You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Defiance → Suppression Fire - Worth Using?
As part of a general update of the rules that will occur with the supplement I'm working on, I am taking another look at some of Defiance's more unique mechanics. In this case, suppression fire.
Do players have any opinions about the usefullness of suppression fire in a standard game? Or even in the scenarios, if you've tried them. Specifically, how do you think it compares to just using covering fire instead?
-Demian
Well, this is a hairy one, isn't it.
Unfortunately I don't have the qualification really to debate the issue, having relatively few Defiance games under my belt (maybe a dozen or so).
But given that... I have not myself considered nor even heard anyone consider using Suppressive Fire. As for Covering Fire, I think I have seen one instance where it was actually used to any effect (it caused a tag IIRC), although a maybe half a dozen efforts to use it have been made.
I think what partially makes SF unappealing is the fact that you have to have a visible target to fire at. If it was allowed as a form of speculative shooting or as another kind of CF, it might get used more. Obviously it would then also be a lot more powerfull.
---
Slightly off topic: If modifications to the mechanics are under consideration in the light of advancing the Close Quarters Battle supplement, I would also move for considering reverting the CF to model-by-model instead of by unit (reverting as IIRC it was that way in Starslayer). It would make more sense in CQB where it is likely to be rarely the case that an entire unit sees much anything beyond the back of a squadmate. Until that squadmate gets blown to kingdom come, that is.
I like the idea of having both covering and suppression fire available.
Circmstances under which I would use suppression: 1. If it gives me a better chance of breaking enemy morale 2. To prevent swarmers from making it into HtH 3. To deny an objective or critical location to the enemy (using supporting fire if necessary to remove the target figure)
However I haven't even got a single game of DVG in so I can't make a judgement based on how effective it is at any of these goals. I do think that by its very nature suppression *should* be able to be used speculatively.
Just ressurecting this discussion because I'm just getting into really reading the rules for D:VG.
I don't have any games under my belt, but I really like the idea of suppression fire and the approach taken by the D:VG rules. At first glance, the LOF modifiers seem a bit harsh , but I'll wait until I play a couple/few games to see if they "feel" right in actual practice.
I definitely feel that SF should be usable against AREAS as well as being directed straight at an enemy unit, though I can see some ways that a player might abuse that ability. So perhaps a restriction on the placement of Suppression templates would be a good idea. Elites can place them anywhere, regular infantry can only target an area that's closer than the nearest enemy unit or target the nearest enemy unit itself.
Something I feel is missing is the option of "cohesive" supression fire. The rules present units as being able to do primary and support supression fire. It doesn't gibe with my own experience in the military where every weapon in a team/squad could be used to contribute to supressive fire.
Also, regarding AoE weapons, it seems to me that an AoE or burst weapon (if such a thing is possible with the Army Customizer) with a feed rateshots ought to be able to lay down a hail of AOE templates that achieves an effect similar to a supression template. Kind of a "beaten area" where explosive shells are falling through-out a turn making an area as dangerous to enter as an area fill with bullets... A real-world infantry crew served weapon capable of doing so I offer as an example the MK-19. It's a 40mm grenade launcher that fires like a machine-gun.
Flakmagnet,
Thanks for your well-reasoned and experience-based questions!
To preface them, first I'll let you know abut a few things with which I struggled when writing the suppression rules:
1. Balancing reality vs. playability; if I make them too powerful, players will tend to be overly static in basic (non-scenario) games. If don't make them powerful enough, players will start to forget a bit about position and maneuever...
2. Given the high variety of weapons in most squads, it is difficult to come up with a good way to "combine" them without making players suffer through too much in-game math. I chose the splitting of primary and support weapons for two reasons:
a. there is typically less variability within these classes than beween them
b. covering fire (what's done by the "other" weapon type) still provides some ability to prevent enemy movement through a given area, and with a template already laid down, the morale benefits are already in place.
Onto your points:
I definitely feel that SF should be usable against AREAS as well as being directed straight at an enemy unit, though I can see some ways that a player might abuse that ability. So perhaps a restriction on the placement of Suppression templates would be a good idea.
