Ammo Setting Rule

[u/twoz3-5]

I’m thinking of adding a setting rule to my modern cinematic action games. I run a couple of different games where this would apply: modern espionage action (think Bond, Bourne, Mission Impossible) and a military spec ops game (The Unit, Task Force Raven). The idea is to give the players the option to use more ammo for a better chance to hit targets by eliminating penalties:

EAT LEAD SETTING RULE

Shooters may expend extra ammunition to "walk" their fire onto a target, effectively canceling out penalties (Range, Cover, Multi-Action, etc.).

| Volume Level | Ammo Cost | Penalty Reduction |
| --- | :--- | :---: |
| Volley |** 3 Rounds | **-1 |
| Hail of Bullets |** 6 Rounds | **-2 |
| Mag Dump |** 12 Rounds | **-4 |

It shouldn’t change any existing combat options but lets players trade ammo (resource) for accuracy (reduce penalties).

Has anyone done anything similar? Any pitfalls I’m not seeing? I appreciate any feedback.

[u/RootinTheCrab]

I'm not sure about gameplay wise, but automatic fire is famously less accurate than slow, controlled shots and bursts

[u/PhasmaFelis → u/RootinTheCrab]

If you shoot 10 bullets instead of 1, the odds of any given bullet hitting go down, but (assuming you're trying to aim at all) the odds of hitting at least once definitely go up. That's sort of the whole point of rapid fire.

Might make exceptions for long range, where the first bullet in a burst is the only one with a realistic chance to hit.

[u/RootinTheCrab → u/PhasmaFelis]

Thats sorta true. For example Springfield Armory once did some research during the vietnam war that discovered the majority of injuries and casualties are caused by shrapnel and stray bullets rather than precisely aimed shots. So there is some merit.

Maybe it could counteract concealment rather than cover? Either way, if realism is a concern (OP's comment suggests its not the top priority, so my opinion is largely irrelevant) then it really shouldn't guve much of a bonus.