Skip to Content
 

Shooting through/over obstruction

7 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

The obstruction is really thick. But not thick enough. Something along the lines of a hill or a dense forest.
You just know that there is someone on the other side without seeing the targets clearly. So you can take the gamble by "spray and pray".
Your gun will be able to hit the other side, the arc is still possible, with a chance of roughly 33%.

Would a situation like this be acceptable in a game?

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
A hill is a pretty solid

A hill is a pretty solid obstacle, so you need something with a very high arc of fire to fire over it, and that kind of indirect fire is very different from regular fire and not likely to hit unless you fire very many rounds. Dense forests are really not something you can fire through either.

For things that can be fired through, there are a few games like Advanced Squad Leader that has rules like a 1 die-roll-modifier per hex the fire goes through (but if there are more than 6 hexes or something fire is completely blocked instead). But very few games bother with that since it adds complexity and LOS rules are usually complex enough without that, and it is easier to just not have terrain like that but only have terrain that either completely blocks or not fire/sight.

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
Yeah, a hill seems a bit

Yeah, a hill seems a bit crazy, unless you're firing a mortar blind.

But I think it makes sense to be able to fire into trees. THROUGH a forest area? Probably not.. you're not getting any bullets through any sort of dense tree growth.

Agree with Pelle that you're better off simplifying it away unless there's a compelling reason to allow something like this (like enabling a set of useful strategies).

john smith
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2017
Yep this was covered that in

Yep this was covered that in the previous talk about this. Simple die roll modifiers based on how much exposure there is versus complete exposure. This is staple of combat games. Math Anxiety is so high now that even this gets complaints but its still the most logical and simple way to account for such cover.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Guess, I am the problem then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Right, 3 votes on the same.
Firing beyond is 0%.

The math anxiety has been only for me I guess. No matter what I tried, I couldn't get the numbers right for practical balance. It really falls on yes/no now.

What remains is firing into a forest. With a one time die roll perhaps?

And how do you guys feel about having a flame or gas based weapon ignoring the forest?

What about snow?

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
Realistically, you can

Realistically, you can absolutely get good cover behind snow, you just need a lot of it to stop bullets, like a few meters or so if I remember correctly. If you are in a cold place and have to entrench you typically do so by shoveling snow instead of trying to dig down into the frozen ground (source: did military service in northern Sweden).

Flame into woods is probably not much unlike other weapons, so similar die-roll modifiers probably. Although if things catch fire it might cause some secondary losses (I am sure ASL has rules for that...).

Gas is probably a lot less affected by terrain or line of sight if you just fire enough of it so you can saturate an area. It might make sense to ignore terrain modifiers for gas.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I see.

And with fire, those very big napalm types are the ones that I am thinking of. It finds it ways into any corner or gap. Like a river.

john smith
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2017
Yes, like a river. It is

Yes, like a river. It is gelatinous and splatters when dropped from bombs. When ignited burns more liquid like and flows like lava. Taking cover from it is not likely at all.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut