Machine guns/ supressing fire/pinning

[Gabe The Gun]

One of my players we call "The General"(because no matter what game we play he always has to find a strategic flaw in the rules that he can exploit and get over on everyone strategically) asked me if there are rules about suppresing fire, from machineguns such as the M134 minigun from the small arms guide that has a rate of fire 20, he asked if all 20 shots go to the same place or are there rules to supress an area like 45 degrees or something? I didnt have an answer and told him ill research it. How does this work? Are there such supressing rules? Reminder that I am using Version 1 system.

[Legbreaker]

It's been a loooong time since I last looked at 1st ed, but 2.0 and 2.2 certainly covers the idea.
If you can't find it in V1.0, make something up yourself. Machineguns are essentially designed as suppressing weapons - if a round from a burst happens to hit the target, so much the better (and something the gunner should be trying to do anyway).

[Marc]

We use v2.2 set of rules and, as Legbreaker said, the automatic fire rules include things like danger zone and secondary targets. First the firing character roll to verify any hits on the target. Then, half of the dices wich missed the target are rolled against other secondary targets in the danger zone. The missed hits of this second roll can be rerolled against any new objective crossing the danger zone in the entire combat round (from the initiative step of the firing character until the same initiative step in the next turn). So, the danger zone can be 10m wide (centered on the target) and last one entire turn. I’m sure that v1 must have some similar rule. Anyway,It’s better you read the rules carefully, first. Then we can help you better with your doubts.

As a house rule, I ask to my players to roll againt their intiative if they want to cross or expose themselves to a known and active danger zone. A kind of “panic roll” or “self-control roll” to act in a zone covered by automatic fire. I do the same with the NPC’s. This allows me to cover the effect of a unit “pinned down” by automatic fire. If the roll is failed, the character does not have enough “momentum” to expose him/herself to the danger of being hit. A successful leadership roll by another character (the leader of the squad, for example), allows the characters under their responsibility to avoid doing the “self-control” roll.

[Fusilier]

As a house rule, I ask to my players to roll againt their intiative if they want to cross or expose themselves to a known and active danger zone. A kind of “panic roll” or “self-control roll” to act in a zone covered by automatic fire. I do the same with the NPC’s. This allows me to cover the effect of a unit “pinned down” by automatic fire. If the roll is failed, the character does not have enough “momentum” to expose him/herself to the danger of being hit. A successful leadership roll by another character (the leader of the squad, for example), allows the characters under their responsibility to avoid doing the “self-control” roll.

Interesting. I've been thinking of different changes to tag onto my current game. I might consider something like this...

[Adm.Lee]

I just took a look thru V1, and I didn't see a suppressing fire rule. I suggest something like the v2 ideas above, both using initiative as morale, and saving half your misses to shoot at anyone entering the zone around the target (10m wide, length the same as the range bracket).

EDIT: Oh, and in v2, firing bursts means not using % rolls to hit, but rolling lots of d6, only 6s hit.

[Webstral]

I feel obliged to point out something that we probably all know but haven't said yet. Machine guns can be used for supressing fires, but they function best firing in a line that intersects the lines of movement of the enemy. The Germans really got this idea down in WW1.

Offensively, machine guns are more effective attacking point targets than simply putting lead downrange. It takes a well-trained and disicplined MG crew not to spray fire everywhere--especially when everyone is screaming for the guns to [expletive deleted] do something. In my admittedly limited experience, there is an emphasis on so-called talking guns, if only for the purpose of morale. Talking guns burn up a lot of ammuntion very quickly, too. For motorized units, this is less of an issue, since lots of ammo moves with the vehicles. For light guys, talking guns consumes what can be carrried in a couple of minutes. The value of the gun in the point target role is that even on a tripod the MG bucks and shifts slightly as it is fired. As Leg alluded to, a shotgun-like pattern emerges. A halfway decent gunner (like me) assisted by a halfway decent AG can hit a man-sized target with a seven-round burst at up to 600 meters. Only one or two rounds hits, but that's certainly better than nothing. A really good gunner can achieve the same thing at 800 meters.

The drawback to engaging point targets is that one consumes ammunition pretty quickly. If each seven-round burst takes someone down, you can fire a maximum of fourteen bursts for fourteen men per 100 rounds of ammunition. This ideal is seldom achieved. However, to the degree that all of this lead screaming downrange gives the enemy the idea that he had better hug the ground, a machine gun can be used in the suppressive mode.

I've never really come across rules that I like for "spray 'n pray", though I confess to not be very widely-read. The best suggestion I've read from others is to figure out how wide the base of the triangle of fire is, then divide that by the number of rounds fired to determine the average distance covered by each round. Compare the average distance between rounds to the width of a human silhouette, then determine the odds of a lucky hit. Obviously, this grossly oversiplified device, but it's a start.

