Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Spacemaster => Topic started by: Aotrs Commander on July 24, 2016, 10:35:53 AM
-
Last weekend, I ran into this issue one more time.
The PCs were set-up to be fighting a group of demons, who were charging across an empty room and had no idea what "suppressive fire" was and thus ere both unable and unwilling to take cover.
They thus had, as previous topics on the subject have come up with, NO DB of any type. It was the perfect set-up for suppressive fire, and the PCs were intended to mow them down in droves.
But the suppressive fire was still woefully ineffective.
As written, with the actual attack roll being +0 plus the result granted by the Suppressive Fire maneuver roll (which is +20/+30 depending on whether you are using bullets or lasers, unless you get 176+) is... terrible. Even with a success at +30, the average roll is only thus 80, which even on an LE13 weapon is barely an "A" crit on an unarmoured human (let alone at AT 4 demon).
Basically, you're entirely reliant on luck on the attack rolls to do anything that will concern anyone.
It gets worse; if you imagine a guy armed with a .50 browning, the top of the ME tables at ME29, shooting at a load of plate-armoured knights. With an average roll of 70, you won't do anything other than concussion hits EVEN when the enemy has no DB. (And by the time you are into the level of having 80-100 hits, it would take several shots to take one down.)
The rules as written clearly just are not working. Suppressive fire is at best a nuisance and the chances of you getting knobbled by it (if its even a successful manoeuvre) are probably in the region of about 5% on the occasions the attack roll are open-ended.
The PCs, who had OBs in the 90-130 range, were largely in the position of being better off taking single shots.
What then, can be done? I am leaning towards the only viable way of making suppressive fire even moderately dangerous would be to start adding the PC's weapon OB to the attack roll (or more likely, half), plus the OB mod from the maneuver result. That would at least raise the danger to a level where you could no longer consider yourself reasonably safe charging down a guy with an MG.
How often have other people found this problem? That even with targets with a DB of 0, suppressive fire fails to be of any threat? How has other people dealt with it?
I have been applying the same logic to grenade and explosive attacks, and they have likewise been underwhelming in practise, even with 0 DB targets.
-
Have to ask what the issue is with this, "suppressive fire" is the idea of bullets flying so keep head down, not the shoot to kill. Thus from the worked examples you give it suggests that it does just that, remembering that the PCs and NPCs don't know what type of fire the other side is letting lose with.
Looking up what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire) Suppressive Fire is the rules seem to simulate it quite well.
-
Suppressive fire is at best a nuisance and the chances of you getting knobbled by it (if its even a successful manoeuvre) are probably in the region of about 5% on the occasions the attack roll are open-ended.
I think the main problem isn't about how the rules handle suppressive fire but about the fact it's a game. As written in the wikipedia article, "the primary intended effect of suppressive fire is psychological," and, IRL, people don't consider the 99% chance they won't get it. They consider the 1% chance they may get killed.
-
In terms of game mechanics, though, it is pretty close to useless. The idea of suppressive fire is that it forces the enemy to keep his head down, yes, but that's because if he puts his head up, he will get shot in it.
I think +0 is a little weak for the base plus of suppressive fire. That might be boosted, since the person doing the suppressive might not be aiming carefully, but they are shooting in the general direction.
-
I am sorry Hurin, But that is the reality of Suppressive fire. You aren't aiming at anyone. Usually there isn't a specific target to aim at because they are taking cover, and you want them to stay that way so that your side can move ahead, or so that the enemy can't move forward on your position.
The Idea of suppressive fire isn't to hit anyone, but to Put the "Fear" of being hit in the enemy.
I would require some sort of Moral check or fear check for the enemy to "Move" out of cover and try anything, while bullets are flying.
Suppressive Fire is not Meant to "mow down" enemies.
I do not see the penalty to suppressive fire as being to much or making the skill useless. If you are thinking of it as some way to hit the Enemy, then you don't understand suppressive fire... That isn't what it is. IF some one does pop up, or you have a group running at you... You don't use suppressive fire to hit them, Time to go Burst fire or full auto if able.
-
Ok, so how do you translate that into rules? Your idea of a morale or fear check sounds interesting. It might be a bit problematic in that we wouldn't require a check for someone to charge right at a shooter who was using burst fire, but it could work. And it probably works better than the current rules.
-
One other interesting thought: one way of doing it in the new Spacemaster I assume will come out one day (following RMU), and I assume will follow the new RMU action point system, you could say that suppressing fire forces foes to use concentration, which means that their actions cost double the number of action points.
