: Mockingbird mockingbird@*********.com
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 09:02:16 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: K. Suderman <suderman@*****.ocean.fsu.edu>

<snip>

> He's got two choices (okay, he has more- let's just consider these two):
> duck and hide or stand in place. If he ducks and hides, he must cross 3m-
> so he needs to roll 5 dice and get 6 successes or he gets shot (ouch). If
> he stands in one place, he must get 2 successes to avoid being shot (~80%
> odds). Obviously, he's better off if he just stands there. Am I
> misreading something?


Think of it this way, when you duck for cover, you use your entire athletic
ability (Q3 pool 5). Now when you are standing still, you use none (Q0 pool
0) since your not moving (Quickness) or dodging (pool), from this light, it
makes it a little harder to get those 2 successes. Now, if you zig, zag,
and in general stay in one area as the guy sprays the rest, your using your
Quickness and your pool, but only having to dodge two bullets.

I agree that this is a letter vs. spirit question,
Mockingbird
Message no. 6
From: vocenoctum@****.com vocenoctum@****.com
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 11:28:37 -0400
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 08:15:00 -0400 "K. Suderman"
<suderman@*****.ocean.fsu.edu> writes:
> Okay, I've always liked suppressive fire- it makes cover very
> important and
> makes full autofire more useful (so do Marc Renouf's house rules, I
> can't
> wait to see the 3rd ed. version).
<snip>
> So, if you are caught in the open, what should you do?
> Let's say my
> attacker is a gangsta with a TEC-9 locked on full auto (so he's
> doing
> nothing but suppression fire) spraying 10 bullets over 5 m. My
> defender
> has Q 3 and a Combat Pool of 5. He's 3 m from cover.
<snip>
> Obviously, he's better off if he just stands there. Am I
> misreading something?

very good point IMO, but, if he stands where he is, I'd say the ganger is
not firing suppresive fire, he's firing "searching fire" and should use
those rules.
I think suppresive fire is more geared when some is already behind cover,
and you want to keep them there ("suppressed")
If they're standing in teh open, you shoot AT them, if they seek cover,
you can fire more to keep them there.

Vocenoctum
<http://members.xoom.com/vocenoctum>;

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 7
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 11:35:13 -0500
: So, if you are caught in the open, what should you do? Let's say my
:attacker is a gangsta with a TEC-9 locked on full auto (so he's doing
:nothing but suppression fire) spraying 10 bullets over 5 m. My defender
:has Q 3 and a Combat Pool of 5. He's 3 m from cover.
: He's got two choices (okay, he has more- let's just consider these two):
:duck and hide or stand in place. If he ducks and hides, he must cross 3m-
:so he needs to roll 5 dice and get 6 successes or he gets shot (ouch). If
:he stands in one place, he must get 2 successes to avoid being shot (~80%
:odds). Obviously, he's better off if he just stands there. Am I
:misreading something?
:
:Keith

What you are missing is that suppressive fire isn't intended for use
when targets are out in the open. In fact, intentionally "supressing" the
area a person is in with a whole bunch of rounds is a sort of broken use of
the rule, especially in FoF. The above is just doing the same, with fewer
rounds. Its less broken than it was in FoF, because of the skill roll
needed to hit, but its still not the "intended" use.
I think the intended use is you supress an area you don't want people
moving into, generally an area they would HAVE to move into to shoot at you.
You genreally do this so your own team members can move forward, or retreat,
without being exposed to enemy fire. You don't generally supress a big open
area of space and hope somebody you can already see tries to cross it- you
generally suppress the area right next to a corner you don't want somebody
peeking / shooting around, or a door you don't want sombeody coming after
you through.

Mongoose

_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 8
From: Lars Ericson lericson@****.edu
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:29:43 -0500
Sebastian Wiers wrote:

> What you are missing is that suppressive fire isn't intended for use
> when targets are out in the open. In fact, intentionally "supressing" the
> area a person is in with a whole bunch of rounds is a sort of broken use of
> the rule, especially in FoF. The above is just doing the same, with fewer
> rounds. Its less broken than it was in FoF, because of the skill roll
> needed to hit, but its still not the "intended" use.