Webstral

[jester]

I feel obliged to point out something that we probably all know but haven't said yet. Machine guns can be used for supressing fires, but they function best firing in a line that intersects the lines of movement of the enemy. The Germans really got this idea down in WW1.

Offensively, machine guns are more effective attacking point targets than simply putting lead downrange. It takes a well-trained and disicplined MG crew not to spray fire everywhere--especially when everyone is screaming for the guns to [expletive deleted] do something. In my admittedly limited experience, there is an emphasis on so-called talking guns, if only for the purpose of morale. Talking guns burn up a lot of ammuntion very quickly, too. For motorized units, this is less of an issue, since lots of ammo moves with the vehicles. For light guys, talking guns consumes what can be carrried in a couple of minutes. The value of the gun in the point target role is that even on a tripod the MG bucks and shifts slightly as it is fired. As Leg alluded to, a shotgun-like pattern emerges. A halfway decent gunner (like me) assisted by a halfway decent AG can hit a man-sized target with a seven-round burst at up to 600 meters. Only one or two rounds hits, but that's certainly better than nothing. A really good gunner can achieve the same thing at 800 meters.

The drawback to engaging point targets is that one consumes ammunition pretty quickly. If each seven-round burst takes someone down, you can fire a maximum of fourteen bursts for fourteen men per 100 rounds of ammunition. This ideal is seldom achieved. However, to the degree that all of this lead screaming downrange gives the enemy the idea that he had better hug the ground, a machine gun can be used in the suppressive mode.

I've never really come across rules that I like for "spray 'n pray", though I confess to not be very widely-read. The best suggestion I've read from others is to figure out how wide the base of the triangle of fire is, then divide that by the number of rounds fired to determine the average distance covered by each round. Compare the average distance between rounds to the width of a human silhouette, then determine the odds of a lucky hit. Obviously, this grossly oversiplified device, but it's a start.

Webstral


And what if you are using a T&E? :D

[Webstral]

And what if you are using a T&E? :D

The T&E mechanism will make the base of the triangle of fire shorter. Effectively, more rounds will go into each linear meter at the base of the triangle. Were I to try to create a mechanism for T&E-based spray 'n pray, I'd go with something like that.

In reality, the T&E mechanism makes spray 'n pray difficult, though not truly impossible. A gunner can only crank the T&E wheel so far in one go before moving his hand for another wind. If the gunner were to depress the trigger until the belt ran out, the pattern of rounds will show tight concentrations right where he was moving his hand to adjust the T&E and looser concentrations where he was actually turning the wheel.

There are some other variables to bear in mind. The first is that gunners ought not to be in the habit of firing whole belts of ammunition in one go. Six to nine rounds per burst is the norm for a general-purpose machine gun. Squad automatic weapons are better kept to three rounds per burst, since their lighter barrels overheat more quickly. (Also, as I have discovered the hard way, you can burn up a 100-round drum in not much more time than it took me to write this sentence. Fire discipline is a must if you are the SAW gunner.) I was taught that when a gunner is using a T&E to move his fire across a designated field of fire, he fires a burst, moves the gun, and fires another burst. Gunners that follow this practice are going to create separate shotgun-type patterns along the length of their traverse. I know that some gunners traverse while firing a burst. In this case, the base of the triangle is a product of how far the gunner can turn whichever wheel he's using on the T&E mechanism while firing his burst.

I'm sure Law could provide better information than I can regarding the real world application of machine guns. I'm really just an amateur who has enough training to get onto the battlefield and live to tell the tale. I've used a T&E to fire from a static position several times in training exerises, but all my (very limited) gunnery in Iraq was from the cupola on top of a Hum Vee. There are some important differences, especially if the truck is moving as you're firing. Come to think of it, that's something that could be gamed out fairly easily. If your convoy is moving through the enemy's field of fire, it becomes difficult to aim the gun. I took the advice of another gunner; lay the gun behind the target and let the movement of the vehicle drag your fire forward across the target. In this case, the field of fire isn't a triangle--it's more like a cross between a parallelogram and a rectangle. Figure out how far the vehicle moves in a given time, then divide that by the number of rounds fired. From there, you can figure out a ratio of empty space to silhouette. Of course, this doesn't take elevation issues into account. Hajji is hard to hit when he's using the irrigation ditches for cover and only his head and right shoulder are exposed.

OT: SO many problems could have been solved with a little arty. A single air burst 155mm in the right place would have turned the logic of using the irrigation ditches for ambushes on its head. Sadly, in reaction to Vietnam the pendulum has swung entirely the other way--at least it did in greater Baghdad in 2005. I can't comment on what is happening or did happen anywhere else.

I'm sure Paul, too, could add more to my assessment

Webstral

[kato13]

And what if you are using a T&E? :D

Traverse and Elevation?

