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.

I'm trying to come up with a method how determinate shooting targets.

In current ruleset I have a phase where players decide actions for each unit/model they control. The actions are chosen in secret and then later revealed simultaneously and resolved in some sort of order. One of these actions is shooting (im going to assume people understand what it means). I want shooting action to have some sort of targeting restriction eg. if the target is some how out of line sight/ too far I want the shooting action to fail. This means target for shooting should be determinated before revealing actions and have some sort of clear way to indicate what is the target.

Any ideas?

What I'm using for my game (also in his sub-forum) is to give each unit a letter. Although in my game I am not putting restrictions on most shooting, when you assign a secret order you must assign a target as well as the order. For normal shooting you do not need a target, but you could easily change that as desired for your game. Now to shoot something, you must assign your unit an order to shoot, targeting unit X. Now you can check range/Line of Sight, and if the target is not eligible, the shot misses.

So it's:

Simultaneous Command
Sequential Actions

Right?

I think for shooters, put down a wedge showing the direction they are shooting. If there is a target in that wedge when they activate, they can shoot.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
So it's:

Simultaneous Command
Sequential Actions

Right?

I think for shooters, put down a wedge showing the direction they are shooting. If there is a target in that wedge when they activate, they can shoot.

Pretty much.

I was thinking about using cards for commands. Cards contain what the action does and they can be put face down next to the unit to wait to be revealed.
All actions of same type are resolved at the same time but actions with different types can be resolved before or after each other. eg. "running" action (unit can make extra movement) is be performed before actions called "shooting"

I like the wedge idea. I can have wedge cards face down next to action cards.

What are your actions, in what order?

Because it seems like you need:
1. Suppressive Fire (pins target down, instead of killing)
2. everything else.

You know, tactics...


ETA: Also, the wedge is printed on the shooting card, which is numbered in the action sequence, and labeled.

Orders Phase
- place the card down by each unit.
- Simultaneous reveal.
- Card stays by the unit until activated.

Action Phase
- Shooting Card has the wedge printed on it.
- Movement Card has arrow printed showing direction unit will go.
- Remove the card when the action is done.

Cleanup
- When all cards are up, game turn is over, check for victory conditions

Perhaps you need different types of shooting?

Fire at will/Suppression Fire
Aimed Fire
Overwatch- Reaction fire

Each of these shooting types could be at different points in the sequence. Once their turn to fire comes up, the unit can fire at any eligible target when their turn comes. Suppression fire is last (but least lethal), Overwatch fire occurs after moving (to hit people who just moved into range) Aimed Fire is last. Naturally, one unit could try to suppress a unit that wanted to move so another unit with aimed fire could hit it.

Eligible targets would be, within a 45 degree arc to the front, within X number of inches, and in LOS (as an example).

Just some thoughts.

How does it make sense for suppression fire to be last? The entire point is to deny the opponent their actions, so it should be first.

Also, agree on Overwatch being added to this sort of game.

I see this game having 7 phases:
1. Dig In
2. Suppression Fire
3. Move
4. Overwatch Fire
5. Fight Assault
6. Aimed Fire
7. Grab Objective

What is the setting?

I haven't really decided what kind of orders I want to have.

The basic turn structure for the game is.

a. players activate and move units.
b. players choose what actions the units will perform
c. players resolve actions

in first phase units are activated in a similiar manner to mantics warpath. After you have failed to activate or choose not to, you move your activated units and then your opponents does the same. You repeat this until all units have been activated or failed to activate.

In second phase all players choose what actions activated units do (put cards face down next to units).
Actions I might use are:
running (get extra movement)
shooting (shoot stuff)
charging into melee (move next to other units and hit them in the face)
counter attack (hit people back in melee)
use item (eg plant c4, throw grenades, tweet the enemy units that they suck)
special action (maybe an action that unique to the unit or army)
command unit (give an action for a non activated unit, action is resolved last)

In the last phase all actions are turned face up and resolved in some sort of order. After everything is resolved extra stuff is cleaned away. (activation tokens, cards etc.)

Oh, OK. That works, too.

Have you thought on putting interaction and even confrontational rolls in action/ activation resolution?

Also really, what is the setting roughly, shooting allocation and how shooting is done in general differs greatly among the ages and the players have different expectations in different settings.

Not really. I want to keep the game as simple as possible so that even a person who has no prior knowledge of the rules could pick it really fast. Main reason I want to use cards is because you can print the rules on them.

The main confrontation element comes from the movement/activation phase where players try advance their gameplay while at the same time trying to bluff their possible moves for the actions phase.

The models I own are mostly 40k (orks, chaos sm and mantics space dwarfs) so the setting is scifi?. I'll probably also use stat lines and gameplay how stats work from 40k (I have 5th and 6th edition books).

At its core 40k is a WW2 game "medievalified" it does not really behave as one would expect a sci fi game would, especially in battlefield awareness and shooting lethality.

I feel the 40k system as a base will create more issues in your design than help, better create a system from scratch or adapt a more modern and closer to what you imagine system than try to fix a game system that is so messed up, you can literally create two or three playable systems by spending the effort on fixing and adapting the 40k rules system.

By 40k I meant I take how shooting is resolved eg. models have ballistic skill, roll to hit, roll to wound, roll saves etc.

I want to have a system where you can bluff other players, doesn't have lots of down time where one player does his stuff, don't have to look the rulebook for a million different special rules.

