A point came up in the AAR for the SG PBeM game that Allan was running: can
you throw smoke while suppressed?
Let's say IF squad Ali takes a suppression and knows there is another NSL
squads just waiting to fire. If Ali pops a smoke, he's basically safe till
next turn, even if he fails to unsuppress. If he has to unsuppress first, then
he might as well fire on the second NSL squad instead of throwing smoke.
It would seem to make sense that you could toss smoke while suppressed but I
can't think of any examples from reading (except for vehicles). I only recall
infantry using smoke to cover an attack.
> "laserlight@quixnet.net" wrote:
We've always played that you can throw smoke while suppressed.
We played that throwing smoke count as a fire action, so you can't while
suppressed. The list of availlable action you can do when suppressed is pretty
limited (p.18).
Yves
> "laserlight@quixnet.net" wrote:
> --- Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com> wrote:
I've got to agree, where there's smoke there's fire!
Bye for now,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:57:50 -0800, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
> We played that throwing smoke count as a fire action, so you can't
However, smoke is in the Advanced Rules section and it doesn't say _how_
it is done. The rules don't say if it's part of a fire action, part of a
reorganise action, or a separate action. Since it's not listed, the rules
don't state if it's a Leader Action (as defined on page 16) or a Motivation
Action.
This is one of the (several) holes I'm trying to plug in the rules. This is
why I asked, originally, for the proper doctrine in real life.
I think it should cost an action. Up until now I've been treating it as a fire
action, but I don't think it's fair to consider the figure throwing the smoke
(and, again, the smoke rules don't specify _who_ is doing the throwing;
is it a group, or do you have to detail a specific individual) as having
"fired".
Since I've heard on the list that you can pop smoke when suppressed, and due
to the rules placing smoke within 6" of a unit, I think it should be a
separate action but not a fire action. I think it should be possible to do it
while suppressed. Since it's such a powerful tool, I think it should be done
as an action, thus the squad has to be activated to do it.
One of the reasons for allowing it while suppressed is how I've seen smoke
used in other games. In particular, the computer game _Steel Panthers_
had units pop smoke before they bugged out. It seems logical to me that if a
squad was taking heavy fire, they would chuck smoke grenades nearby (from the
safety of whatever cover they have) in order to protect against incoming fire.
***
Since I've heard on the list that you can pop smoke when suppressed, and due
to the rules placing smoke within 6" of a unit, I think it should be a
separate action but not a fire action. I think it should be possible to do it
while suppressed. Since it's such a powerful tool, I think it should be done
as an action, thus the squad has to be activated to do it.
***
Please forgive a vac-head's interruption, but isn't the question how
effectively could a suppressed squad use smoke, not whether they could 'pop
out a few grenades' or not?
If an issue of granularity, is it worth the effort to make a difference?
The_Beast
> Please forgive a vac-head's interruption, but isn't the question how
That sounds like a pretty sensible interpretation. What's wrong, not getting
enough space?
How would 22nd century infantry deploy smoke? Does the platoon have an
equivalent of the 2" mortar? Or would everyone just throw grenades? Maybe from
their rifle's GL?
How effective a smoke screen could they deploy? Would it simply stop anyone
firing at them? Or would suppresions still be possible?
> At 4:39 PM +0000 10/30/02, Richard Kirke wrote:
I dunno, a small ball that one can chuck seems likely.
> How effective a smoke screen could they deploy? Would it simply stop
Theoretically the effect on the suppression should be how much it impacts the
firing unit's fire effectiveness. If they have some kind of mechanism of
seeing through the smoke, then they probably won't falter in their fire
accuracy. But if they can't see crap, they might have a harder time putting
fire where people are near and thus not be able to maintain the suppression
come next turn.
Perhaps there need to be tech levels for smoke:
Tech 1 - basic smoke (white phosphorous, diesel on a hot manifold...)
Tech 2 - Basic smoke, chemical additives to block IR lasers
Tech 3 - BS + IR blocking + IR decoys
Tech 4 - Tech 3 + metallic particle smoke to block millimeter radar
Tech 5 - Tech 4 + active electronic jammers
So infantry with tech 5 sensors and targeting systems are unaffected by
lesser smoke - i.e. they have equipment that effectively allows them to
"see" the target. Whereas infantry with tech 3 sensors would be effectively
neutralized by tech 4 or 5 smoke and suffer a modified die type when dealing
with tech 3 smoke but able to ignore tech 1 or 2 smoke.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> At 09:48 AM 2002-10-30 -0600, you wrote:
wrote:
> We played that throwing smoke count as a fire action, so you can't
This is
> why I asked, originally, for the proper doctrine in real life.
is it
> a group, or do you have to detail a specific individual) as having
> [quoted text omitted]
It might be OK to allow smoke to be fired when suppressed. However, I think
you should have penality for each suppression marker. Maybe something like TL
= # of suppression? Else, I think it is too powerfull: With reactivation, a
squad with 3 suppression could use one action to put smoke, and the 3 other to
try removing suppression without fear of getting new one. A roll will make the
above more difficult to pull out.