-
Hear is the Thing about the Fear/Morale Issue.
The Players Won't be told if I have NPCs firing Suppression or Not. All they know is a Lot of Fire is being pelted their way.
As for the Pcs firing Supressive at the NPCS... again.. I treat it as a Fear thing.. The NPCs, Unless itis a "Special" Foe, Are not generally going to run into a Hail of Bullets Unless being "Pushed" by a greater fear or By a Grater Leader who has the Means (Skill) to Inspire them to run into that hail of Bullets, Let alone stick their head up to aim and fire a gun back.
You are Only Thinking about the Mechanics of the game... You are not thinking about the RP and Real world Effect such has on people.
-
So are you saying that PCs would require a fear/morale check or not? If PCs don't require a check, then they are basically immune to suppressing fire. If PCs do require a check, what skill would govern that? And what do you do for creatures like robots or giant, mindless amoebae, who don't feel fear? Can they be suppressed?
I just think you have to work out all the implications. Roleplaying can be inhibited by poor mechanics as easily as it can be enabled by good ones.
-
What I am saying is I do not tell My players when Suppression fire is Being used... They can choose to stick their head up and risk taking a Shot and dieing or not.. their call.
What I am saying is Players shouldn't Know, And if the game is Being run Right, They should FEAR being hit by a shot.
For Example,
This isn't exactly gun fire, But I had a Group of Players New to RM. They had entered a cavern of an Ancient sacred site. On their way out, they entrance cave had been occupied by a group of goblins with Bows.
One player Decided He would try taking cover at the top of a Stair way, Laying down, with his head and shoulder exposed so he could shoot his cross bow.
Goblins have a Basic 20 Bonus to missile.
THe cover the player had was more than 50%.
But One goblin open ended and he took a Crit to the Scull cap. Instant death.
This group learned that Getting shot at Sucked!
From then on did everything possible to mitigate being shot at in RM, or Just not Coming out of Cover until or unless they had a good chance of running at the enemy while they were reloading.
You Do not want to Be shot at, EVEN by a +0 bonus attack. Enough of those attacks will eventually provide an opened roll that will kill you.
And if the players aren't aware what maneuver is being used.. as Far as they know, the enemy is Firing burst or full auto at their location and aiming.... Never trust that the enemy is just spraying bullets, and even then, if they are, you are still taking your characters life into your hands.
-
Ah, ok, I see what you're saying, and I agree that players would not normally know if they were being subject to suppressing fire or normal attacks. I think you're using fear/morale checks for NPCs/monsters alone, and then just allowing the players to do what they want, since they don't know whether the fire directed against them is suppressing or normal?
That's certainly one way of doing it, and it seems good if it works for you. Personally, I think for my game, I would prefer to handle it with opportunity attacks. Someone spends action points (I've been using them in Spacemaster for a few years now) to fire at an area they wish to deny to the enemy (like down a hallway to prevent enemies from coming up it). It is essentially like holding an action, with the trigger being one of the Stormtroopers actually tries to run up the hallway into the fire. If the Stormtrooper does, the person firing gets a full OB opportunity attack on them. I think the main problem with the rules Aotrs cited is just that the OB is too low.
Sorry Aotrs Commander, I looked through SM2 and couldn't find the rules for suppressive fire. Do you have a specific reference?
-
Sorry for not being in the discussion chaps, been away...
Sorry Aotrs Commander, I looked through SM2 and couldn't find the rules for suppressive fire. Do you have a specific reference?
It's in Blaster Law (SM:P), pg19.
To summarise, it affects an area1. A static manoeuvre roll using Suppressive fire is made, and the result of which (a number from -40 to +45 (with success being +20 for firearms and +30 for energy weapons)) is used as an OB. The targets in the affected area have two choices - to ignore the effect and take an attack roll, or to take cover. Taking cover gives double cover DB, but loses all activity this round and reduces activity to 50% next round. A target that is already in cover may choose to claim it, with normal cover DB, may act normally this round, but is reduced to 75% activity next round. (Or take the attack with no cover DB.)
As written, the target would get their normal DB against the attack as well. This is where I first ran into problems, because high QU and/or shields (i.e. energy shields) and/or armour quality rendered any attack basically moot. I thus followed what other people suggested and removed DB (save for obviously static sources like energy shields and armour). That wasn't enough.