I don't really want the game to be ultra lethal and have each unit be able to do something and melee and shooting be somewhat balanced against each other.

WW2? Aren't you more than 30 years advanced on the timeline from what 40k represents?

I see 40k as more of a WW1 / Boer War analogue, at least in the early incarnations. In many ways, 40k is more akin to Historicals, if you look at the current model density and shooting ranges.

40k in the first/ second edition was an adaption of WHFB into a sci fi theme, 3rd edition onward 40k is based on the homebrew 15mm ww2 rules Rick Priestly had developed to play at home with his friends.

I am unsure what 40k represents anymore with all the twinkling they have done over the ages.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
How does it make sense for suppression fire to be last? The entire point is to deny the opponent their actions, so it should be first.

Just spit balling to illustrate how it might work.

Also, a heavily ordered game is not normally associated with Sci-fi at 28mm scale. Typically such games are trying to be more fluid and less structured. Out of curiosity, what aspect of game play are you trying to solve for with your rules?

 Easy E wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
How does it make sense for suppression fire to be last? The entire point is to deny the opponent their actions, so it should be first.

Just spit balling to illustrate how it might work.

Also, a heavily ordered game is not normally associated with Sci-fi at 28mm scale. Typically such games are trying to be more fluid and less structured. Out of curiosity, what aspect of game play are you trying to solve for with your rules?

I was looking at the game as progression of impact on the opponent, to disrupt their strategy or remove material. Pinning a unit down is something that should happen as part of a plan, and laying down immediate suppression fire to allow the rest of the force to act adds a bluffing factor, whether you will be able to get your other orders off. Whether it works at 28mm is hard to say. But for how many models a current game of 40k puts on the board, I'd think it's legit. It's a sort of game that I'd like to play.

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.

Suppression should happen as a natural part of the shooting, a unit specifically shooting for suppression should get a bonus and probably allow to shoot at a target who would not be able to "physically hit" for example shooting a unit in cover behind a wall.

Exactly. It's forcing the other guy to keep their head down., so actual hits that cause damage might be on a 6, whereas a suppression effect might count against regular BS.

A simple mechanism could be if number of hits is greater than the units courage/ determination stat a test is needed to be made if failed unit is suppressed

Negative mods for the test can be actual damage caused, unit been in cover or unit been hit multiple times of their moral/ determination stat.

Damage could also be added to the amount of hits if the game mechanism does not deliver enough hits to make suppression meaningful.

Suppression fire specific action could double the hits but penalize the mechanism of creating damage.

A simpler mechanism is that suppression fire mandates a test with a -1 modifier per success.

From a 40k POV, I'd handle suppression like this:

1) 10 IG suppress Ld7 Tau
2) 5 IG roll 5 suppresses; no roll to-wound, and Tau save 2 of them.
3) 1 IG hits a 6, roll to wound & save as normal.
4) Tau take a Ld test at -3, needing a 4 or less (-1 per un-saved suppression hit)

So:
- The more suppression fire you lay down, the more likely you suppress the target.

- The more armored / dug in the target is, the more likely they ignore suppression fire.

- Suppression fire almost never kills anything, except out of dumb luck (Thorpian 6).

Yes?

Actually the more dug in (and survivable) a target is the more likely it is to be suppressed.
I had a bit of an issue with the 40k analog but I guess it would go like this:

Squad A shoots squad B (LD7) and scores 6 hits does two woulds making their target total an 8 more than their LD, the squad gets a suppression token, Squad C uses suppression fire on squad B making 5 hits which are doubled to 10 because of Suppression fire again giving a suppression fire token to the unit, at the end of the shooting phase unit B must make a moral with -2 from suppression fire to avoid getting suppressed (pined?).

sigh 40k is such a bad system.

If you were armored like a battleship or in a mega-bunker, you won't be suppressed, because you don't care. You'll do whatever you do, because you can ignore the incoming fire.

Extremes exist of course, but studies show that a unit under fire in cover is easier to be suppressed, as are units hit by something strong but survive the experience.

I have not delved in ship combat and the psychological effects of hits on a ship (or in airplanes for that matter) or how shooting affects moral in bunkers and other purposefully fortified constructions.

When I think of rules I think the usual combat and not the unique cases.

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?

 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.

No, but the moment a hit of caliber sufficient to shake/ produce loud bang hits the vehicle the occupants will have a suppression effect, even if the weapon is unable to penetrate the vehicle they do not know it.

A definite effect on tanks with small arms fire that are unable to penetrate the hull is suppressing keeping the crew preventing them from using hatches denying them a wider tactical view (and use of cupola weapons), I have researched for minor effects of damage on external non critical parts like damaged periscope and radio masts from small arms fire but have not find much about it so I assume the effects are minimal, situational or not regarded as critical enough on the wider scope of war.

That is precisely what my save mechanic does.

In the real world, these heavily armored vehicles ignore virtually all incoming fire. Including RPGs and IEDs. That's why the IDF uses them to clear channels. That's why the US uses them to clear mines.

Even if you look at Killdozer, the pilot drove his armored bulldozer until it got stuck, completely ignoring all small arms fire. Incoming fire did nothing to his remote cameras (behind 3" plexiglas).

So, getting back to not-40k, a Space Marine / Terminator is not heavily suppressed by lasgun fire, because he just makes his saves and moves on.


When you move on to actual anti-tank fire, they aren't firing to suppress so another unit can maneuver or act, they're firing to destroy. Big difference.