"Does suppression fire in sci-fi platoon-scale make any sense?" Topic

Lets say platoon/company scale sci-fi mechanics.

Should there be option to spend more ammo and reduce kill-rate to ensure more suppression/disorder/demoralization?

Against alien races? Robots?

What do You think?

Does suppression fire have to use more ammo?

Weight of firepower makes them go to ground so you can kill them in shedloads with your support weapons.

Aliens – depends on the alien psychology. Some honor based alien races may revel in the opportunity to prove themselves or die for their gods. Others, even bugs, may fall back.

Robots – also depends. Early model 'clockwork' or massed robots with simple progamming may come on regardles, more advanced and semi-sentient or indeed fully sentient robotics will have the same will for survival as men and be governed by the same urge for safety or back off to attempt an alternative tactical solution.

If the robotics can save their programming and sense of being to an alternative chassis – like the humanoid Cylons in Battlestar Galactica – that's a different matter

Of course, there may also just be a 'big brain' controlling the bugs, hordes, robots with a 'defend'/'expel the attackers at all costs' mentality.

It will work against some foes, not against others, so remains a valid part of the tactical locker IMO.

Cheers
Mark

If they keep coming, due to programming or psychology, they get shredded by the fire. Once shredded they will be suppressed.

I guess I don't like the def of suppression in the opening post. More fire doesn't automatically equate to less kill rate. You focus your fire at what you are trying to kill. If you can't see your actual target and instead are firing at the berm or wall he is behind to 'keep his head down' increased rate of fire may give you a better chance of a lucky shot capping the guy you are trying to cap. Only poorly trained folks spray and pray, and the suppression value of that isn't very high against trained troops.

Bottom line for me is accurate fire suppresses. Hopefully by killing the target, if not by the target realizing if he doesn't get out of the line of fire he will be killed. The CRACK of a round a few inches from your head has that effect.

I'm not sure there's any reason to differentiate between firing to put holes in your opponent and firing so that your opponent goes to great pains to make sure there are no holes in him.

As CPT Jake observes, once you kill someone, he's pretty much pinned down forever.

Does suppression fire have to use more ammo?

Thats what they told me during my compulsory military training as reserve officer (limited 'cause medical, but still).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute
I am not sure if it will work that way in the future, though.

Many popular historical wargames rules (f.ex. Operation Overlord from Alzo Zero, Bolt Action: World War II Wargames Rules) has Fire-To-Kill alternative named Suppression Fire or Mad Minute.

There are of course weapons predetermined to be suppressing like mortars, grenades or HMGs. What I am most interested is Suppression Fire option for Light Infantry Squads.

Please let me clarify my questions:
1. If You were creating You own rules for sci-fi platoon/company, would You add an option to instead of Fire use Suppression Fire, defined as intensive (as much as possible) fire toward probably position intended no to kill but to suppress? Y/N

2. How would such Suppression Fire could work? It is logic to assume that such attack should result in suppressing position/opponents more often than Fire-To-Kill? Y/N

3. I suppose that Suppression Fire should result in less probability of target casualties than Fire-To-Kill? Y/N/Maybe

4. I suppose that Suppression Fire should result in more drastic usage of Ammunition than Fire-To-Kill? Y/N/Maybe

5. Any ideas how to balance Fire-To-Kill with Suppression Fire?

6. Should such effect be visible on platoon scale wargame battlefield?

Please let me clarify my questions:
1. If You were creating You own rules for sci-fi platoon/company, would You add an option to instead of Fire use Suppression Fire, defined as intensive (as much as possible) fire toward probably position intended no to kill but to suppress? Y/N

No.
I would go for "You aim to kill, and, whether you succeed or not, it may result in the enemy being suppressed".

2. How would such Suppression Fire could work? It is logic to assume that such attack should result in suppressing position/opponents more often than Fire-To-Kill? Y/N

An example of what I'd do, using the somewhat common hit/save roll mechanics: if lots of hits are scored (regardless of the saves/final casualties), the target may get suppressed.

3. I suppose that Suppression Fire should result in less probability of target casualties than Fire-To-Kill? Y/N/Maybe

N/A

4. I suppose that Suppression Fire should result in more drastic usage of Ammunition than Fire-To-Kill? Y/N/Maybe

I wouldn't want to keep track of ammo in platoon/company scale games.

5. Any ideas how to balance Fire-To-Kill with Suppression Fire?

N/A.
Separating fire-to-kill & suppression fire doesn't make any sense to me, at least in a game. In a game I'd want to play, that is :)

6. Should such effect be visible on platoon scale wargame battlefield?

I'd say it's more a matter of general design (what kind of action you want in a game) than of scale. If you want a "sorta-realistic" kind of thing, you'll want suppression at any scale – and vice-versa.