[Marc]

Ah! The american addiction to the acronyms! ;) I was about to ask the same.:o

[leonpoi]

in the context of v1 you could relate it to coolness under fire and hesitation.

[Legbreaker]

With respect to V2.2, I'm finding it more and more unbelievable for Autogun skill to apply to machineguns unsupported or on a bipod (tripods are a grey area too).
It seems unlikely that Autogun, which is a skill that mainly applies (in my mind) to autocannons and other quick firing lighter weapons such as 14.5mm AA guns (basically anything short of 50mm) has a place with what are essentially belt fed heavy rifles.

Admittedly the game seems full of little issues like this, such as Grenade Launcher skill applying to firing of Mortars.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Mahatatain]

With respect to V2.2, I'm finding it more and more unbelievable for Autogun skill to apply to machineguns unsupported or on a bipod (tripods are a grey area too).
It seems unlikely that Autogun, which is a skill that mainly applies (in my mind) to autocannons and other quick firing lighter weapons such as 14.5mm AA guns (basically anything short of 50mm) has a place with what are essentially belt fed heavy rifles.

Admittedly the game seems full of little issues like this, such as Grenade Launcher skill applying to firing of Mortars.

Thoughts? Opinions?
It's a game and this is just one of many things that start to seem wrong when you play the game for a while. For example many v2.2 GMs either increase the damage inflicted by weapons or reduce the amount of damage that PCs can take because after you play the game for a while the combat system just doesn't seem lethal enough.

Therefore if you find a particular skill problematic then start tweaking with the system - very few GMs play a system straight as written as most have house rules. For example in my T2k game I've expanded the skill list, added an extra stat (Resolve), replaced initiative with a Coolness Under Fire skill, switched from a term based character generation system to a points based one and increased the damage inflicted by weapons.

In this particular case (if Autogun skill bothers you enough) I would suggest that you shift belt fed machineguns to Small Arms: Rifle, though that opens up a whole load of other questions.

[Twilight2000v3MM]

My rule of thumb when I ran v2.2 was that if it was a HMG or vehicle mounted (like a turret mounted MMG or HMG) it fell under Autogun. If not it was Small Arms (Rifle).

Tripods were a grey area and I would let the PC choose which skills he wanted to use.

[Legbreaker]

I absolutely HATED the 2.0 autofire rules (1D6 per round, with a 1 in 6 chance of hitting regardless of skill) right from the very first moment I read it. 2.2 redressed that somewhat by tying it into skill, but it still feels a little hamstrung.
I'm also less than 100% with a high strength character with low skill having a better chance of hitting than one with average strength and skill. Sort of says that a body builder will ALWAYS have a better chance to hit with a weapon than an average person who practises about the same amount, even more and that all Olympic shooters should spend every spare waking moment in the gym. :S

Still, tying skills back to their controlling attribute was an improvement over 2.0, but it's still got some pretty big issues...

But that's getting away from the core issue - autogun vs rifle for unmounted, manportable, automatic weapons.

[Mahatatain]

Still, tying skills back to their controlling attribute was an improvement over 2.0, but it's still got some pretty big issues..
Wasn't the tie between Skill and Stat fixed in v2.0 as well? I think that it was a core part of all GDW games.

It's also another thing that I've tweaked in my house rules - Skills aren't automatically tied to a particular stat, it can vary depending on what the skill check is for.

Returning to your core question though, I think that Twilight2000v3MM has the right idea - allow flexibility and let the player decide. That's what most GMs do with SAWs so why not expand it to belt fed machineguns as well. The result will be that most PCs won't take Autogun skill unless they want to fire something large.

[Legbreaker]

No, 2.0 paid little more than lip service towards the attribute - during character generation "purchase" of skill greater than the controlling atribute cost double. Once character generation was finished, the atribute played little role in skill usage except in individual cases, such as a mechanic needing to use a 6 foot long spanner (Difficult Strength) to undo the wheel nuts on one of those massive mining trucks as part of servicing the suspension (Easy Mechanic).

In all versions of the game, an attribute check can be combined with a skill check such as in the example above. 2.2 made it mandatory to involve the controlling attribute and an additional attribute check could also be involved. The idea first came in with the Referee Screen and Twilight Encounters box (2.1).

3MM's approach is the logical one for me too. It just doesn't seem right that a skill used for mounted and heavy weapons should apply to something like an RPK. By that logic, you should also apply Autogun to SMGs, right down to weapons such as the Stechin pistol - they are automatic weapons after all... :confused:

I can see somebody like an artilleryman having a decent autogun skill (AA guns), armour crewman (25mm bushmaster), even naval gunner (various deck guns), but can't see how those experiences and training can be directly translated to infantry weapons.
Likewise, an infantryman who's hauled around an MG-3 for the past ten years shouldn't automatically be able to operate a 40mm Bofors at the same level of skill.

