FMA

In reply to a couple of recent comments about FMA Skirmish. I had the
unfortunate responsibility for Tom's bad experience. We noted a couple
of things:

1) The scenario had some flaws. (I don't like free for alls, and
apparently this situation was poorly thought out - it wasn't a free for
all, but there was no mutual support suggested). The figures couldn't
support each other.

2) Our variant, which I think models some aspects of close combat well,
makes for a less amusing game in a board unconstrained by thick cover or
lots of urban density. The tactics people are used to using in games
involve doing more than hunkering down in cover at the far edge of the
board and shooting. But because it is a reasonable representation of
close in action, engagements of a target in the open at 30-40m with a
SAW will tend to generate either lots of suppression or casualties. The
grenade kills were in part due to bad luck (one of the players got a
grenade into three of my guys that were standing in the open - less than
a 8m separation standing.... they should have died and mostly did) or
bad tactics. But it is a significantly less forgiving game than SG2 in
the sense that you have a small number of units who go to dead or hors
de combat when hit (unlike SG2 where a unit has some resilience due to
being made of more than one guy) and at the ranges you deal with,
grenades (even with a moderate 20m max area of effect) are pretty lethal
to exposed targets. Ultimately, in order for FMA to seem useful, it
probably has to be run indoors, in a space ship (a la Space Hulk), or in
a jungle/dense woods. Otherwise, you'd engage at ranges exceeding the
FMA boardsize (like out at SG2 ranges) and thus it makes sense to use
that system. Almost everything in FMA Skirmish is a close assault (more
or less).

3) FWIW, for those who might be evaluating it based on our comments,
keep in mind the following thing: I tried to vary the rules of fill in
blanks using ideas from SG2 plus ideas from real (as well researched as
I can get) data. In real life, grenades can kill people at long
distances (low odds though), and they tend to kill anyone in a standing
pose with no cover nearby - this translates to a deadly weapon in FMA
terms. Grenade deviations are somewhat dangerous, but due to burst
radius, they tend to be still a threat to the target unit. The solution
to employing grenades as a defender is solid cover like trenches or a
wall, and the solution to employing them as an attacker is throwing them
over a wall or through a window and getting prone. In the abscense of
cover, having a low target profile (being prone) is the answer. From the
"gamers" PoV, grenades with large burst radii and deviations less than
that radius used at range on targets in the open are horrific. They kill
people, and they thwart a lot of tactics. Those who are more used to
games where movement is in the ballpark of weapons range, and attacks
are not that lethal, a "realistic" variety of FMA is a nasty experience
- tactics in this variant of FMA absolutely REQUIRE that you 1) use
cover, 2) advance while being supported in bounds (Overwatch, use of
cover at the end of moves) and 3) suppress the enemy before closing with
them (to prevent grenade and SAW attacks as you advance). Manoevre in
the open is lethal. An unsupported figure attacked by multiple figures
is as good as dead. Grenades against guys in the open are quite a
threat. In short, it isn't very forgiving. And in a less than congested
board, it makes little sense for the forces to even close to board edges
without first having done a lot of fire at longer (SG2) ranges.

So what does this tell me?
1. FMA (as I have tried it) works pretty well in close terrain
(buildings, urban areas, etc).	I think in general, one should have a
thickly terrained board to allow maneovre under cover, closing actions,
no LoS, no spots, etc. - this will be the niche for FMA - otherwise
probably fights should start out at SG2 ranges and use that system. FMA
should be for forest or underground or on ship or urban battles where
SG2 granularity is insufficient to represent the type of fighting that
occurs. (Which is, if you note how close assaults in SG2 are resolved,
pretty unforgiving too!).

2. Spotting (a key factor in RL) is vital or explosives become very very
awful. Forcing people to spot and operating on congested boards where
LoS is broken frequently helps to limit fire and grenade activity.

3. This variant is unforgiving - if you don't use good supporting
tactics (and by that I mean suppressing the enemy before you advance on
them, and always having a moving unit covered by one or more unmoving
ready overwatching units) - the slippery slope can quickly go
precipitous and you can have an unfun experience.  This is of course not
aided if the scenario or board aren't set up well. Overall, just more
thought and care needs to be excercised at all levels by GM and player.
Conversely, I think good tactics can prevail in this as in most other
environments.

4. Isolation needs some thought. If we assume that all modern troopies
have radio links, just because I can't see Jim Bob 20m away from me
doesn't mean I can't hear him and what he's doing. We ran into another
situation of interest: Billy Bob Green Troop reactivated by Lt. 12"
away.... and successfully rolled reactivation. And now Billy Bob tests
for isolation? He isn't isolated. He's just had specific instruction and
comms with his leader! And being close together so your Sgt. can whisper
to you means you are in Grenade (for the fantasy crowd - Fireball)
formation. One suggestion we had was for something like 2*quality in LoS
or 1*quality outside of LoS.  And if you are activated by a transfer
command, you don't have to check isolation because you are 'in-contact'.

Some will say that a game with movement rates in the 6-10" category
should not have grenades exploding over 12" r. (24m r) or autofire
weapons that can hit multiple targets or pin multiple times. I guess I
have an aversion to Gorka Morka-esque games where a firearm is less
dangerous that a stiff kick. Modern close combat is dangerous, not very
forgiving, and punishes the incautious. So I prefer a game where this is
reflected, but obviously this is fun only where the scenario and the
terrain allow the players to do something (other than just go prone,
find cover, and fire at the opponent until he is dead). So many folk
will no doubt be happy with a 6" burst radius on a grenade, and limited
autofire capabilities. YMMV.

I've learned now where FMA fits in my GZGverse - in the Space Hulk
battles against aliens on a large ship, in the tooth-to-tooth battles in
a mine complex, in building clearing, in the constricted jungles of a
garden world - all places it works well. Where spotting is a key factor
in who and when you engage, and people can spread out enough to make
grenades only a moderate threat.

Anyway, better luck next time I'm thinking. Even a rough day produces
some lessons!

:)