| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aegisflashfire
Commander
Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | aegisflashfire wrote: | | Using realism to generate a rule is actually the exact opposite of an 'arbitrary' restriction. They're literally antonyms. |
And the misapplication of realism based on personal opinions falls under the definition of arbitrary. I dislike the use of absolute limitations on skill rolls in the SWU because it subjects all characters to the same limitations, regardless of skill level. While an average pilot would likely not be able to successfully strafe while flying an evasive pattern, a great pilot's skill level might be sufficient to pull it off. In the game, that is represented by MAPs and increased difficulty levels, not absolute restrictions. There are circumstances where absolute prohibitions are appropriate, such as lacking the proper equipment for the job in question, but in scenarios like this, I always default to increased difficulty, not flat out no. |
Actually, no, it doesn't. Arbitrary would mean picking a number/rule/etc out of your head with no basis in reality or with no movie/tv/book justification.
You're conflating two different concepts here. A) Strafing run-- a concentrated attack with GUNS at a specific stationary (or relatively stationary) target B) any attack on a slower target
A Strafing run precludes defensive maneuvering during the time the weapons are trained on the target simply because you cannot accomplish 2 simultaneous tasks with the nose of your craft. However, A missile/rocket shot could be made at the same time since heck, your nose is pointed there anyway.
An attack on a ground/slow moving target on the other hand, could indeed be snapping on a target, snapping off a shot (Be it missile or gun) and returning to evasive.
The problem is that the 2nd scenario is already covered by existing rules. There is no special rule needed to fire at such a target. (Unless you want to get down to targeting specific systems on a slow moving fleet vessel)
But the strafing run is a concentrated burst of automatic weapon fire. I'm sorry that doesn't match with the what you intended it to mean, but strafe already has a definition, and its not the one you are using.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafe
| Quote: | | Strafing is the practice of attacking ground targets from low-flying aircraft using aircraft-mounted automatic weapons.[1] This means that, although ground attack using automatic weapons fire is very often accompanied with bombing or rocket fire, the term "strafing" does not specifically include the last two |
Now, if you want to talk about GROUND ATTACK or CLOSE AIR SUPPORT or other specifics then sure.
I think the whole point we're trying to make is that if you want to do as you're suggesting, then there is no need for a special rule for ground attack. But if we consider strafing as what the actual definition is, then we're talking about concentrated fire from a line-of-sight automatic, nose mounted weapon that would preclude maneuvering.
I think a strafe attack could be ruled to be either a AOE attack in one of two shapes (straight line or square/round approximation) with the damage split by the number of squares you want to attack. (choices being multiples of 4. For each 4 squares you attack, damage codes reduced by 1D
So if we take an X-Wing, you could concentrate your fire on a 2x2 square and deal 5D damage (6D-1D) + the scale bonus to everything in that area. You could extend the damage area to include a 6x2 corridor, and reduce the damage to 4D.
Failing a targeting roll would shift the center of the area by the same offset diagram as the grenade shift diagram. No evasive maneuvers are possible during a round you strafe.
The bonus here is you potentially deal damage to a number of targets, but obviously pay a price in risk.
This would allow fighters to meaningfully contribute air support to a ground combat, without having to target specific individuals, but still be partially vulnerable themselves.
The damage may be too high for the AOE use of strafing. Mulling halving it or ruling that everything in the target area only has a 50% chance of being hit (or maybe 5 in 6, then 4 in 6, 3 in 6, 2 in 6, 1 in 6 etc the more you spread fire around, the less chance of actually hitting anything.)
It might also be useful to include a max speed for the strafing vehicle.
