Re: FMA Skirmish test results

On 19 Jul 99, at 12:26, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Interested in others' opinions on this one - originally we had no
limit on
> number of suppressions, but in testiing this meant that sometimes a
figure
> got loads of them piled on it at once and it got a bit silly. Question
for
> discussion: if you're under fire, are you more inhibited if you think
more
> people are firing at you, or doesn't it make much difference? Then we
> tried a max of 2 suppressions, which works OK-ish, but then thought
we'd
> try going to one only. That way, you CAN pin someone down completely
but
> ONLY if they fail their first remove suppression test, which gives
good
> troops a bit more chance to keep moving. An alternative idea we had
was to
> allow up to 2 suppression chits, but to say that if you rolled better
than
> TWICE your motivation number, then you removed 2 chits at once (eg: a
> Veteran/2 would need 3 or better on his D10 to remove 1 supp chit, but
5
> or better to remove 2 in one action).
I would say you could have more suppression chits (although for ease of
play 
I would say 3 would probably be a maximum) but you would have to enforce
the 
'suppressed in the open' rules. Someone did ask about there being an 
equivalent of the SGII (god knows why I was talking about DSII) rule
about 
being 'in position'. Or are we considering the Skirmish terrain is small

scale enough that the flat bits actually are flat..

> Well, the idea was that Overwatch is a "prepared" action that you have
to
> plan for in advance (ie: in your last activation), while reaction fire
is
> a spur-of-the-moment, target of opportunity thing. However, this is
what
> playtesting is all about, and if an imbalance is showing up then we'll
> need to sort it out.
It's a definite case. In one game it led to a sort of 'leapfrog' -
players 
would have half their squad on overwatch while the other moved. Now,
this 
*is* realistic as far as I know (although my experience of small team
warfare 
tactics is limited) but it did tend to bog the game down a bit. The AIM
part 
was the real bugbar though. That means using troops we had (standard 
regulars, assault rifles, light flak) overwatching figures become very 
dangerous over a wide area.

> I don't like it) or b) giving figures an overwatch ARC insted of an
area
> or point, which starts to get us into questions of figure facing,
requires
> marks on figure bases etc.
Would people have problems with figure facing do you think? Anything in
the 
'front half' of a figure can be shot at. Presuming, of course, you allow

people to face figures any way they want to.
 
> Good point - so, do we add the same restriction to overwatch, or
remove it
> from reaction fire? 
I have no personal preference, but allowing 'any point' fire makes the
game 
more dangerous to individual troopers. It was just that as it was
written, 
Reaction fire had the restriction and Overwatch didn't. Given the
feeling as 
to the relative power of these two rules, this was something people were

concerned about.

> Glad to hear it generally worked well, Jon - the most important
question
> is DID THE PLAYERS LIKE IT?
To be honest, some did and some weren't sure. We had already run a 'nuns
with 
guns' tabletop merely using the SGII rules applied to individual figures

instead of units and people felt it was very similar to that,
unsurprisingly. 
There were also bits we didn't include - RL & explosives.  Overall the 
feeling was positive and that people would want to try it again but the 
consensus was that I should at least raise the 'out of turn' fire
issues.

> Thanks for the feedback,
You're welcome.

				TTFN
					Jon