I disagree. One of the comments new players often make when first
firing a gun in Full Auto is: "Why is so tough to hit? I'll just spray
the gun over the target." My answer to that is Suppressive Fire.
Spraying bullets over an area is effectively suppressive fire. Now
characters have an extra option when firing a full auto weapon.
In general, an aimed attack is going to be much more effective than
suppressive fire at a target if the shooter is uninjured or even
moderately injured. However, if seriously injured, suppressive fire
become a viable attack that enemies have to take into account.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Lars Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Smalley Research Group, Rice University
E-Mail: lericson@****.edu
WWW: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/

Life is like a Wankel Engine. In between the emptiness of boredom and
despair, and the compression of stress in one's life, there's that one
spark of enjoyment that keeps you going.
Message no. 9
From: vocenoctum@****.com vocenoctum@****.com
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:49:25 -0400
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:29:43 -0500 Lars Ericson <lericson@****.edu>
writes:
> I disagree. One of the comments new players often make when
> first
> firing a gun in Full Auto is: "Why is so tough to hit? I'll just
> spray
> the gun over the target." My answer to that is Suppressive Fire.
> Spraying bullets over an area is effectively suppressive fire. Now
> characters have an extra option when firing a full auto weapon.
> In general, an aimed attack is going to be much more
> effective than
> suppressive fire at a target if the shooter is uninjured or even
> moderately injured. However, if seriously injured, suppressive fire
> become a viable attack that enemies have to take into account.
>

As I mentioned in my other email, you're using Suppresive fire when you
should be using Seeking Fire.
Suppresive fire is just to get them to hold their heads down, not to have
a better chance to hit them.
Besides, the gunner still has to roll to hit, with a +2 penalty and can't
use combat pool, how is that increasing his chances?

Vocenoctum
<http://members.xoom.com/vocenoctum>;

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 10
From: Lars Ericson lericson@****.edu
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 14:05:38 -0500
vocenoctum@****.com wrote:

> As I mentioned in my other email, you're using Suppresive fire when you
> should be using Seeking Fire.
> Suppresive fire is just to get them to hold their heads down, not to have
> a better chance to hit them.
> Besides, the gunner still has to roll to hit, with a +2 penalty and can't
> use combat pool, how is that increasing his chances?

Because I use house rules for suppressive fire that make them actually
dangerous:
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/sr3house.html

I haven't fully digested the Cannon Companion suppressive fire and
seeking fire rules yet, so I might adopt them.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Lars Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Smalley Research Group, Rice University
E-Mail: lericson@****.edu
WWW: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/

"When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading."
-- Henny Youngman
Message no. 11
From: Dave Mowbray dave_mowbray@*****.com
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:03:20 -0400
Lars wrote:
<snip>
>
> Because I use house rules for suppressive fire that make them actually
> dangerous:
> http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/sr3house.html
>
> I haven't fully digested the Cannon Companion suppressive fire and
> seeking fire rules yet, so I might adopt them.
>

I read your rules Lars, and honestly, they seem rather pointless. The whole
idea of suppressing fire is that you CAN'T see the person(s) you are
shooting at, you just want to keep them pinned down where they are. If
someone is in the area you are shooting at, then you are shooting AT them.
Your only other option is really blind-fire, shooting without really aiming
and hoping to hit something.
Another point, when you are firing a weapon on full auto you pretty much are
just "spraying the gun over the target". Have you ever tried firing a fully
automatic weapon? I have. Unless you have a base of some sort (preferably
attached to something very large) the kickback of the weapon is such that
you CAN NOT fire accurately at full auto (unless your using a very small
caliber weapon, even then it is extremely difficult). I would also point
out that the further away your target is, the less accurate your fire is
going to be.
You can try walking your fire (I believe this is covered in seeking fire)
towards a target, but then you are automatically putting at least a third of
your rounds in the dirt.
Let me reiterate, the whole idea of suppressing fire is to keep someone you
CAN'T SEE pinned down.
-Dave
Message no. 12
From: One Ronin ronin@*******.com
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 21:05:29 GMT
Dave wrote: <snip>

>Another point, when you are firing a weapon on full auto you pretty much
>are
>just "spraying the gun over the target". Have you ever tried firing a
>fully
>automatic weapon? I have. Unless you have a base of some sort (preferably
>attached to something very large) the kickback of the weapon is such that
>you CAN NOT fire accurately at full auto (unless your using a very small
>caliber weapon, even then it is extremely difficult). I would also point
>out that the further away your target is, the less accurate your fire is
>going to be.