I was in fact concerned with weirdness that could come about due to the fact that layers tend to "know" the position of enemy squads and could therefore have a given unit shoot at an area that predicts enemy movement in a fashion that would be highly unikely if the enemy weren't in line-of-sight or otherwise tracked. I do think you're right, however, in that a few simple rules might suffice: how about requiring templates to be within a certain number of inches of a sighted enemy squad? That way players can still help deny enemy movement, but must respect the fact that the suppressing units need a "bead" before they can do this.
Something I feel is missing is the option of "cohesive" supression fire.
As mentioned above, this is difficult to do quickly (i.e. on a unit level, not an individual level) and without a lot of math. I'm quite open to any suggestions you might have, however.
it seems to me that an AoE or burst weapon (if such a thing is possible with the Army Customizer) with a feed rateshots ought to be able to lay down a hail of AOE templates that achieves an effect similar to a supression template.
At present, there is no way to build an AOE weapon with a FR of greater than one. I understand that such weapons exist, but in the context of the relatively simple move and fire orders system, I felt that they were too complicated to model realistically. I instead chose to make AOE templates force morale tests, meaning that they can still "suppress" figures within them, even if tey have little chance of hurting them. Therefore, firing an AOE round at the same target area again and again could keep much of a unit shaken.
I also allow for cone weapons (essentially AOE weapons with a limited range and no indrect fire or scatter) to suppress areas, to represent flamethrowers being swept back and forth, etc.
Thanks for the constructive input and let me know if you have any ideas about modifying things as they stand now. I am at a point where a slight overhaul of the rules fits the next stage of potential releases for Defiance.
-Demian
Edited Oct 4 2k5 @ 5:37pm -ish:
I was in fact concerned with weirdness that could come about due to the fact that layers tend to "know" the position of enemy squads and could therefore have a given unit shoot at an area that predicts enemy movement in a fashion that would be highly unikely if the enemy weren't in line-of-sight or otherwise tracked. I do think you're right, however, in that a few simple rules might suffice: how about requiring templates to be within a certain number of inches of a sighted enemy squad? That way players can still help deny enemy movement, but must respect the fact that the suppressing units need a "bead" before they can do this.
Perhaps distinguishing between targetted suppression fire that's directed at a unit and "speculative" or area supressive fire, with modifiers that make area fire less attractive. Also (or alternatively) with some sort of restrictions as to template placement to avoid "cheesing".
Having to fire w/in 2" of a sighted enemy unit seems restrictive, and totally ignores the very valid doctrine of "recon by fire". IMO, I think the area fire template should have to be placed in a way that a line drawn from the firer to the template does not pass between two sighted enemy units before it reaches the template. The intent being that a supression template could be placed between two enemy units (and if it's big enough, and the enemy is close enough to each other, hit both units) Kind of the same way that units have a "perimeter" that friendly models cannot enter, area supression templates would not be allowed to enter a "perimeter" or "battle line" defined by drawing a line between sighted enemy units.
Of course, with what I've proposed, I also think that Elite units should have the area fire template placement restrictions relaxed.
Regarding a cohesive supression fire orders:
As mentioned above, this is difficult to do quickly (i.e. on a unit level, not an individual level) and without a lot of math. I'm quite open to any suggestions you might have, however.
Here's a suggestion, with some "setup" that provides rules for AOE suppression templates as well as a framework by which cohesive suppressive fire could work:
Non-AOE weapons list their FR as a number, but that number is NOT the total number of shots fired from the weapon each time it's activated. It's an abstracted volume of fire. So combining multiple weapons' FR into a suppression template is easy to accomplish. It's just a further abstraction/application of the already abstract "Feed Rate".
AOE weapons (in the current system) don't have a FR, and thus cannot be abstracted in this way. Each AOE template is a distinct shot from the launcher. So before what I get into below can be implemented FR>1 weapons should be made possible within the rules of the Army Customizer.
AOE weapons with FR>1 don't create supression templates, but instead create "Beaten Zone" templates. Any weapons contributing to a beaten zone must have a combined FR of 3 or higher (more than that needed for non-AOE weapons due to the lack of a "Volume of fire" abstraction for FR).