Also, will it make sense to have a roll to do even when not suppressed?
(especially if you consider poping smoke not a firing action).
> At 10:37 AM -0700 10/30/02, B Lin wrote:
I've recently started looking at how to safely make smoke for WWII
re-enacting that's cheaper than what one gets in maritime emergency
smoke devices. There are a few companies that provide the components and
discuss a number of books on this topic. One thing that strikes me after
having read about this is that the Hot smoke that blocks IR will be a bit of a
problem close to infantry.
When you're closed down inside a tank, Hot IR smoke isn't really a problem.
When you're a PBI, something that is spewing hot components that are still
combusting into the air, might be cause for some alarm if it get's thrown too
close.
Basically the way most smokes work is by ejecting partially burnt combustion
byproducts or liquid into the air where they attract water vapor and make the
nice dense smoke clouds we know and love. The mechanism is actually pretty
detailed in that you don't want complete combustion as that makes your smoke
less effective. You want a cooling function inside the container that keeps
the combustion temps down to a certain degree. Things like Cellulose are used
to slow the combustion process between the oxidizer and the propellant that
vaporizes the dyes and components that give you the smoke particles.
(Now this is just an educated WAG) The "Hot" smoke, I suspect
probably ejects still combusting oxidizer, propellant and dye/agent
that burns in the air creating your IR screen as well as the smoke. This means
that you've got a pretty violent reaction in the canister ejecting material in
the air and this up near your Infantry. They probably won't like having this
stuff too close or in and among themselves.
Any Chemist types know more about this mechanism and hot smoke function?
> At 12:54 PM -0500 10/30/02, Yves Lefebvre wrote:
Tossing a smoke grenade from cover isn't hard. Getting it do do what you need,
is a bit more tricky. There's probably some time to add after the smoke is
thrown to allow for the cloud to bloom. A minute of time allows a good sized
smoke bomb to start acting and blooming, but that 60 seconds is a long time in
combat.
> Also, will it make sense to have a roll to do even when not suppressed?
Perhaps a quality test to make sure that the suppressed team is able to use
the smoke effectively? After all, you'd expect veterans to be able to react to
the fire better and throw the smoke in the axis of attack and where they'll be
wanting to maneuver to. Greens on the other hand, might throw it the wrong
direction and have to pop another one to make up when they realize the wind is
blowing the wrong direction for where the smoke grenade landed.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:54:52 -0500, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
> It might be OK to allow smoke to be fired when suppressed. However, I
It definitely needs to be tested, but I don't think it's too terribly
powerful. It eats up an action to throw smoke, which can't be used to
unsuppress. So, if you have suppression 1, you are better off trying to
unsuppress. If you are at suppression 3 you are already at the max. It's when
you're at suppression 2 that it makes the most sense to pop smoke.
Assuming I do it for a unit that's at Sup2, I can throw smoke and then
unsuppress (since I have OW rules, you don't want to do it the other way
around). That gives you a Sup1 unit that no longer has LOS to the enemy due to
the smoke it just dropped. Would I waste a reactivation on that unit to remove
suppression? Perhaps, but perhaps I'd be better off finding someone else to
fire at.
What I think this does is gives a Sup2 unit a fighting chance. I often see
Sup2 units being fired on to get them up to Sup 3, taking them out of
commission for about two activations (it's likely that you'll blow one of 3
unsuppress attempts). If the unit isn't IP, or -- god help them -- they
are out in the open, a single suppression can destroy a unit. Smoke is the
only way, realistically and in the game, to save the unit.
I don't think it would be overpowering, but I'm just guessing. It really does
need to be tested. See my reply to Ryan for an addition to this.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:10:38 -0500, Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> Perhaps a quality test to make sure that the suppressed team is able
I think the easiest way to do this is a QD roll to see if the smoke deviates,
as per an artillery drop. The rules state that smoke could be placed anywhere
within 6" of a unit. If the unit is suppressed, let them place the smoke but
make a QD test to see if it lands where they want. If not, deviate it, let's
see... D4 inches is probably more realistic than D6.
With this situation, you may get a suppressed unit throwing smoke so poorly
that it doesn't do much good at all.
Personally, I think in the next game I play I'll try letting suppressed units
throw smoke as per the rules while suppressed, without testing deviation. I
want to see if it really is overpowering. As I mentioned to Yves, I think it's
likely to be the Suppression 2s that drop it more than any other unit. Maybe
Suppression 3s, but I find Sup 3s don't get the same volume of fire on them
(unless the enemy doesn't have any better targets available) as Sup 2s. Since
smoke goes away at the end of a turn, A Sup 3 popping smoke means that it's
still likely to have Sup 2 on it by the time the smoke clears.