A point of contention here, Dave. First off, I'm prior service US Army
Mechanized Infantry, and I've fired my fair share of automatic weapons,
namely the 7.62mm M-60 and 5.56mm M-249 SAW. Now granted, 99% of time I was
firing these weapons, I was in the prone position using a bipod, but even
then I was able to consistant "kill" targets between 300 and 1000 meters
with FULL AUTO FIRE. With the SAW we were trained to fire 3-5 round bursts,
and with the M-60 it was 10+ round bursts. Still, with an M-60 firing over
10 rounds, I could consistantly "kill" 1000 meter pop-up targets on a firing
range. Yes, we do use "supressive fire" with these weapons, but that's not
all they are used for. They are designed to engage enemy soldiers and kill
them, despite the recoil from automatic fire. The concept is that you put a
large volume of round into a small area, increasing the chance that at least
one round hits your target. And this DOES work quite well in real world
situations......with one possible exception......firing the weapons while
standing up. The recoil on these weapons is enough to greatly throw off
your accuracly when firing them standing up. Although I haven't had the
opportunity to fire smaller caliber automatic weapons (9mm and .40 cal
SMGs), I would assume that they would be easier to handle while firing
standing up. But overall, what I'm trying to say is that automatic fire
from weapons DOES NOT make it more difficult to hit your target, but in fact
usually makes it EASIER to hit your target, albeit with fewer rounds. Where
FASA's rules break down is that when multiple rounds are fired at a target,
either all of them hit, or none of them do. Real world doesn't work that
way. Again, this is my 2 nuyen, based heavily off my military experience.
YMMV.

>You can try walking your fire (I believe this is covered in seeking fire)
>towards a target, but then you are automatically putting at least a third
>of
>your rounds in the dirt.
>Let me reiterate, the whole idea of suppressing fire is to keep someone you
>CAN'T SEE pinned down.
>-Dave

Haven't read these rules yet, although I own the bool. I'll have to check
up on that. 8-)


"There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through the
suitable application of suppressed automatic weapons."

-Ronin
ICQ #: 11373195





______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 13
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:23:42 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, One Ronin wrote:

> Where FASA's rules break down is that when multiple rounds are fired at
> a target, either all of them hit, or none of them do. Real world
> doesn't work that way. Again, this is my 2 nuyen, based heavily off my
> military experience.

This is precisely why I use a house rule for autofire that allows
fewer rounds to hit. I agree completely that the "all or nothing" rule
leaves a bad taste in my mouth. My house rule is based on an "Open
Success Test," and if you're interested, you can check it out at:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jormung/shadowrun/rules.html

Go down to the section on "Autofire."

Marc
Message no. 14
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 02:44:19 +0100
In article <20000406210530.68300.qmail@*******.com>, One Ronin
<ronin@*******.com> writes
>Where
>FASA's rules break down is that when multiple rounds are fired at a target,
>either all of them hit, or none of them do. Real world doesn't work that
>way.

One thing I liked about Chaosium's rules for "Call of Cthulhu" - automatic
fire increased the chances of hitting, but the number of bullets striking
home didn't skyrocket.

>Again, this is my 2 nuyen, based heavily off my military experience.
>YMMV.

I never did buy how a medium MG (a L7A1 GPMG, aka a M240 - kissing
cousin to an M60) could be so ineffective in Shadowrun. IRL they're
_scary_ beasts...

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 15
From: K. Suderman suderman@*****.ocean.fsu.edu
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:21:35 -0400
>
> What you are missing is that suppressive fire isn't intended for use
>when targets are out in the open. In fact, intentionally "supressing" the
>area a person is in with a whole bunch of rounds is a sort of broken use of
>the rule, especially in FoF.


So there I was, no sh!t. Running full-tilt boogie around the corner, smack
into a squad of Ares security. I needed a moment to collect my
thoughts. I squeezed the trigger and traced a few figure eights to scatter
the guards.
GM: Okay, they're in the open so you're firing for effect: roll an 18-
you've got about a 3% chance of absolutely obliterating one guy. The rest
dance a mocking jig.

There's got to be a better way...