[Tegyrius]

I can see somebody like an artilleryman having a decent autogun skill (AA guns), armour crewman (25mm bushmaster), even naval gunner (various deck guns), but can't see how those experiences and training can be directly translated to infantry weapons.
Likewise, an infantryman who's hauled around an MG-3 for the past ten years shouldn't automatically be able to operate a 40mm Bofors at the same level of skill.

I kinda like Auto Gun as a design simplicity thing. I don't want a Bradley crewman to have to invest heavily in three different skills (e.g. Heavy Gun, Tac Missile, and Machine Gun) to be proficient in all his ride's weapons.

- C.

[Mahatatain]

I can see somebody like an artilleryman having a decent autogun skill (AA guns), armour crewman (25mm bushmaster), even naval gunner (various deck guns), but can't see how those experiences and training can be directly translated to infantry weapons.
Likewise, an infantryman who's hauled around an MG-3 for the past ten years shouldn't automatically be able to operate a 40mm Bofors at the same level of skill.
Leg, have you ever played a system called Rolemaster or its Sci-Fi equivalent Spacemaster? If you want to get into a detailed skill system where weapon categories like those you mentioned above each have their own skill then you need to look at something like RM, or rather SM with some adaptions for weapons relevant to the genre and with the cross skill familiarity rules from RM added (something similar to the cascade between Small Arms Rifle and Small Arms Pistol but on a much larger scale).

You'll still find holes in the system however and it's questionable whether more detail vs. simplicity (as Tegyrius highlighted) is actually worth it for enjoyment of the game. That's the key thing - it's a game and though the rules do their best to reflect reality they will never do a perfect job.

Lastly if you do ever play RM or SM make sure each player has a calculator of their own - it speeds up game play enormously unless everyone is a maths wiz! <G>

[Legbreaker]

I kinda like Auto Gun as a design simplicity thing. I don't want a Bradley crewman to have to invest heavily in three different skills (e.g. Heavy Gun, Tac Missile, and Machine Gun) to be proficient in all his ride's weapons.

Heavy Gun doesn't apply to the Bradley. All the gunner needs is Tac Missile and Autogun (the latter covering the bushmaster and coax).
Heavy Gun really only applies to weapons that aren't capable of bursts - tank guns, recoilless rifles, AT guns such as the Rapira 3, and possibly howitzers in the direct fire role. As a rule of thumb, single shot weapons that require a crew to operate and don't fire indirectly in their normal mode of use..

[B.T.]

It seems unlikely that Autogun, which is a skill that mainly applies (in my mind) to autocannons and other quick firing lighter weapons such as 14.5mm AA guns (basically anything short of 50mm) has a place with what are essentially belt fed heavy rifles.

Admittedly the game seems full of little issues like this, such as Grenade Launcher skill applying to firing of Mortars.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Yes, I'm with you.

I let the player chose:
If a character has both skills, AUTOGUN and SMALL ARMS (RIFLE), he may use the better skill, when firing a medium MG (M60, MG3, FN MAG, etc.)

I still let them choose, if they are going to use a MINIMI, although I'm not alltogether happy with this. In my mind, the light MGs, like SAW or the RPKs should be handled like the assault rifles: The difference in firing a AK or a RPK can't be a matter: It's basically the same weapon, just a little more weight and a longer (and thicker) barrel.
But looking at the MINIMI/SAW/M249 this is not correct: The firing of the SAW is the same procedure as firing a FN MAG. Hm ...

I use AUTOGUN for all kinds of automatic cannons like Rheinmetall 20mm, Bushmaster, or the like, and for the real heavy MGs like "Ma Deuce" and Soviet aequivalents.

During our last gaming sessions, the player of the captain of my group fell in love with the RPK. Being a math-guy IRL, he argumented, even an American soldier would use this rifle, because of the gaming stats. I think, it would be very unlikely, that the only person in a small military unit, using a Soviet weapon, would be the CO.
Therefore I made up the following, that could be applied in other situations as well:
If a character uses a weapon, that he had no intensive training with, he gets a -2 penalty to his skill level, until he has spent enough time with it (on the range or in actual fire fights). The GM should use his wits: A SF guy, Ranger or the like, would get no penalty, even if he was using a AK. On the other, hand a former aircraft mechanic would get a penalty, if he was using a G3, AK or any other wapon, he does not know.

This could be applied, if the PC firing a turret-mounted autocannon, had only fired weapons like M2 .50 cal, or MK19 from a Hummer. The penalty could be increased (if the unfamiliar weapon stems from another country) and, off course, decreased, if the firer gets to know his weapon as time goes by (Something like: after 4 weeks training, or after 2 to 3 fire fights, the penalty is lowered to -1).

Just an idea. Far from being really realistic, but it works.