Overwatch/Reaction Fire & Suppression - FMA

Jon Tuffley spake thusly:

Interested in others' opinions on this one - originally we had no
limit on number of suppressions, but in testiing this meant that sometimes a
figure got loads of them piled on it at once and it got a bit silly. Question
for discussion: if you're under fire, are you more inhibited if you think more
people are firing at you, or doesn't it make much difference?
Then we tried a max of 2 suppressions, which works OK-ish, but then
thought we'd try going to one only. That way, you CAN pin someone down
completely but ONLY if they fail their first remove suppression test, which
gives good troops a bit more chance to keep moving. An alternative idea we had
was to allow up to 2 suppression chits, but to say that if you rolled better
than TWICE your motivation number, then you
removed 2 chits at once (eg: a Veteran/2 would need 3 or better on his
D10 to remove 1 supp chit, but 5 or better to remove 2 in one action).

** I like that last. That way you can "suppress" a unit effectively, but a
good unit can say "Screw it! We're going anyway!". FWIW, in paintball, I sure
found a difference from being engaged by 1 hostile
with a semi-auto and five...

As a frequent proponent of overwatch in SG2, and having written and tried
several flavours because I play many games with OW rules, it strikes me that
1) laying down chits (even with dummies) is a no go. Yes it denies areas, but
unless the area is huge, people just work around it. 2) writing down is too
cumbersome (although this might be close to
RL - using a target point such as a tree or rock or whatever)
3) arcs are problematic unless they are painted on the figure base

Go with "rough line of sight" for OW. You have the right of it. It is a
planned action. If someone is smart enough to plan ahead and lay in wait, then
the attacker better either not come right down his throat (flank!!!), drop
arty or some indirect or air on the target, or come in a vehicle. Walking out
into an area covered by an emplaced gunman is VERY unhealthy.

I think an interesting way to do overwatch against opponents executing
what the CF calls A-to-C (Advance to Contact) drills (bounding
overwatch movement) is this. (use the same for reaction fire)

If a target finishes a movement in the open and is in the LoS of an enemy unit
(and the other prereqs being in place), the enemy unit (if it was on OW) may
fire on the target (AIMED). Reaction fire may be attempted if the unit was not
on OW. (This is a hasty fire action). (UNAIMED). If the target does not finish
in the open, but was in the open for a period of time during the movement
(bounded from cover to
cover) - if on OW, roll a reaction test (+2?) or if doing reaction
fire, add 2 to the check required to execute reaction fire. If this "reflex"
test is passed, the unit fires on the target when it is in
the open (so move it back to the open part - kind of an interrupt
thing). Otherwise, the unit has bounded successfully without being engaged.
This sort of reflects (though piss poorly explained) the real
"up-he-sees-me-down" way bounding A-to-C is often taught to
infantrymen. (now, I'm told that in the Falklands this proved too slow and
people just got up and ran, but that had to be more risky).

> As a frequent proponent of overwatch in SG2, and having written and

What about combining 1) and 3) - lay down a chit that indicates the
center of his viewing arc. i.e. measure out 12" and place a chit. Then X"
(depending on the size of the arc) to either side would be the bounds of the
arc. That way you only need 1 chit per fig, still cover a good size area, and
don't have to worry about having figs with arcs on them.

If we were to take this route, something similar could be done to denote an
area of suppressive fire. That way the same 'simple' mechanic could be used
for both actions, making it easier to remember.

> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Brian Keenan wrote:

> What about combining 1) and 3) - lay down a chit that indicates the
Then
> X" (depending on the size of the arc) to either side would be the

[quoted original message omitted]