Marc's rules for autofire are excellent (would it be logical to do the same
for the 3-round burst?). How do you handle suppression fire? (My
ex-infantry player calls the above situation 'suppression fire'. I think
SR should conform to RL, rather than vice versa...)

Thanks,

Keith


Keith Suderman
Florida State University
Department of Oceanography
850-980-3218
Message no. 16
From: Dave Mowbray dave_mowbray@*****.com
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:35:21 -0400
Ronin wrote:
<snip me>
>
> A point of contention here, Dave. First off, I'm prior
> service US Army
> Mechanized Infantry, and I've fired my fair share of
> automatic weapons,
> namely the 7.62mm M-60 and 5.56mm M-249 SAW. Now granted,
> 99% of time I was
> firing these weapons, I was in the prone position using a
> bipod, but even
> then I was able to consistent "kill" targets between 300 and
> 1000 meters
> with FULL AUTO FIRE. With the SAW we were trained to fire
> 3-5 round bursts,
> and with the M-60 it was 10+ round bursts. Still, with an
> M-60 firing over
> 10 rounds, I could consistently "kill" 1000 meter pop-up
> targets on a firing
> range. Yes, we do use "suppressive fire" with these weapons,
> but that's not
> all they are used for. They are designed to engage enemy
> soldiers and kill
> them, despite the recoil from automatic fire. The concept is
> that you put a
> large volume of round into a small area, increasing the
> chance that at least
> one round hits your target. And this DOES work quite well in
> real world
> situations......with one possible exception......firing the
> weapons while
> standing up. The recoil on these weapons is enough to
> greatly throw off
> your accuracy when firing them standing up. Although I
> haven't had the
> opportunity to fire smaller caliber automatic weapons (9mm
> and .40 cal
> SMGs), I would assume that they would be easier to handle
> while firing
> standing up. But overall, what I'm trying to say is that
> automatic fire
> from weapons DOES NOT make it more difficult to hit your
> target, but in fact
> usually makes it EASIER to hit your target, albeit with fewer
> rounds. Where
> FASA's rules break down is that when multiple rounds are
> fired at a target,
> either all of them hit, or none of them do. Real world
> doesn't work that
> way. Again, this is my 2 nuyen, based heavily off my
> military experience.
> YMMV.
>

For the most part I absolutely agree. My comments were largely based off of
a number of premises on my part:
1) The average shadow runner firing full auto is not prone with a bipod
(which DOES substantially improve weapon control), he is standing and
"hosing" so to speak.
2) I absolutely agree that these weapons are designed to put a large number
of rounds into a small area, but I was basing my comment on the part of the
rules you contend with (I do too really, but that's neither here nor there):
that is both accurate (hitting your intended target) and precise (grouping)
fire of a fully automatic weapon.
3) I took "spraying the gun over the target" to mean holding the weapon on
target while sinking the full number of rounds into the target. Otherwise
we'd be more or less talking about blind fire again (that is firing without
aiming).

My point about suppressive fire was simply that the point of suppressive
fire is to keep people you can't see where they are. If you can see someone
you are shooting at them not laying down suppressing fire. That is why I
made the comment that the rule was pointless, not because it's not well
thought out, but because if there is a target you can see, you are not
laying down suppressing fire.

Smaller weapons vary greatly in their controllability. The UZI for
instance, is easy to control because it is such a heavy weapon, whereas the
MP5 can be more difficult due to its light weight. In both cases however,
it is very difficult to sustain accurate fire (from a standing position) on
full auto. Assault rifles are just as hard.
-Dave
Message no. 17
From: David Hinkley dhinkley@***.org
Subject: Suppressive Fire
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:52:39 -0700
From: "Dave Mowbray" <dave_mowbray@*****.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Subject: RE: Suppressive Fire
Date sent: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:35:21 -0400
Send reply to: shadowrn@*********.com

