Re: [GZG] FMAS: Combining Movement with Shooting

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lSam,

I'll agree that splitting out suppressive fire, covering fire and normal
fire in Stargate SG-1 the RPG, they have created more choices. It is
also
simplifying.

However, given that they gave me something like 10 pages of rules for
computer skill (and not really usable ones IMO) and wasted many column
inches and game mechanics on other aspects that will only bog down the
game,
I find it hard to imagine they did this for simplicity reasons. Perhaps
for
the choices, I will believe.

That said, such 'choices' provoke annoyed comments from players as to
why
normal fire can't suppress on a near miss and why covering fire and
suppressive fire can't *ever* harm anyone.

My point was particularly that the reality of suppression effects from
fire
is that they are from fire which a) does sometimes hit and cause
casualties
and b) has to be close enough to convince people that casualties can
ensue.Your goal is to kill or wound your target if you can, achieve some
suppressive benefit as a consolation prize for near misses. I can't
think of
a single soldier who would prefer a near miss to a hit and who aims to
miss.

Even support weapons with a beaten zone that are typically far more
suppressive are still trying to kill the people they shoot at. They just
accept the fact they may miss a high percentage of the time. But they
are
still shooting to hit what they shoot at.

That's why I favour mechanics to keep the ratio of suppressions to
wounds/kills as close to even as is feasible.

Tom