The rules as written, then, make it SPECIFIC that the character is taking a suppressive fire action (so the PCs and/or NPCs DO know what it is); and the penalty for ignoring it is basically negligible. So, at the moment, it doesn't work. I looked at the tables. On an AT 1 unarmoured human, you need a result of 86 on most of the energy weapon tables and the firearms tables to even hit, so even with a successful energy weapon attack has to get a 55 on the dice to even get any hit points (and it's worse for machine-guns). Let me reiterate that: a modally com petant suppressive fire will miss an average human target standing up into a barrage of fire 55% of the time (65% of the time with firearms).
If (rules-as-written) the target has any DB to speak of, then suppressive fire can basically be ignored, especially if you're already in cover; you're then almost certainly no worse of than if the enemy takes a normal shot at you (since he won't get his OB) and the higher level you are (and the enemy is) the more useless suppressive fire becomes.
(In the party in question, the PCs OB ranged from 80 to 145, which at minimum is already better than the absolute best the suppressive fire table will give you (+75 verses one target +45 verses the others).)
I'm not sure how modelling suppressive fire as solely a psychological effect, works, mechanically. If things are being shot at, they will tend to take cover for the DB bonus anyway (since even if you allow energy parry a la SM2 (i.e. half OB from ranged fire goes to DB) you need cover to do it). (Especially as my players are 25-year RM veterans well used to the vagaries of the system, not newcomers used to D&D or something where the system is modally more predictably less lethal.) Unless the PCs are lying prone where they can't be shot at all, they are far less protected against ordinary shots under the current rules (where the enemy gets their full OB) than they are against a suppressive fire action.
I don't think that's a good way to model it, personally. If you were behind a wall and a chap was spraying a machine gun above it and you stood up, you are not going to have a good chance of survival. You don't stand up, not because you MIGHT get hit, you don't stand up because you almost certainly WILL get hit.
But let's say we start making people make moral checks to stand up in the teeth of the fire - and what happens when they do? And what about creatures that don't have morale? If you model it just as a fear check, you're only skirting the issue, because as soon as something shrugs off that effect, under the current rules, there's no more slap on the wrist than being shot at NORMALLY (less even).
I think it's far better for the PCs to be deciding whether or not they want to take that risk - give them the rope and let them hang themselves - rather than a dice-roll telling them whether they can or not. (Especially as you would then have to ask why this does not apply to ANY form of attack (particularly burst fire).) But to make that a cost-benefit decision, you have to make the slap on the wrist - the risk - a LOT higher; at the moment, it's weighted heavily towards "don't bother using suppressive fire, just shoot them."
At the moment, the penalty for ignoring it is... basically a 5% chance of Getting Killed; at any modest level, less than the usual chance of Getting Killed in the course of any RM combat. It HAS to be (both for a consistent simulation and a mechanical function) at LEAST as threatening as a regular attack, bare minimum. Otherwise, why should it be treated as of any more concern than someone shooting at you regularly? And as it currently stands, it really isn't.
The other question is, if shooting on full automatic into a horde of charging demons is not something to be modelled as a suppressive fire action (which seemed good as it had the "you don't dodge, you take the hit"), then what is it? It's not Continuous Burst or Aimed Fire, which (again, rules-as-written in Blaster Law et al) are not multiple target actions. Rapid fire skill only applies to being able to make a single-shot fire a burst. (And if there is no such rule and you have to house-rule or hand-wave it, then one has to ask - why not?)
1On of the things I recently changed was the area, since as written, it was a cone; which is not how suppressive fire really works. I had a discussion with the author of Maneuver Group, which is a WW2-moderns wargame that is basically a tactics simulator (and whose authors have done all the reading in the field manuals about how suppressive fire really works) and amended the area accordingly to basically an area, with a limit on how much you could suppress per bullet/charge fired. It is still "wrong" of course, but it is now "less wrong" than before.
-
Sorry Aotrs Commander, I don't think I know enough about SM:P to be much help; I play SM2. I agree with you about the challenges that come with trying to represent this solely as a morale issue, as well as with your point about OB being too low. Perhaps you could increase the OB somehow (make the static maneuver roll less difficult, for example?). Or perhaps you could allow the person using suppressive fire to make a free opportunity attack (at a flat penalty to OB, say between -25 and -50) on targets that move into the zone.
-
Sorry Aotrs Commander, I don't think I know enough about SM:P to be much help; I play SM2. I agree with you about the challenges that come with trying to represent this solely as a morale issue, as well as with your point about OB being too low. Perhaps you could increase the OB somehow (make the static maneuver roll less difficult, for example?). Or perhaps you could allow the person using suppressive fire to make a free opportunity attack (at a flat penalty to OB, say between -25 and -50) on targets that move into the zone.