> Ronin wrote:
<SNIP>
> > range. Yes, we do use "suppressive fire" with these weapons,
> > but that's not
> > all they are used for. They are designed to engage enemy
> > soldiers and kill
> > them, despite the recoil from automatic fire. The concept is
> > that you put a
> > large volume of round into a small area, increasing the
> > chance that at least
> > one round hits your target. And this DOES work quite well in
> > real world
> > situations......with one possible exception......firing the
> > weapons while
> > standing up. The recoil on these weapons is enough to
> > greatly throw off
> > your accuracy when firing them standing up. Although I
> > haven't had the
> > opportunity to fire smaller caliber automatic weapons (9mm
> > and .40 cal
> > SMGs), I would assume that they would be easier to handle
> > while firing
> > standing up. But overall, what I'm trying to say is that
> > automatic fire
> > from weapons DOES NOT make it more difficult to hit your
> > target, but in fact
> > usually makes it EASIER to hit your target, albeit with fewer
> > rounds. Where
> > FASA's rules break down is that when multiple rounds are
> > fired at a target,
> > either all of them hit, or none of them do. Real world
> > doesn't work that

A quick partly thought out fix, limit the danage to a minor increase over a
single round hit, then modifiy the to hit roll in the favor of the shooter about
half as much as aiming does. Or by moving down a range table catagory.


> >
>
> For the most part I absolutely agree. My comments were largely based off of
> a number of premises on my part:
> 1) The average shadow runner firing full auto is not prone with a bipod
> (which DOES substantially improve weapon control), he is standing and
> "hosing" so to speak.
> 2) I absolutely agree that these weapons are designed to put a large number
> of rounds into a small area, but I was basing my comment on the part of the
> rules you contend with (I do too really, but that's neither here nor there):
> that is both accurate (hitting your intended target) and precise (grouping)
> fire of a fully automatic weapon.
> 3) I took "spraying the gun over the target" to mean holding the weapon on
> target while sinking the full number of rounds into the target. Otherwise
> we'd be more or less talking about blind fire again (that is firing without
> aiming).
>
> My point about suppressive fire was simply that the point of suppressive
> fire is to keep people you can't see where they are. If you can see someone
> you are shooting at them not laying down suppressing fire. That is why I
> made the comment that the rule was pointless, not because it's not well
> thought out, but because if there is a target you can see, you are not
> laying down suppressing fire.

Unless you are just firing a long spray and pray burst (over 4 rounds). In
which case it is blind luck (if you are the shooter) or a golden BB (if you are
the target) that causes the hit. Mind you ther is a lot of noise and colateral
damage (something the rules don't address at all). On the other hand the
prudent thing to do (as the target) is get out of the line of fire for you can
never tell when he has loaded that BB.


>
> Smaller weapons vary greatly in their controllability. The UZI for
> instance, is easy to control because it is such a heavy weapon, whereas the
> MP5 can be more difficult due to its light weight. In both cases however,
> it is very difficult to sustain accurate fire (from a standing position) on
> full auto. Assault rifles are just as hard.

My experence is the opposite, if you keep the burst to 2 or 3 rounds, it
relitively easy to keep it on target from a standing position. My experence
was mainly with the M-16 but also the M-60, AK-47 and M-3 grease gun.
Over three rounds and you end up spraying the countryside.

As to suppresive fire I only know of one method that had any merit, a
properly placed machine gun fireing a FPF (final protective fire) the gun is
tripod mounted and the T&E (traverse and elevation) is locked down (so the
gun can not move at all) with the gun aimed such that it fired diagonaly
accrss the units front interlocking with a second gun firing from the other
flank (so they cover each other). When properly sighted the gun fired a
stream of bullets between knee and waist high that an attacker had to walk
across to get to the unit. When the order come to fire, the gunner locked
down his gun and pulled the trigger back, the loader started linking belts and
getting the extra barrel ready for a quick change. Mind you this is a last ditch
defensive tactic employed just prior to being overrun and is hard on both the
gun and the ammo supply.

Spraying bullets around may look good in movies and may make the shooter
feel good but it is no way to hit anything.



David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org
******************************************************
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve niether liberty or
safety.
Ben Franklin
Message no. 18
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Suppressive fire
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 20:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Nearly finished. :)

I just had a few ideas for (hopefully) making
suppressive fire work better.

As a number of people have mentioned, the big problem
is that if you stand still, you're generally in better
shape than if you're moving - and if you're moving,
the slower you move the better.

I thought of two ways around that. There's one element
common to both methods. That is, if you choose to
stand still, then you can only use HALF your combat
pool for dodging - it's tough to dodge around if you
only have have a metre's grace on either side
(remember, once you move out of that one metre box
you're moving and you start bumping into more
bullets).