Cheers,

Sylvain

Suppression fire works in Infinity by creating a cooridor down which a model or models are firing. Any enemy crossing this is subject to shots from that fire.

Suppression is a tactic.. like moving, firing, bombarding, sniping, ambushing… so it think it will be around awhile. Long after we're gone.

Also, suppression doesn't have to be mechanically driven (ie made compulsory by tests and such). It can simply be a player's decision not to move a unit out of cover, or to order it not to shoot and cower behind a wall – just because it is likely to get mowed down. It results in "voluntary" suppression – but it's still suppression.
It's another design decision – how much control you want to give the player, and how rule/test-heavy you accept your ruleset to be.

Didn't GW's Space Marine (one of the versions anyway) have a suppression system where you got 'blast' markers for the number of hits/shots fired at you (think it was based on stands shooting at you with some stands giving multiple markers). After you hit a certain number of markers (depending on how good the troops were) you were considered pinned and therefore limited in what you could do. A command roll allowed you to remove a marker or more each turn.

So basically suppression was considered a standard part of the attack and troop training/skill set how well you coped with being attacked. Although even the best troops would eventually be pinned down if enough firepower was thrown their way.

FUBAR uses the following Suppression mechanism:

1 – The target of incoming fire can choose whether to take a "hit" as a KILLed figure or a Suppressed figure.

2 – Each unit has a limit on the number of suppressions it takes per turn based on training level (the better the troops the more of them can be suppressed rather than killed).

3 – At the beginning of the next turn, when you try to activate a unit with suppressed figures, you subtract one from the activation die for each suppressed figure. Regardless of the outcome suppressed figures are no longer suppressed.

I'm happy to model it separately in a platoon level battle, but not above. However the trade off is potentially a slower game with more markers.

But, as stated above, it can be modelled into the fire resolution effects.

For individual/squad skirmish, it gives more depth and provides the active player the option to keep his troops head down (maybe) and pour lead hoping to keep the enemy at bay, take cover or stay in cover – providing an opportunity to maneouvre, break contact or bring down fire support.

Equally, it may give a pinned down player an opportunity to break the deadlock.

Cheers
Mark

I would go for "You aim to kill, and, whether you succeed or not, it may result in the enemy being suppressed".

In most of those systems, Fire-To-Kill also result in suppression of target.

However Suppression Fire should result in suppression of target (also unspotted/hidden units; suspicious position; PEFs) more often and to bigger extent (suppression which stay loner and pin more effectively).

Tomorrow's War allows a fireteam to select either "shoot to kill" or "suppressive fire" option. Choosing suppressive fire makes it unlikely to cause casualties but forces a pretty automatic morale check on the Target which if failed forces it to be "Supressed". Supressed means it will fire one dice level lower than normal. i.e. If it normally rolls D8's to shoot, it will now roll D6's. If it normally rolls D6's it cannot shoot at all. This is very useful tactic for attackers using the suppressive fire with one team while manoeuvring forward with another fire team.

The purpose is to close with and destroy the enemy by close combat.
This sometimes requires movement
The Right tool for the right Job!
what is being pinned? generaly it is agreed that pinned units may not Move toward units but may move left to right or to the rear and may return fire at a reduced effectiveness.
this is usualy caused by being cought in covering or suppresive fires.
what is suppressed? this is not being able to move at all or retrurn fire this is caused by being in the beaten zone of suppression fire . its a tactic and a tool used to make it easier to close with the enemy …it takes place at levels of combat IE one unit fixes the enemy in place while another moves to achieve a position of advantage (by movement)you will hear soldiers are trained not to fire on targets they can not see as it wastes ammo most will miss or may result in collateral damage or blue on blue…"Killing Fire or shots " is an inapropriate term..achieving a hit that results in death is far from gurantied even with todays advanced arms and optics. and I personaly resent it becouse it makes killing another human being Trivial. so i would prefer to use the term aimed fire.
Supressive effects are not a bonus prize awarded if you Miss
or fail to roll a hit. you have to choose to fire suppresive fires you must order your unit to do so(remember they are trained to use aimed fire and not spray and pray).
so its a tool you use to allow your units to move closer or behind or to any position that would give you and advantage to force your enemy to be destroyed or surrender or displace..

The purpose is to close with and destroy the enemy by close combat.

The purpose is to identify the position of the enemy, pin him there and kill him, with heavy weapons from distance by preference.

I think the days where you actively seek close combat are done.

One thing that might reason for using more ammo is that as soon as the unit firing slacks up on its shooting at the enemy, that enemy is going to be unsupressed. This means that aimed fire will create hits and suppression in equal chances, but that if the shooting lessens, the suppression automatically fades.