There's not much fundemental difference between SM:P and SM2 in this case (especially in the hybird system we play; it's essentuially SM2 only replacing all the attack tables and crit tables with SM:P. The actiovity system's a bit coblled together from both, but RM/SM has got so many versions of that anyway...!)
Opportunity attack is one option - though the rules as they currently stand basically give you that anyway.
I - having rumnated a bit since I made the OP - have considered either allowing the normal OB (modified by the manuver result), or using the manuver result bonus, but tripled if the target does not take (or claim) cover. With the OB again, one might say that you only get that if the target does NOT take or claim cover...
Perhaps something like:
If the target does not attempt to take cover, the attack is resolved as a normal attack with the firer's weapon OB, with an OB modifier of -501, plus the modifier from the result of the static maneuver. (This will give an attack a bit lower than the firer's normal attack roll, but modified by the fact the defender only gets armour and shield DB).
If the target is not in cover and takes cover, as before, the attack roll is just the result of the static manuver, they get their full DB and double DB from cover, but lose all activity this round and 50% next round.
If the target is already in cover and chooses to claim it, their get their usual DB and cover DB, but are reduced to 75% activity next round. The attack is resolved with a -75 penalty to the attackers normal OB, plus the modifier from the static maneuver.
1I'm leery of using full OB - otherwise I'd have just done that and not made this thread - making it TOO good. It seems best to either have a flat penalty or make it 50% OB; not quite sure which. (Ditto for the -75 or 25% of OB for the last case.)
-
That sounds like you're making progress, though perhaps you might be able to simplify it further without losing anything essential. Here's a question for you: what does the static maneuver represent? It seems to represent the person using suppressive fire trying to pour a volume of fire into an area. But that seems a lot like an OB to me. That's why I think just a flat penalty to OB might work; it sure would be a lot simpler. The penalty to OB might then be scaled according to how big the area is, or how many people the firer is trying to suppress.
-
Why not make it a movement maneuver, and take the result as a percentage of your OB you can use for the suppression fire. I agree that suppression fire is more of a psychological thing, but the point being made about the chance of being hit by a stray shot I feel is very valid, even more so when its a tight corridor our other bottleneck. You still have a reason to develop the suppression fire skill, and the players know its dangerous to show themselves when bullets are flying.
You could then sign difficulty based on how much an area is being suppressed, and how tightly packed the targets are
-
Although I will point out, the moment you make suppressive fire good enough to be effective against multiple enemies, you then risk having suppression fire being used all the time, why use single shot or double tap, or even spread burst, if you can potentially kill 3-5 or so with one action, and decent chances of doing so, or at least cripple them. You could end up ruining the game, isn't that the most important thing to consider
-
Yeah, it is a fine balance you have to make. Right now, though, it seems so ineffective that it isn't worth using.
-
I know, stop what if you make it a movement maneuver giving a percentage of your OB, with a fixed penalty of say -100 to the maneuver roll. So unless you get an open ended roll (or the GM decides it's stupidly easy) you have just as much chance to fail and suffer the consequences (failure on the movement chart involves anything from falling to act to almost killing yourself), or get half your OB
-
I know this solution will make suppression fire almost impossible at early levels, but the way I see it, what's the difference between an inexperienced person attempting suppression fire, or waving the gun around wildly, either way is going to end up bad.
Now suppression fire is something to aspire to, to learn, it isn't just waving your weapon around wildly with a skilled person, it's an effective way to force your enemies down. Make players want the skill by making them work for it, and giving the rewards for it later
-
Although I will point out, the moment you make suppressive fire good enough to be effective against multiple enemies, you then risk having suppression fire being used all the time, why use single shot or double tap, or even spread burst, if you can potentially kill 3-5 or so with one action, and decent chances of doing so, or at least cripple them. You could end up ruining the game, isn't that the most important thing to consider
That is a very valid point.
My carefully considered answer is... Shouldn't it be used all the time? After all, that's basically how real firefights work. PCs with automatic weapons and suppressive fire skill (which is by no means all of them) ought to be using it first thing in combat. If the enemy don't take cover, they should get shot up, if they do take cover it reduces their percentage activity... It ought to be standard tactic, really, especially for a group which a military unit, even.
