Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes and no, a hit that does not kill its target has the chance to suppress it.

And no a terminator should be suppressed by overwhelming fire, marines indoctrination should be the thing that pushes it not been suppressed.

Anyway we come from different standpoints on the psychological impact of hits during combat and how this should be conveyed by game mechanism, I am unsure why we use as an analogy a game system so bad as 40k though.

Leadership and the training of a unit will partly decide if someone is supressed or paniced.

A group of well lead veterans are far more likely to hold there ground than a conscript in the first action.

Or a veteran tank crew would be less shaken by a round bouncing off a hull. Been there, done that and know what tank xan take.

A combination of strength of fire, leadership and the unit in question rating as to morale, or such stat. That ior suppression effect is leveled based on firepower/volume and a unit that's well trained and lead can subtract from the effects, a weak conscript adds etc.

 Easy E wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
My main issue, though this is more of an adventure/rpg game, is how to figure out how to use firearms when stats don't help with damage. Some stats help with hitting but generally with firearms moving ones hand doesn't make the bullet go faster.

So far what I have done (in my head for the most part at this point) is to have a separate score for firearms to represent knowledge of handling them regardless of stats and to have damage not related to a stat.

If I understand correctly, don't you simply do this by giving the weapon itself damage stats and not the user?

Of course, some hits are better than other hits so higher skill maybe relevant in such a game.

There are two systems in place here:

The first to determine whether one hits, which is different depending on vocation and training.

The second is the damage which is more randomized and in the end is determines essentially how well one hit.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, let's assume you're in a M-1 Tank.

Or in an Israeli Komatsu D-1 armored bulldozer.

Are you suppressed by small arms fire that barely scratches the paint? Even if its a lot of it?

Possibly yes. All armoured vehicles have external gubbins that can suffer damage even from small arms fire, like vision blocks. The crew may feel that an increasing amount of incoming infantry fire shows they are becoming outnumbered and their own infantry support is being driven away., This will make them increasingly nervous about being attacked at very close range with anti-tank weapons.

However, this is a case where the designer can refer to WW2 and more modern histories of armoured vehicle combat to work out some ideas about how likely this sort of thing was in reality.

I was specifically referring to modern history for the armored bulldozers - they are generally not suppressed by small arms fire at all. That's why the Israelis use them.

Even if this is the case, Isn't that an exception and not the rule?

If it's become SOP for the Israelis, it's the rule, not the exception.

Only in a specific theater against a specific opponent.

Very good at what it does, nothing halts a 70+ ton bulldozer clad in thick armour and anti rpg plating.

It's a specialist tool.

In game terms, the chances on infrianty shaking its crew would be fairly low.

I think the point is that that seems to be a specific trait of a specific vehicle in a specific setting. It does not apply to armor generally nor to that same vehicle driving across the open nor against foes with air support.

So the question is, is your ruleset designed to capture that theater (IE dense urban conflict with lighter militias utilizing native populations and terrain fighting better organized/equipped opponents)? Or is it a more generalist ruleset?

I would point out that generally speaking, armor is very vulnerable in dense urban environments and generally requires close infantry support. The massive weight causes issues (streets/bridges collapsing, immobilizing the vehicle) as does size (knocking a support and having a building collapse on you is no fun). Additionally the limited LOS makes for all kinds of threats that can get close and exposing crew to get a better view/man anti personnel weapon etc. makes them vulnerable to small arms fire.

The Israeli approach of "walking through walls"/ Rhizome maneuver is actually a fairly novel one that probably would not be well reflected by a more generalist rules approach and requires thought on how to approach turn sequence, terrain, etc. It is also the product of vastly superior forces that can produce intelligence (to stage in the correct areas on the correct targets), superior training, organization, and equipment. It could not be executed in the same manner if the Israelis possessed the same levels as their targets. Both sides seem equally unconcerned with encroachment on civilian space and tolerate civilian casualties, though the Israelis seem to seek to minimize them whereas insurgent groups seem to actively seek Israeli civilian casualties and this should be a limiting factor in behavior of either side. Notably these tactics are employed on Palestinian space, meaning they would be unavailable in scenarios where the Israelis are defending. This would create a dynamic where the attacker in each side enjoys an advantage- Israelis in the Rhizome maneuver, Palestinian insurgents in attacking Israeli noncombatants. It also creates inherent goals and victory conditions- defending Israelis lose based on lost civilians, not defeating the enemy. Defending insurgents lose only if completely eliminated and can force a draw by inflicting comparable casualties.

If you just allow heavy vehicles to ignore all but the heaviest fire indiscriminately, you will have a game where giants tanks just drive and shoot at each other.

 jmurph wrote:
Both sides seem equally unconcerned with encroachment on civilian space and tolerate civilian casualties, though the Israelis seem to seek to minimize them whereas insurgent groups seem to actively seek Israeli civilian casualties and this should be a limiting factor in behavior of either side.

If you just allow heavy vehicles to ignore all but the heaviest fire indiscriminately, you will have a game where giants tanks just drive and shoot at each other.

From what I see, the Israelis actually work pretty hard to maximize civilian suffering and collateral damage, and will deny media when they want to commit human rights violations atrocities. Just look at the body counts and so forth. The only limiter is if foreign media is present.

Erm, well I wasn't trying to make a commentary, but rather point to factors that may be relevant to a wargame based on the conflict. Feel free to disregard my observations on the particulars- just pointing out to how they can tailor the game.

For game design, I think it best to approach it by determining what behavior rules should reflect and encourage. In modern combat, troops will respond to threats based on equipment, discipline, motivation, etc. Better trained and equipped troops will be more effective in employing countermeasures, but may not engage if insufficiently motivated, for example, (Lesser troops with better motivation may drive them off). To reflect this, the rules may make better troops more likely to succeed in tasks and less motivated troops more likely to flee when they fail.

Addressing the earlier situations: better trained vehicle crews are more likely to fulfill ordered tasks. If they are facing opposition, the odds of them hesitating or bailing is directly proportional to perceived risk. Facing low perceived risk (such as when they believe that the enemy has weapons incapable of damaging them ala specially designed heavy armor vs. militia with small arms) the odds of hesitation or flight is minimal. Of course, an operator could still panic, make a mistake, etc. On the other end of the spectrum, crews facing unknown enemies or enemies known to have threats that place them at risk are much more likely to hesitate/flee with training and motivation being a mitigating factor and experience letting them more accurately gauge threats.

Remember that much of this behavior is driven by perceived, not actual, threat. So an overconfident or under informed actor may act in ways inconsistent with a less confident or better informed actor.

Oh my, this thread has really jumped the shark. Keep in mind we're talking about games where a majority of things are abstracted or simply glossed over for better gameplay.

In terms of the OP, I can see having pre-chosen hidden targeting for shooting working well in a game that is about close firefights, say squad vs. squad, on a densely packed terrain board (something like Infinity or even more "zoomed in"). I also say shooting should be more deadly and not less deadly, otherwise the "penalty" of ending up in someone's firing arc is less of a big deal.

In a larger more army scale game, where enemy contact is generally much further away, adjusting targets on the fly is a lot easier and so pre-chosen targeting makes less sense to me.