Here's the first method. In CC, the dodge test is
against a flat target number (4). No matter how far
you go, you're always dodging against a 4, but the
further you go and the more bullet's paths you cross,
the more successes you need in order to escape being
hit. So instead, make the base target number a 6 (or
maybe even 7). Then subtract the distance you move in
metres from the target number to get the ACTUAL target
number for your dodge (minimum 2, of course). So it
becomes a trade-off. Stay still and only get shot at
by a small number of bullets, but dodge against a
higher number (AND the goon can continue to fire at
you next round), or move (fairly) slowly and dodge an
average number of bullets against an average target
number, or move fast and dodge a lot of bullets, but
against a low target number.

In CC, the example is a guy crossing 4 metres, with
each metre covered by 2 bullets (8 total). With 9
combat pool dice in his dodge, according to the book
he has to roll against a target number of 4 and
achieve 8 successes in order to dodge all the bullets.
With my method, he still has to roll 8 successes, but
his target number is only a (6-4=) 2. If he only moved
3 metres, CC says he has to roll against a target
number of 4 still, but this time only needs 6
successes. My system says he needs 6 successes, but
this time his target number is (6-3=) 3.

The second idea is that distance travelled doesn't
have any effect. The gunner decides on what area he's
trying to cover, then must divide up the rounds he's
firing as evenly as possible. If he's firing 10 rounds
into a 3 metre area, then that's a 4/3/3 division. You
then average the number of bullets per metre (3 1/3 in
this case) and round to the closest number (3). Or you
could just round up to be a bit meaner. That's the
number of successes required, whether you stand still,
cross the entire area, or only cross part of the area.
The target number is a flat 4 in this case. This
method ENCOURAGES you to move, because it isn't
distance that'll get you killed, it's exposure.

So what do you guys think? Personally, I prefer the
first method (with CC it's better to stand still
(except that'll give the goons multiple rounds to
shoot at you, unless you shoot them first), with my
second system it's better to run flat out, but with
the first method, it's a trade-off and you take your
chances either way). Any ideas for improvements?

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'-booner)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Message no. 19
From: K. Suderman suderman@*****.ocean.fsu.edu
Subject: Suppressive fire
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 08:16:44 -0400
At 08:42 PM 4/30/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Nearly finished. :)
>
>I just had a few ideas for (hopefully) making
>suppressive fire work better.
Yea!

<<snip ideas>>

>So what do you guys think?

I prefer the second method, not necessarily for realism or lack of same
(see below), but for what it encourages characters to do: if in danger, run
like hell (for cover).
As far as realism goes, if we assume that a shot is an
instantaneous event, then movement into one bullet path would be balanced
by movement out of the previous bullet path: movement would not matter.
If we assume instead that shots are persistent (like a laser beam,
maybe) then movement into each additional bullet path would add to the
likelihood of being hit: moving would increase the danger.
I think of bullets as moving rapidly compared to the characters,
i.e. instantaneous. FASA bullets are slow and persistent. <shrug> ...

Keith



Keith Suderman
Florida State University
Department of Oceanography
850-980-3218
Message no. 20
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Suppressive fire
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 19:46:31 EDT
Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com> wrote,

> I just had a few ideas for (hopefully) making
> suppressive fire work better.
>
> As a number of people have mentioned, the big problem
> is that if you stand still, you're generally in better
> shape than if you're moving - and if you're moving,
> the slower you move the better.

>From a platoon leader's point of view, I don't see anything wrong with
the way suppressive fire works as presented in CC. The problem, as I see
it, is with the terminology: tactically, the whole point of suppressive
fire is to pin the enemy down in their fighting positions, so they
aren't moving while your assault squad maneuvers into position along
their flank. Then, when your squad's ready to overrun them, you "lift
and shift" your suppressive fire to cut off their escape. So if you are
in a better position standing still than moving while under suppressive
fire, then I think the rules did what they were supposed to do.

What most gamers seem to want out of suppressive fire, as I see it, is
that "lead fire hose" that allows even the least skilled gunner a better
chance to hit someone. If that's the desired effect, then I'd suggest
using the Searching Fire rules instead of suppressive fire.

IMHO. YMMV.