(In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, if it was a regular feature in combat, it might have gone a long way to solve the problems I had with SM:P activity system (and why I now use one based on RMC); in that, with snap, normal and long actions, the PCs could sometimes get three (or six if they used twin pistols) shots off a round... But if they were all and claiming cover (so capped at 75% activity), it would have made that problem basically nonexistant...)
Not everyone will (or can afford to) develop the skill, of course, so there's that as well.
Okay - let's try this then. Taking from the suppressive fire skill and the cover rules (BL pg21, here codified as Dive for Cover):
Suppressive Fire
Suppressive Fire is a Static Manoeuvre, rolled on the Suppressive Fire table (Blaster Law pg20). The Suppressive Fire skill bonus also determines the percentage of the user's weapon OB used to resolve attacks made during a Suppressive Fire action.
A Suppressive Fire action takes 50-100% activity (with any activity less than 100% imposing a penalty equal to the percentage less).
The firer picks an area to suppress, which wityh a burst weapon can be from a 1m radius around a single target to no more than an area of 5m by 5m by 5m. A continuous fire weapon can instead suppress a 10m by 5m by 5m area at no additional penalty, but is then resolved as a burst for the purposes of the manoeuvre roll and OB modifier.
A character can attempt to suppress a larger area than this, but takes a proportional penalty of -100 to the maneuver roll for each additional 5x5x5m area. (I.e. a character suppressing a 10x5x5m area would do so at -100, a 7.5x5x5m at -50).
A Suppressive Fire action suffers half the normal weapon range modifier to the manoeuvre roll (measured from the further point of the area). For every shot above minimum (5 for burst, 10 for continuous), add +1 to manoeuvre. The firer can only suppress a maximum of 1 target for every 2 bullets/shots fired (starting with the closest character, friend or foe).
The results of the static maneuver give an OB modifier on the table below (adapted from BL pg20).
-26 or less: Spectacular Failure (Burst -40, Continuous -25)
-25-04: Absolute Failure (Burst -25, Continuous -15)
05-75: Failure (Burst -10, Continuous -5)
76-90: Partial Success (Burst +0, Continuous +5)
91-110: Near Success (Burst +10, Continuous +15)
111-175: Success (Burst +20, Continuous +35)
176+: Absolute Success (Burst +30, Continuous +45)
Resolving Suppressive or Area Attacks
All affected characters in the area of a Suppressive Fire attack or with the radius of an area-effect attack (eg grenade, Fireballetc) have three options.
1) Characters can ignore the Suppressive Fire/ explosive attack and risk being hit.
The attacker resolves the attack as a normal weapon attack, using as the OB their Suppressive Fire skill bonus as a percentage of their weapon OB, plus the static manoeuvre OB modifier. (This net bonus cannot exceed the character's normal weapon OB.) Explosive attacks are resolved using double their (net) blast attack bonus. Explosives further have a blast radius modifier of -50 at Short Range and -100 at Medium Range.
The defender only counts DB from static sources, i.e. active shields and armour quality (or appropriate magic). They gain no DB from cover, Quickness, ranged parry or Adrenal Defence (etc).
2) A character already in cover may claim the cover bonus. They lose 25% activity next round, but retain normal activity this round.
The attacker resolves the attack as a normal weapon attack, using as the OB half their Suppressive Fire skill as a percentage of their OB, plus the static manoeuvre OB modifier. (This net bonus cannot exceed the character's normal weapon OB.) Explosive attacks are resolved using their full blast attack bonus. Explosives further have a blast radius modifier of -50 at Short Range and -100 at Medium Range.
The defender gains their normal DB, plus double the cover DB bonus.
3) Character not in cover can attempt to drop prone or make a Dive for Cover action (see below). In both cases, the character loses all remaining activity this round and 50% next round.
The attacker resolves the attack as a normal weapon attack, using as the OB the static manoeuvre OB modifier only. Explosive attacks are resolved using their full blast attack bonus. Explosives further have a blast radius modifier of -50 at Short Range and -100 at Medium Range.
The defender gains their normal DB, plus double the cover DB bonus. Characters that drop prone gain a +15 DB for being prone1, but gain no cover bonus (unless there is cover for the to fall into, in which case they get the benefit from the cover as well).