If multiple sizes of templates contribute to the beaten zone, use the smallest of the AOE templates as the beaten zone marker that persists until the firing unit's next activation, but still resolve hits with the larger AOE marker against models caught in the initial "volley". You should also use the weaker dmg roll of all weapons contributing to a beaten zone. Dmg rolls are made just like any other AOE roll.
For each collective 2 (or just 1?) FR provided by AOE weapons after the initial 3, an additional AOE template can be placed (again, use the smallest template of all contributing weapons, including those used to initially place the first template) with the center of the AOE template placed directly over the outer edge of the initial template.
Again, this is without any experience PLAYING the rules, just what I've come up with after a pretty comprehensive read-through. Comments?
Therefore, firing an AOE round at the same target area again and again could keep much of a unit shaken.
What it does not provide for is "area denial" the same way supression templates do, a quick unit could move right through the area you're trying to control with one or more AOE weapons. Which is why I suggest what I wrote above.
Now, as far as AOE weapons and non-AOE weapons BOTH contributing to suppression templates... well, without a combined FR of >3, the AOE weapons can't. If they CAN, then simply place AOE template as described above in a way that overlaps the suppression template as much as possible, and treat the templates as two overlapping templates resolving each as described in their rules. This being the only way I can think of off the top of my head (besides perhaps torrential fire) that a single unit could place two persistent templates between activation, but then, I'm no rules guru.
As to what do with with mixed Weapon Affectors and cohesive suppression fire orders, I would say that a persistent template whether it's suppression or a beaten area would only use ONE of the Affector's effects, that of the primary weapon of the squad or the smallest diameter AOE weapon. In the case where a suppression template and beaten area template have both been placed by the same unit as a result of Cohesive Suppressive Fire orders, they can have different affectors, one for the AOE weapon, one for the Suppressive Fire weapon.
I'm afraid I didn't cover a few points clearly or at all, but I think I've communicated what I'm thinking here. Lemme know if my ramblings have prompted any question...
Hi Tim,
I've had a busy week with travel, so haven't been able to get to this yet, but plan on responding by the end of this week.
-Demian
Hey Tim,
Thanks for the thoughtful input! My guess is your opinions might change after you see suppression fire in practice (it's a bit complicated as it is, so I don't want to make it more so).
Perhaps distinguishing between targetted suppression fire that's directed at a unit and "speculative" or area supressive fire, with modifiers that make area fire less attractive. Also (or alternatively) with some sort of restrictions as to template placement to avoid "cheesing".
Having to fire w/in 2" of a sighted enemy unit seems restrictive, and totally ignores the very valid doctrine of "recon by fire". IMO, I think the area fire template should have to be placed in a way that a line drawn from the firer to the template does not pass between two sighted enemy units before it reaches the template. The intent being that a supression template could be placed between two enemy units (and if it's big enough, and the enemy is close enough to each other, hit both units) Kind of the same way that units have a "perimeter" that friendly models cannot enter, area supression templates would not be allowed to enter a "perimeter" or "battle line" defined by drawing a line between sighted enemy units.
Of course, with what I've proposed, I also think that Elite units should have the area fire template placement restrictions relaxed.
These ideas are great! I'm thinking of incorporating them. One thing I've learned after trying out suppression fire myself a bunch of times is that it's rarely better than covering fire from an "enemy dead per turn" standpoint. I'm therefore actually thinking of making two types, based on your suggestion:
1)speculative fire - same as written, only no placement restrictions (other than obvious ones, e.g. not past a visible enemy unit, etc.)
2)unit suppression - must target a specific member of an enemy unit and template must contact that member. +1 to damage rolls.
AOE weapons (in the current system) don't have a FR, and thus cannot be abstracted in this way. Each AOE template is a distinct shot from the launcher. So before what I get into below can be implemented FR>1 weapons should be made possible within the rules of the Army Customizer.
My guess is that this will get a bit too fiddly in practice, but am willing to consider it if other folks think it's a good idea...
As to what do with with mixed Weapon Affectors and cohesive suppression fire orders, I would say that a persistent template whether it's suppression or a beaten area would only use ONE of the Affector's effects, that of the primary weapon of the squad or the smallest diameter AOE weapon. In the case where a suppression template and beaten area template have both been placed by the same unit as a result of Cohesive Suppressive Fire orders, they can have different affectors, one for the AOE weapon, one for the Suppressive Fire weapon.
I'm gonna let this one mull around in the back of my head for awhile. I think it has some definite advantages, but from the perspective of most players, I think that the opportunity to split unit fire into suppression plus covering might be a better choice in almost all situations.
Again, thanks for your input. I will most definitely take your points into consideration when I tackle the new release.
-Demian
One thing I've learned after trying out suppression fire myself a bunch of times is that it's rarely better than covering fire from an "enemy dead per turn" standpoint
The probability of actually scoring a kill with Suppressive Fire is fairly slim (at least when compared to other forms of fire), but the morale effect can't of course be ignored.
1)speculative fire - same as written, only no placement restrictions (other than obvious ones, e.g. not past a visible enemy unit, etc.)
2)unit suppression - must target a specific member of an enemy unit and template must contact that member. +1 to damage rolls.
I would myself amend the rules to use the option (1) only. That would make the Suppression plenty more powerful than it is now without actually adding complexity to the situation.
My guess is that this will get a bit too fiddly in practice, but am willing to consider it if other folks think it's a good idea...
I have a dislike to the (implied) process of making multiple to-hit rolls*, resolving POI scatter, placing templates, working out damage and morale effect, rinse and repeat for several troopers. That said, IMHO FR2+ AOE weapons might be doable as some kind of barrage. Either (a) imagine it places multiple templates -- 1 to 4 depending on FR -- at the POI or (b) treat the FR2+ AOE as a fire cluster as per Indirect Fire or (c) make a single to-hit roll, place a POI and add FR-1 extra POIs in a random pattern around it. The above would roughtly be in the order of game time complexity, I think.
None of the above would resolve the use of AOE weapons in context of Suppression, of course...
*) If we were developing a seriously new edition I would move to strike the entire to-hit procedure for AOE weapons (@ Ultimate Warzone), but that's beside the point I suppose.
Hey Tim,
These ideas are great! I'm thinking of incorporating them. One thing I've learned after trying out suppression fire myself a bunch of times is that it's rarely better than covering fire from an "enemy dead per turn" standpoint. I'm therefore actually thinking of making two types, based on your suggestion:
That's fine by me that SF isn't better or even as good as directed, aimed fire at killing the enemy, no matter what. That's not it's point, doctrinally anyway. It's to pin the enemy down until another unit can get into position to polish them off. To deny them the option of maneuver, to fix them in place. Now, whether or not SF is good ENOUGH at that job... well, I don't have the games under my belt to be able to say. If SF is NOT that attractive, then perhaps making the morale effect more pronounced might be a good idea.
As to the killing enemy aspect, perhaps even a modifier to the dmg roll for any enemy models that ADVANCE into or through a SF template.
My guess is that this will get a bit too fiddly in practice, but am willing to consider it if other folks think it's a good idea...
Either way, if high FR AOE weapons are introduced, they should fire in barrages no matter HOW their fired. No chucking AOE templates willy-nilly all over the board from one weapon. Roll to hit, scatter if missed, place templates in a barrage. I wouldn't want to roll hit/scatter for each FR level. Ugh.
I'm gonna let this one mull around in the back of my head for awhile. I think it has some definite advantages, but from the perspective of most players, I think that the opportunity to split unit fire into suppression plus covering might be a better choice in almost all situations.
Likely as not, yes, it probably would be, but at some point, someone's going to want to converge fire... It'd be nice if the rules allowed it.
Again, thanks for your input. I will most definitely take your points into consideration when I tackle the new release.
Glad I came up with something useful to consider.
Something else I though of while typing all this up: Charging an enemy that's in a suppressive fire template. -- There should be something in the rules about "shifting fire" prior to a charge.