This could give a logical reason why suppressing fire might use more ammo. It does not prevent the shooter from opening fire again if the suppressed unit jumps up and tries to advance so that it will once again be subjected to the same fire.

One mechanic I dislike is when suppressing fire is not lethal, as suggested here. I think shooting is shooting and suppression is a result of the accuracy of the fire. If the shooting is snapping on rocks nearby there is a chance of getting shot AND a chance of getting suppressed. If people die, the chance of suppression may or may not be increased but for sure the idea of shooting specifically over the heads and trading killing hits for suppression effects is illogical.

@ Mark
that certainly a valid tactic but what happens when you need to occupy that piece of ground , or dont have time to bombard an enemy position for hours or don't have the tubes you need.
I would disagree close combat is even more important now then in the past untill restricted ROEs are lifted.
And I belive the Infantry will need to take ground from his oposite well into the future ..

Two hour war games basically does this organically, but one could allow troops to fire beyond range or at targets just out of Los (by which I mean they are behind a rock and you shoot that area, not that you shoot at an unseen target on the other side of the board.)

The result would be that even if you make your target duck back, you can potentially keep him in duck back for multiple turns, though you won't cause damage if the other guy can't pop out from cover.

"Suppression fire" in Infinity is sustained automatic fire, filling a corridor with lead (or more exotic materials). The other effects of what active soldiers would call suppression fire are entirely inside the opposing player's head and in the opposed-role combat system. "Do I stick my head out and risk getting shot to put that missile launcher upside his head?" There's no morale rules, it's all player decision!

I really like how slick the 'blast marker' mechanic is in Epic:Armageddon. Your chance to activate the formation is based on the troop quality and the number of blast markers, and if you get a number of BMs equal to the number of units, the formation breaks and falls back until you rally and remove some BMs.

In Flames, if you get enough hits (5+ or 10+ if you're Russkies), the platoon becomes pinned and must rally. That's HITs, not casualties.

There is a historical anecdote of a single USMC sniper in Vietnam (I believe it was Carlos Hathcock) who suppressed an entire NVA company by himself by systematically killing anyone who stuck their head above the edge of a particular rice paddy. His spotter then called artillery down on the NVA to devastating effect…

In my mind, an effectively-written set of wargaming rules shouldn't have to force a player to differentiate between effective fire and suppressing fire. The morale system should address near-misses and hits and use them to determine an appropriate penalty to the targeted unit. Too much incoming fire would lead to morale failures, which would then lead to the unit being suppressed or routed.

For suppression fire you don't necessarily have to be firing bursts at the target. For some reason the game Battlefield 3 gives points for suppression fire and I've gotten those just firing on semi-auto. So it would seem as long as the lead is flying most will want to keep their heads down.

I see that my question was addressed by several people, who seemed to get that my question was more than a question.

As for Robots.

According (again) to Ron Arkin, the LAST thing we want to do is to give sentient robots weapons, until and unless humanity itself is capable of enhancing its own physiology to the point of being the equal or superior to a robot.

And the bots that Ron Arkin builds.

I get the feeling that Suppression isn't something they do.

They make probabilistic choices, and if the probability says that they have a chance to achieve their goal, then they will act.

This will, in some cases where the robot may be effectively suppressed, but this form of suppression will not be at all equivalent to that of a human or humans who are suppressed.

The human(s) will suffer from emotional and mental effects as a result of suppression. The Robot will not, and it will be working, ruthlessly, to allow itself to achieve its goal by whatever means are allowed to it, and at its disposal.

If this means that one of the robots needs to sacrifice itself for other robots (or humans) to advance to their goal, then it will do so (effectively negating any suppression).

I'd say that really depends on how exactly you programmed the robots, Alex.

If the robot is programmed that the current mission sub-objective is the most important, then I can see how it would be almost immune to suppression.

However, if the robot is programmed such that the overall mission is the most important, and this particular attack has low relevance to the mission overall, then I can see even a robot hesitating to needlessly expend itself before the 'most important part' of the mission is achieved.

I would assume there will always be a difference between "shooting that guy" and "shooting that direction…a lot".

Robots and aliens could easily have "not affected by suppressing fire" as a racial attribute. That would force the players into using different tactics based on the enemy, which is better IMO than just using the same old thing over and over.

Close combat is actually MORE common now than before. In past wars, you tossed firepower whether it was grenades or mortars or whatever and destroyed the buildings. Today you have to go in and capture people far more than before, and can't be so destructive in order to ensure proof of result. Example: boots on the ground in Bin Laden's compound because they wanted to be absolutely sure.

In game terms suppression fire is just a factor of fear and morale. Being more or less afraid of the effect of enemy fire leads directly to the result of ducking back or being suppressed or not.