From: Barclay, Tom <tomb@b...>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:08:58 -0500
Subject: Overwatch, the next chapter...
Allan say: > A unit (or detachment or single figure for that matter) may enter Personally, I think 1 action isn't enough. I see what you're doing, but with what you have later you run the risk of having a lot of fire pouring down for what's essentially a single action. [Tomb] It really is one fire action, especially if you don't allow support weapons extra shots. Therefore penalizing a unit doubly is overharsh IMO. My own Overwatch rules allow the overwatching squads allow over watch at the cost of 2 actions, though mine don't require a Reaction Test (that's what Reaction Fire is for). [Tomb] It is an easy test, I just dislike the fact that once a unit has an area under surveillance, it ALWAYS fires first. I know from RL experiences in paintball and other training, sometimes a surprise sally can catch your prepared opponent napping. It isn't safe, but sometimes it is your only option and sometimes it works... (Ideally, you just shouldn't walk into such fire zones....) <SNIP> Worse, you're essentially making it HARDER to hit a target that moves slowly. That is, if I move a unit 12" across your front, it's easier to hit than if I move 1". A fast moving unit is easier to hit one sauntering along. [Tomb] Yes! This was a rough cut from memory. I think I modified this to be a penalty if you moved less than 25% of your total movement potential in sight. I think I know what you're getting at. I suggest a simpler method. Make it a TL+1 test if the unit conducts a Combat Move! That is what Combat Movement is supposed to be in SG2, a unit moving while hugging the ground. It could be a quick unexpected dash for cover, or a ponderous move from rock-to-rock. [Tomb] My own preference for combat movement, that applies in all situations: Combat moving troops (as opposed to normal "patrol" movement) are fired at as if 1 RB further away. This makes combat moving a must while engaged. Although I think your suggestion has merit here also. > Optional add ons: I don't like this. You're essentially allowing split fire, albeit with a Reaction Test, for the cost of one action, not two. In fact, you are also breaking the "can only fire once per activation" rule, even with the drop in TL per new target. [Tomb] Yep. That is why it is listed as an option. The SAW and GPMG are meant to throw quite a bit of fire out. My interpretation of this is that, in static positions, they can just churn out the rounds. In this case, I use the declining firepower version, and have found it works. But, if you don't like that part, ignore it! You also need counters to indicate the number of Overwatch firings they have done, so you can tell what the TL modifier is for the test. [Tomb] ? Nope. I usually mentally keep track of how many shots fired because it doesn't come up all that often. And it doesn't affect the test level to fire (or I never thought of that....). The only reason to keep track is if you use declining FP with repeated shots. What about squads with multiple SAWs? Are all SAWs required to fire at the same target? Or can they be put on Overwatch as a "split fire" unit and fire independently? For that matter, can a SAW or other support weapon be put on overwatch separate from the rest of the squad? I mean, they can fire separate from the rest of the squad, why not go on Overwatch separately? [Tomb] I suppose the answer is do you play the rules or the game? Do you allow squads to split fire? I don't...usually. It isn't illegal, but my own knowledge tells me this is a rare case. The SAW might be assigned a different overwatch zone conceivably, but not all that often. I personally think this shouldn't happen. I suspect you'll see a LOT more suppressions with this, especially in squads with two or more support weapons. [Tomb] Probably. Rarely do I bring that much FP to the table. Obviously if you do this, you get suppressions through lots of support weapons. I get mine through efficacy of fewer weapons. Combined, the effects could be pronounced. I think you'll see scenarios bog down and be less mobile than SG2 is right now. That may be what you're after, though. [Tomb] If you even use overwatch/snap fire, you don't mind more bogging. I myself am a simulations gamer. I like elegant and easy to remember, but I also like the feel of what I think of as real. I've seen section firings. I don't EVER want to be downrange of one. Not without a concrete berm. I think this should be more for an FMA game, where the scale is a bit different. [Tomb]Probably fits well there, along with the firelanes rules. With turns representing 1 to several minutes in SG2, I think allowing multiple fire from support weapons is too unbalancing. [Tomb] Guess it depends on force compositions. I've used it in a number of games fairly successfully. It changes the balance and does make support weapons more fearsome, perhaps unjustly so. But then, I also tend to think the SAW (as I think of it) as overrated with D10 FP. D6 seems more appropriate. GPMGs/LMGs probably merit D10. Totally IMO, mind you. Though others have tried SAWs with lower FP and had good results. > 3) If you are particular, you may want to get a small counter with an I would scrap this idea, too. [Tomb] It is an option. Some people like enforcing unit facing. Some people like to know where the unit is supposed to be watching. I don't use it myself. > 4) Involuntary triggering: Green or Untrained units, fatigued units, People > get jumpy if they are poorly trained or are tired. How many times do they test, and when? [Tomb] I'm thinking this will come up in the "prematurely sprung ambush". I'm assuming they test once per movement of a potentially triggering unit, but when is it tested? The moment they first move, or some other point? [Tomb] I'd say test when unit first enters LoS (assuming it is within RB 1-3). Maybe test each movement or fire action thereafter, after the move or fire is conducted. I would require the units test in the order of "target priority" given in the rulebooks, if I used this at all. It has neat potential, but I'd make it a part of ambush rules or scenario specific rules. [Tomb] This is the primary place I'd expect it used. The other being where a green unit is being attacked by unit A, but wants to shoot at unactivated unit B when it activates. A is in their face and shooting at them. It may take a good effort to not have them return fire at unit A and to hold fire to shoot at unit B. > Reaction Fire Obviously I differ with your opinion here, as this is essentially my own Reaction Fire rule, but I do it at a TL0 and don't require a TL test for Overwatch. [Tomb] I find TL0 to easy for a sudden engagement. But, this is a matter of degree you are arguing...;) Once again, I suggest an increase in TL if the target is using a combat move. [Tomb] It was a good idea, so I shall probably steal it. ;) > Whether this test is passed or failed, that unit is I don't agree with this. I think that if they fail the test, they should not be activated. [Tomb] I don't recall what happened when you blew this reaction fire roll in the rules Jon T posted to the net (conjectural though they were). Your interpretation may be more homogenous. Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com