Perhaps something along these lines:
Unit A if firing suppressive fire on an enemy unit X. Unit B is in position to Charge and has it's card drawn. The desire to shift fire must be announce before Unit B makes the usual "wanting to charge" morale roll (forgive me if I use the wrong terminology). Unit A makes some roll, perhaps vs. quality to see if they lift the suppressive fire from unit X before the charge takes place. Either way, the charge must take place.
It's not without risk, unit A could shift fire, then unit B fail to actually execute the charge, giving unit X time to recover and perhaps do something the supressive fire was intended to prevent. Or Unit B could charge the enemy only to come under friendly fire because Unit A failed to lift the SF template.
Yes, I'm firing perhaps too many synapses on suppressive fire... I just really like the mechanics that D:VG has in place, and would like to see them expanded. I would guess that large majority of the rounds sent downrange in any modern conflict were fired as suppressive fire rather than aimed, controlled fire. With that in mind, I'd like to see SF be extremely worth using.
Thanks for listening!
Hey again Tim,
I agree that shifting suppression fire is an important "real" effect, but the time scale of the game (seconds per turn) is really designed for these kinds of decisions to be made on a turn-by-turn basis. In other words, the player who wanted to charge should plan for this by either having the suppressing unit stop on the turn he wants the charging unit to attack, or hold the initiative card of the charging unit and wait for the suppressing unit to activate and stop firing.
I do think that your suggestions regarding speculative suppression and cohesive suppression should be easy to implement and should hopefully make suppression fire more useful without increasing the rules burden. I'm already working on changing it.
-Demian
Hey again Tim,
I agree that shifting suppression fire is an important "real" effect, but the time scale of the game (seconds per turn) is really designed for these kinds of decisions to be made on a turn-by-turn basis. (snipped)
Hmm... Mneh. Yeah I see your point. I'd forgotten about being able to hold a card, etc...
"Shifting" fire IS already covered by the mechanics of the initiative system. Cool!
--Tim
Please don't make suppression any more complicated. It hurts my widdew bwain.
A few random thoughts:
remember not all figures even take individual morale checks.
wouldn't high FR AOE weapons be USUALLY abstracted into a firing (probability) sheaf with larger area or higher Impact Rating, for consistency and speed? That equates to better saturation over a larger area, right? It's what I've done for some (admittedly purely sci-fi) weapons that were FR4 in their "native" rules.....
*) If we were developing a seriously new edition I would move to strike the entire to-hit procedure for AOE weapons (@ Ultimate Warzone), but that's beside the point I suppose.
I'm not familiar with how UWZ removes the to-hit procedure. Could you summarize it for me?
I'm not familiar with how UWZ removes the to-hit procedure. Could you summarize it for me?
Just to interject,
The way that Ross and I do it for the Battlegame we developed is this:
We have a series of 2" wide circles arranged in a pattern, printed onto a clear piece of acetate. Each one is numbered 1-10.
You place the acetate over your target however you like so that at least one of the circles is centered over your intended target.
Then you roll 1 ten sided die for every round you have fired. Each round lands in the center of the numbered circle you rolled for it. Very quick, very easy, very effective.
If for some reason you want more scatter, (like when a soldier is forced to fire a grenade launcher beyond effective range at a high trajectory) we say 'deviate once', or 'deviate twice' etc.
Each 'deviate' means that you pick a target circle as normal and roll 1 ten sider. Then move the entire template sheet so that it is centered on the spot dictated by that circle.
When you have 'deviated' the correct amount, you roll for the barrage as normal.
This keeps the barrage relatively close, and yet suitably random.
Note that the circles on the template do not necessarily correspond to the AOE of the rounds (Though they may)
For instance the 2" cirlces work fine for our grenade launchers, but for mortar rounds we have an 8" circle. We use the sheet 2" circles on acetate to determine the landing of the rounds as discussed above, and then center the 8" circle cutout at the center of each location to determine blast radius.
This will allow for some overlap of effects as well.
That's how we do things anyway.
JP
*) If we were developing a seriously new edition I would move to strike the entire to-hit procedure for AOE weapons (@ Ultimate Warzone), but that's beside the point I suppose.
I'm not familiar with how UWZ removes the to-hit procedure. Could you summarize it for me?