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aegisflashfire wrote: | | Actually, no, it doesn't. Arbitrary would mean picking a number/rule/etc out of your head with no basis in reality or with no movie/tv/book justification. |
Which is exactly what you are doing by assuming a flat out prohibition of the possibility of incorporating some form of evasive maneuver into a strafing run. You are essentially stating that no one, not even Anakin Skywalker spending a Force Point, could possibly incorporate even the most basic evasive maneuvering into an attack. I disagree. I don't think it should be easy by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel absolutely that the possibility should be included, even if it is far out of reach of almost everyone.
| Quote: | | A Strafing run precludes defensive maneuvering during the time the weapons are trained on the target simply because you cannot accomplish 2 simultaneous tasks with the nose of your craft. However, A missile/rocket shot could be made at the same time since heck, your nose is pointed there anyway. |
On the contrary, a very skilled pilot could incorporate rolls and subtle twists and turns to make themselves a more difficult target, all while firing their weapons when their gunsights intersect with the target in question. It would be spectacularly difficult, but not absolutely impossible.
| Quote: | | You're conflating two different concepts here. A) Strafing run-- a concentrated attack with GUNS at a specific stationary (or relatively stationary) target B) any attack on a slower target |
And so what? At least in space (which is my primary focus here), any unguided weapon (including bombs and rockets) is going to go straight forward in the direction in which it is fired, which means the firing/launching craft is, at some point, going to have to pull up to avoid crashing into its target. Regardless of the weapon used, the requirements for the pilot will be the same.
It seems your primary objection here is not so much the rule as it is that you think I'm using the term strafing run in a manner in which you disagree. Please read my previous posts more carefully. I never said I was going to call it all a strafing run rule. I said I was incorporating the concept behind the WOTC strafing run rule into a single rule that would include unguided rocket or bomb delivery attacks, which is appropriate for unguided rockets and inertial bombs in zero-g, as all three weapons require that the nose of the launching craft be aimed at the target (or at least at an aim point projected to intersect with the target). In all three cases, the firing craft must make an approach run, fire his weapon, and pull up before he crashes into his target. I really don't care whether or not the rule conforms to the classical definition of a strafing run, because I wasn't planning on calling it a strafing run in the first place. The primary emphasis here will be a rule for making bombing runs against capital ships in space using projectile weaponry. The fact that the rule could also be used with an energy cannon is immaterial; it doesn't automatically make all attacks using this method fall under the aegis of a strafing run. I am using WOTC's rules for strafing runs as a basis for my own rule.
Specifically, the WOTC rule requires that a strafing ship must enter the same square as its target at increased piloting difficulty. I am taking the same concept and adding a little flexibility to it, in that the attacking ship can juggle multiple factors (shot range and attack speed affect both the difficulty of point defense fire and the difficulty of the attacker's pull-up maneuver to avoid a collision) to determine how close he gets to the target before he has to pull up.
I'm interested in discussing the pros and cons of the proposed rule for ordnance delivery in space. I have no interest in off-topic discussion of terminology.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the event that the attack is going to function like a strafing run (IE the pilot dives on the target either 'walking' the gunfire over it or holding it in his sights as long as possible) then it seems to me that defensive actions should have the effect of reducing the damage as the pilot has to jink their forward facing guns away from the target to avoid getting shot.
Perhaps defensive MAPs could be applied to damage as well as piloting skill rolls.
Obviously this wouldn't apply for dumbfire bombs and missiles as you just need to be on target when you fire them but for rapid fire weapons where you're attempting to do more damage by concentrating fire with them then I can see the MAPs hitting the damage as well.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | In the event that the attack is going to function like a strafing run (IE the pilot dives on the target either 'walking' the gunfire over it or holding it in his sights as long as possible) then it seems to me that defensive actions should have the effect of reducing the damage as the pilot has to jink their forward facing guns away from the target to avoid getting shot. |
I'm thinking more in terms of proactive evasive maneuvering that makes the attacking craft a more challenging target, not reactive dodges against incoming fire. IMO, a reactive dodge would be the equivalent of breaking off the attack.
| Quote: | | Perhaps defensive MAPs could be applied to damage as well as piloting skill rolls. |
I'm not a big fan of a penalty being applied twice. I'm more partial to using the basic damage roll to generate a terrain difficulty similar to what was suggested in the barrage pattern rules topic.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