Remember that these are smoke HAND grenades, not a Smoke mission from mortars
or artillery. Maybe we should treat this like an "emergency in position"
check. Hand grenade smoke will buy you time to find cover, not much more.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
Hi,
My take on the "smoke issue" in SG is that I agree with Allan that it should
definately cost an action, BUT that you can not throw smoke while suppressed.
Why?
Two reasons, mainly. Smoke can be used tactically - ie not just chucked
randomly about, but rather *placed* exactly where you want it. To be able to
position smoke grenades, whether or not they're fired from a rifle's GL or
thrown, requires a certain degree of "aiming", and if I can aim a smoke
grenade accurately to a spot within 60 meters of my position, why can't I do
the same thing with an explosive grenade? Second reason is the range.
Smoke can be deployed up to 6" from the squad - 60 m. A squad that is
suppressed is assumed to be ducking behind whatever cover is available and
hunkering down to avoid incoming fire. Try throwing a grenade (or rock, or
baseball, or whater) while you're lying down behind a bush. How far do you
think you can throw? 60 meters? Not bleedin' likely. To be able to
*accurately* (we get back to the "used tactically" issue) throw something 60
m, one has to be able to *at least* get to one's knees (if strong), and
probably be on foot. Or using a grenade launcher, and aiming. And again, if I
can do it with smoke, why can't I do it with explosive grenades?
If squads that are suppressed are allowed to throw smoke grenades to 60m, but
aren't allowed to throw *explosive* hand grenades at an enemy squad that is
60m away... that creates a situation that doesn't make sense.
So, we play that "blowing smoke" is a fire action, and can't be done while
suppressed.
However... I started off by saying "...not just chucked randomly
about..."
What happens if that is *exactly* what someone would like to do - ie
have each squad member activate a smoke grenade at his current position, and
roll it away just a meter or two. In effect, the squad "blows smoke" on
its' current position, and in-game, the squad gets covered with smoke
markers. I've seen that tactic used a number of times. From a "real life"
perspective, it sort of makes sense IF the squad has the means to avoid
incapacitation by the smoke (ie the smoke is produced by some means that
doesn't make it difficult for them to breathe, or they all have respirators or
something). It does mean the squad can't see anybody around them, but
conversely, within the rules, they can't be shot at.
There doesn't seem to be any "rules" reason to prevent people from "blowing
smoke" on their own position (and my jury is out on whether this counts as
"cheesy" or not), and if they want to do that, why wouldn't they be able to do
it while suppressed? It doesn't require the same kind of aiming effort that
accurately placing smoke grenades 60m would.
However... if you interpret "suppression" as being mostly psychological (ie
the troops are freaked out, and aren't doing anything because they are
scared to death and are huddling down), then we're back to "no smoke" -
they're just not thinking straight enough to do this either...
I personally don't want a system that involves different rules for
different leadership/quality levels (though that might make more
"realistic" sense) - one simple mechanism to keep the game going quickly
is what I prefer.
SO... no smoke while suppressed.
(or maybe you can if you're suppressed, but in cover)
(or maybe you can, if you're suppressed, but you're regular quality or better)
(or maybe you can, if you're regular quality or better and you make a
leadership test with a penalty equal to the number of suppressions)
(or....)
:)
Adrian said:
> In effect, the squad "blows smoke" on its current position, and
Perhaps say that suppressed squads can only toss smoke on own position, and in
that case it works as "provides cover" (hard or soft, maybe a skill roll is
appropriate here) instead of "blocks LoF".
"It's not the bullet with my name on it that worries me--it's the one
addressed 'To Whom It May Concern'..."
> At 5:08 PM -0500 10/30/02, Adrian Johnson wrote:
I'm not sure why you're going to be throwing it 60 meters from you. You should
be able to toss it over the nearest cover that's between you and the firing
unit(s). One can throw a grenade nearby in a roughly random fashion without
hardly any exposure.
A smoke grenade doesn't need to be placed in the cover of the target(s). It
just needs to be where it will emit smoke that will bloom into a cloud that
will cover your position.
Requiring a Quality test just like one uses to go into position seems quite
rational.
> suppressed is assumed to be ducking behind whatever cover is available
You have to get that HE grenade in and among the bad guys. Not just near you
upwind.
> If squads that are suppressed are allowed to throw smoke grenades to
One has to be aimed far more purposfully.
> So, we play that "blowing smoke" is a fire action, and can't be done
on
> its' current position, and in-game, the squad gets covered with smoke
There are mechanisms of making smoke that isn't incapacitating. I actually
covered this. Whether it will be hot IR blocking smoke is another question
though. The simplest smoke vaporizes glycerin or mineral oil which coalesces
around dust particles and attracts water vapor. You can do this with a thrown
grenade just like you can with a smoke machine.
> There doesn't seem to be any "rules" reason to prevent people from
How difficult would it for a grunt in a squad to pop a green or purple smoke
marker for identification?
> However... if you interpret "suppression" as being mostly psychological
But Vets get suppressed too. Its a question of partially that, partially
survival instinct because of the fire and partially good sense.