On any direct fire/template weapon (flame throwers and shotguns mostly) you place the template on the board making sure to hit the closest enemy model. There is no roll to hit for the weapon.
Any direct fire weapon like a rocket launcher still uses a to hit roll.
Kurt
The way that Ross and I do it for the Battlegame we developed is this:
We have a series of 2" wide circles arranged in a pattern, printed onto a clear piece of acetate. Each one is numbered 1-10.
You place the acetate over your target however you like so that at least one of the circles is centered over your intended target.
Then you roll 1 ten sided die for every round you have fired. Each round lands in the center of the numbered circle you rolled for it. Very quick, very easy, very effective.
If for some reason you want more scatter, (like when a soldier is forced to fire a grenade launcher beyond effective range at a high trajectory) we say 'deviate once', or 'deviate twice' etc.
I like this idea quite a bit, but it would be a major pain to overhaul the AOE weapon costs to try and factor in such a change. Also, I assume it refers to indirect fire only; how did you manage the fact that most direct fire AOE (e.g. rocket launcher) that misses its target often keeps going until it hits something?
Back to UWZ:
On any direct fire/template weapon (flame throwers and shotguns mostly) you place the template on the board making sure to hit the closest enemy model. There is no roll to hit for the weapon.
Any direct fire weapon like a rocket launcher still uses a to hit roll.
Okay, now I'm confused, because this is exactly how Defiance works things. Jouni, am I missing something?
-Demian
Any direct fire weapon like a rocket launcher still uses a to hit roll.
Okay, now I'm confused, because this is exactly how Defiance works things. Jouni, am I missing something?
Sorry, it seems I was explaining this badly -- or rather, not at all.
Let me clarify.
In UWZ there is a to hit roll associcated with ranged templates such as those from rocket launchers or mortars, but it's not for the template to hit its target per se. Rather, you place the template over a target model according to the targeting restrictions. Then you roll to hit and accuire a modifier for the subsequent damage rolls against the models under the template. There is no template scatter and in that sense, you don't roll a to hit for the template as it always "hits", it just may not do any damage. In other words, the mechanism is closer to the regular point effect fire in UWZ than it used to be in WZ2 (I've never played WZ1).
In DVG type of single roll mechanism, where to hit = to wound, this would mean bundling the template to hit chance (given under AOE stat) together with the range to hit chance to get a to hit chance for the template placed.
The way that Ross and I do it for the Battlegame we developed is this:
We have a series of 2" wide circles arranged in a pattern, printed onto a clear piece of acetate. Each one is numbered 1-10.
I like this idea quite a bit, but it would be a major pain to overhaul the AOE weapon costs to try and factor in such a change. Also, I assume it refers to indirect fire only; how did you manage the fact that most direct fire AOE (e.g. rocket launcher) that misses its target often keeps going until it hits something?
-Demian
Yes, it is meant for indirect weaponry.
Direct fire area of effect weapon which misses the target would indeed keep on going until it hit something.
In practice, we ignore such things. At the scale of this 'Battlegame' (1cm=1 m), and even moreso at D:VG scale (!!) the chances of it hitting something else relevant, within the bounds of play is considered too small to consider.
Such direct fire AOE weapons are handled exactly like other more mundane direct fire; if you miss your intended target, then that's it, move on to the next action.
We don't feel the need to account for every missed rifle round, right? Well they certainly have to hit something, or land somewhere too.
Granted an AOE weapon, by its very nature has a larger field of effect, but even still, in most cases the chances of it hitting a tree or something before it flies off the board --within range of other soldiers is so flukey that its easier to ignore it. (unless the target is in close terrain, like a city or forest or somesuch, in which case it'll be immediately apparent where a missed round will impact!)
The only way that this wouldn't be true is if the weapon in question was fired at the ground, say, at the 'feet' of the intednded target.
In which case, the same method could be used as for indirect determination.
Of course, this is all just for the sake of conversation. I'm not advocating any change in D:VG. 
JP
Back in my WH40K days, we had several "missed" AOE rounds blow someone up, but that mechanic is (was) slightly different again.
mj12games.com/forum → Defiance → Suppression Fire - Worth Using?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.