Dive for Cover:
The character must have appropriate cover within a distance equal to half their Base Move Rate. The character makes a manoeuvre roll. The base difficulty is Light (+10), increased by two levels (Hard (-10)) as a reaction to normal weapons fire, or by four levels (Extremely Hard (-30)) as reaction to an area-effect attack (e.g. grenade) or Suppressive Fire. A character may attempt to reach cover further away than half the BMR by moving at a faster pace, but this increases the difficulty of the manoeuvre by one level of severity per pace increase (e.g. one for jog, five for Dash).
If the character receives any result that is not a failure, the character receives that percentage of the cover DB bonus against that attack (and is then treated as being in that cover as normal.)
As a reaction, Dive for Cover uses up all the character's remaining activity this round and uses 50% activity from the following round.
Does that sound reasonable? Striking a bit better balance between making it not more powerful than regular fire, but not ineffective? (The cap at 100% weapon OB seems reasonable, and there's still some reason to develop Suppressive fire skill above 100 for countering other penalties etc etc.)
You might argue the penalties imposed for a poor maneuvre check could stand to be harsher (as it is, I coped them from Blaster Law) - or you could say that you only get to add your OB is you get a result above failure... Or it could just be left as it is.
(On the explosives, I recently - upon reading up on how grenades actually work - set all grenades/explosive to have basically three blast radius - the initial blast radius (which is the "lethal radius" in military explosive parlance) a short and medium range (the latter of which is the theoretical "wounding range;" good enough approximation for an RPF, I think.)
1You'd have thought somewhere in RM2/SM2/RMC/SM:P there would be a positional bonus for being prone, but apparently not. The closest there is is the +20 for a downed foe, but I think that really only should apply to melee attacks. So a +15DB for being prone should be a standard thing, I think.
-
Sounds pretty good if you want to do it with a static maneuver. Has it solved your problem of making suppressive fire more effective?
-
So, from what little I remember about this should they perhaps be using Continuous Fire rather than Suppressive Fire? With this system it doesn't seem like Suppressive fire is very effective if it's not causing the foe to take cover.
Also, did they roll individually for each target in the cone of fire, or what one roll made? That would contribute towards feeling cheated if you rolled bad once for all targets at once rather than have an, overall, higher chance of hitting multiple targets.
Still, it seems suppressive fire needs a role-play aspect to it (as some have pointed out). I suspect part of the problem here is the fact that in this system the 'hit' and the 'damage' are tied together, which doesn't simulate what is happening here all that well.
-
Sounds pretty good if you want to do it with a static maneuver. Has it solved your problem of making suppressive fire more effective?
In theory? Practise is not likely to come until the next RM quest (which will be December).
So, from what little I remember about this should they perhaps be using Continuous Fire rather than Suppressive Fire? With this system it doesn't seem like Suppressive fire is very effective if it's not causing the foe to take cover.
"Continuous" in SM:P is a type of weapon action capability (i.e. single-shot, burst fire (e.g MG), continuous (e.g. lasers)). The rules for burst (and continuous) fire only apply for single targets. There isn't - save for suppressive fire - any action in the rules that lets you shoot at more than one target by default. I think that the idea of suppressive fire in the rules is very sound - hense my adaption to explosive and such as well - just that the execution was just off at the final hurdle.
Also, did they roll individually for each target in the cone of fire, or what one roll made? That would contribute towards feeling cheated if you rolled bad once for all targets at once rather than have an, overall, higher chance of hitting multiple targets.
Given the number of targets (like twenty-thirty) and PCs (eight) and the fact we were quite pressed for time, one roll (but I did a bit of fudging and hand-waving so the PCs got the overall effect that they were intended too; and I think that there were some measures I'd written into the quest to provide some spread of result, which in the end I ignored because of lack of time). AT 4 is pretty frack-awful to shoot at with energy weapons (I realised when the shooting started), though, since its actuallyrequires one of the highest scores to start doing damage.
Still, it seems suppressive fire needs a role-play aspect to it (as some have pointed out).
I will counter that by saying that I think the roleplaying aspects should be emphasied at the player's level, not the character's. By what I mean, the rules should attempt to simulate the right conditions such that the psychological effects such be on the players and their decisions for their character, not the character's by a dice-roll. Better to encourage the players to say "I'm not sticking my [charaacter's] head out there, I'll get [my character] killed!" rather than "you need to make a morale check to see if [your character] is willing to do that," if you follow my meaning.
I suspect part of the problem here is the fact that in this system the 'hit' and the 'damage' are tied together, which doesn't simulate what is happening here all that well.
It doesn't help, certainly. While RM's great advantage is the crits, lacking the hit/damage aspect can be a bit detrimental is some cases.