-- Jon
Message no. 21
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Suppressive fire
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 11:11:33 -0500
: As far as realism goes, if we assume that a shot is an
:instantaneous event, then movement into one bullet path would be balanced
:by movement out of the previous bullet path: movement would not matter.
: If we assume instead that shots are persistent (like a laser beam,
:maybe) then movement into each additional bullet path would add to the
:likelihood of being hit: moving would increase the danger.
: I think of bullets as moving rapidly compared to the characters,
:i.e. instantaneous. FASA bullets are slow and persistent. <shrug> ...
:
:Keith

I tend to think more of the current Supressive Fire rule as being like a
held action- you keep an eye on an area and pepper it with sporadic
autofire, and if you see somebody, try to put those rounds you are popping
off into them.
You could use actual held actions, but its tough to catch more than 2
people with a held action, even with regual autofire.

Mongoose


_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 22
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Suppressive fire
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 01:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
> > I just had a few ideas for (hopefully) making
suppressive fire work better.
> >
> > As a number of people have mentioned, the big
problem is that if you stand still, you're generally
in better shape than if you're moving - and if you're
moving, the slower you move the better.
>
> From a platoon leader's point of view, I don't see
anything wrong with the way suppressive fire works as
presented in CC. The problem, as I see it, is with the
terminology: tactically, the whole point of
suppressive fire is to pin the enemy down in their
fighting positions, so they aren't moving while your
assault squad maneuvers into position along their
flank. Then, when your squad's ready to overrun them,
you "lift and shift" your suppressive fire to cut off
their escape. So if you are in a better position
standing still than moving while under suppressive
fire, then I think the rules did what they were
supposed to do.

Yeah, except that with the CC rules you're in a better
position standing still in the open, with goombahs
hosing bullets everywhere around (and at) you, than
you are scampering across into the nearest cover and
hunching down and being suitably suppressed. :)

In CC it works like this - if you're out of the target
zone, you won't get hit. If you're in the target zone,
you stay there and get shot at in multiple rounds, or
you move and the chances of you being hit increase
with how far you move. But hang on - aren't your
chances better IRL if you're moving than if you're
standing still?

My systems encourage you to get the hell out of the
way of the shooters, rather than standing still and
shooting back. Wouldn't you call that suppressive? If
you're out of the target zone you won't get hit. If
you're in the target zone, you (system 1) take your
chances moving or standing still, or (system 2) run
for your life and make yourself a more difficult
target that way.

I don't know about you, but that seems more realistic
to me.

> What most gamers seem to want out of suppressive
fire, as I see it, is that "lead fire hose" that
allows even the least skilled gunner a better chance
to hit someone. If that's the desired effect, then I'd
suggest using the Searching Fire rules instead of
suppressive fire.
> IMHO. YMMV.
> -- Jon

Sure. If that's what you're after. I'm not trying to
get that out of suppressive fire, though. I'm trying
to get something that'll encourage you to stay down
and, if you're unlucky enough to get caught out in the
open, to hunt cover as fast as you can, THEN stay
down.

With that in mind, Jon, would you mind doing a
comparison again?

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'-booner)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Message no. 23
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Suppressive fire
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 21:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
> : As far as realism goes, if we assume that
a shot is an instantaneous event, then movement into
one bullet path would be balanced by movement out of
the previous bullet path movement would not matter.
> : If we assume instead that shots are
persistent (like a laser beam, maybe) then movement
into each additional bullet path would add to the
likelihood of being hit: moving would increase the
danger.
> : I think of bullets as moving rapidly
compared to the characters, i.e. instantaneous. FASA
bullets are slow and persistent. <shrug> ...
> :
> :Keith
>
> I tend to think more of the current Supressive
Fire rule as being like a held action- you keep an eye
on an area and pepper it with sporadic autofire, and
if you see somebody, try to put those rounds you are
popping off into them.
> You could use actual held actions, but its tough
to catch more than 2 people with a held action, even
with regual autofire.
> Mongoose

Sure, but that still doesn't explain how it's easier
to hit you with suppressive fire if you're moving than
if you're standing still.

No offense to whoever wrote them, but IMNSHO the CC
rules for suppressive fire suck (hard rocks).

*Doc' hides behind Patrick's defense...*

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'-booner)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Suppressive Fire, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!