View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16320 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2024 2:11 pm Post subject: Turrets, Fire Arcs & MAPs |
|
|
A thought…
While turreted weapons can attack targets in any fire arc, it occurs to me that, were a turret to attempt attacking targets in multiple fire arcs simultaneously, it should be subject to more penalties than just the standard MAP, representing the challenge represented of making a rapid change in orientation needed to rapidly shift a weapon to bear in a completely different direction.
In game terms, I’m thinking a -1D penalty for every additional Fire Arc a turreted weapon fires into in the same round. This is in addition to normal MAPs. In simulationist terms, this allows multiple attackers to saturate and overwhelm enemy defenses by dividing their attention and deliberately attacking from multiple directions at once. There’s even potential room for a Tactics roll allowing one attacker to bait the defenses while a second attacker Surprises the target by coming at it from an unexpected angle while its attention was focused on the first attacker.
Discuss. _________________ "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 |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14213 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2024 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've thought of doing similar before, but the one dm i know who actually implemented it, had a massive 'strike' on his hands from 5 of us players, because that made having a turret not as usable as fixed weaponry. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ziz Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 26 Feb 2022 Posts: 112
|
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I get the logic you're going for but it's hard to picture it. Can you whip up some diagrams, a la football plays - Xs, Os, arrows, and such? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16320 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2024 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ziz wrote: | I get the logic you're going for but it's hard to picture it. Can you whip up some diagrams, a la football plays - Xs, Os, arrows, and such? |
Graphics aren’t really my specialty, but I can try to be more descriptive.
Suppose the PCs are in a stock YT-1300, being attacked by a pair of TIEs. In the first round, both TIEs approach from the rear fire arc, and the gunner takes a single shot at each, with only a -1D MAP.
In the second round, the TIEs split up, with one attacking from the rear and one from the left side. If the gunner tries to attack both, he now faces a -2D penalty: -1D for the MAP, and an additional-1D from having to shift his aim from one Fire Arc to the other. Alternately, he can concentrate on one fighter with no penalties at all, and leave the ship’s Shield operator to play defense until he can take out one of the TIEs. _________________ "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 |
|
|
cheshire Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004 Posts: 4853
|
Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2024 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I get what you're saying. Yes, it would take more time to track targets that are 180 degrees apart from one another. Less so from 90 degrees, and even less than those who are on the same general arc.
But I think to try and apply more penalties beyond the MAPs is more mechanics for less fun, imo. This same logic would apply with a pistol and a firefight. It would apply for multiple targets in a melee battle. Yes, it's more difficult in a real-life situation. But the reason why I like D6 is that it does not get bogged down in the minutiae. GURPS is there anytime I want that level of detail. _________________ __________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14213 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2024 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I could see more of a penalty to shooting, in ground combat, if you're having to shoot say a target in your 10 oclock arc, then shift around to shoot one in your 4 oclock arc.. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Whill Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008 Posts: 10435 Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2024 12:59 am Post subject: Re: Turrets, Fire Arcs & MAPs |
|
|
CRMcNeill wrote: | A thought…
While turreted weapons can attack targets in any fire arc, it occurs to me that, were a turret to attempt attacking targets in multiple fire arcs simultaneously, it should be subject to more penalties than just the standard MAP, representing the challenge represented of making a rapid change in orientation needed to rapidly shift a weapon to bear in a completely different direction.
In game terms, I’m thinking a -1D penalty for every additional Fire Arc a turreted weapon fires into in the same round. This is in addition to normal MAPs. In simulationist terms, this allows multiple attackers to saturate and overwhelm enemy defenses by dividing their attention and deliberately attacking from multiple directions at once. There’s even potential room for a Tactics roll allowing one attacker to bait the defenses while a second attacker Surprises the target by coming at it from an unexpected angle while its attention was focused on the first attacker.
Discuss. |
Good concept, but that's a steep revision to RAW. I'd be more inclined to a compromise of -1 penalty for every additional fire arc. _________________ *
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cheshire Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004 Posts: 4853
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
That seems a lot more reasonable. _________________ __________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14213 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: Turrets, Fire Arcs & MAPs |
|
|
Whill wrote: | CRMcNeill wrote: | A thought…
While turreted weapons can attack targets in any fire arc, it occurs to me that, were a turret to attempt attacking targets in multiple fire arcs simultaneously, it should be subject to more penalties than just the standard MAP, representing the challenge represented of making a rapid change in orientation needed to rapidly shift a weapon to bear in a completely different direction.
In game terms, I’m thinking a -1D penalty for every additional Fire Arc a turreted weapon fires into in the same round. This is in addition to normal MAPs. In simulationist terms, this allows multiple attackers to saturate and overwhelm enemy defenses by dividing their attention and deliberately attacking from multiple directions at once. There’s even potential room for a Tactics roll allowing one attacker to bait the defenses while a second attacker Surprises the target by coming at it from an unexpected angle while its attention was focused on the first attacker.
Discuss. |
Good concept, but that's a steep revision to RAW. I'd be more inclined to a compromise of -1 penalty for every additional fire arc. |
IF i was to do that, i'd make it +1 for one bonus fire arc, +2 for two arcs, compounding after that. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16320 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | I could see more of a penalty to shooting, in ground combat, if you're having to shoot say a target in your 10 oclock arc, then shift around to shoot one in your 4 oclock arc.. |
This rule could easily be applied to all combat, not just starships. Making a 90- or 180-degree turn to engage targets to a character's side or rear in mid-combat could be considered a No Roll Action. _________________ "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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16320 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:13 pm Post subject: Re: Turrets, Fire Arcs & MAPs |
|
|
Whill wrote: | Good concept, but that's a steep revision to RAW. I'd be more inclined to a compromise of -1 penalty for every additional fire arc. |
To each their own. 1D works fine for my purposes. _________________ "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 |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14213 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
CRMcNeill wrote: | garhkal wrote: | I could see more of a penalty to shooting, in ground combat, if you're having to shoot say a target in your 10 oclock arc, then shift around to shoot one in your 4 oclock arc.. |
This rule could easily be applied to all combat, not just starships. Making a 90- or 180-degree turn to engage targets to a character's side or rear in mid-combat could be considered a No Roll Action. |
Well for those in fighters (usually who are both piloting AND shooting) they're already doing MAPS for flying AND shooting. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16320 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | Well for those in fighters (usually who are both piloting AND shooting) they're already doing MAPS for flying AND shooting. |
Yes, but fighters don’t generally have turrets, so they’re limited to firing in whatever direction is their Front Fire Arc. For a character firing at targets behind/beside while on the move, there would be commensurate penalties for the awkward firing angle and/or reduced perception (I.e. having to look over your shoulder to shoot behind you). _________________ "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 |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14213 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe those with turrets (Y/wings, most freighters), wouldn't have that problem. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017 Posts: 1861 Location: Norway
|
Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it is important to distinguish between fixed weapon fighters and fighters with turrets that some very rare ones have.
With this being about turrets I belive light frighters and larger ships are the relevant thing to look at.
if we kook at AnH and the scene where the falcon is attacked by Tie fighters I would not issue any MAPs at all to the gunner.
Luke (and Han) mans a turret, it has 360 sidewways traverse and seems to have 180 to 270 degrees up and down traverse as well as "auto" or repeating fire.
I can not see how sitting in an "auto" trurret in any should give map for changing fire arch, it makes no sense.
Look to real world ww2 bombers, the turrets were spesificly designed for "ease of use" and any and all forms of sideways and up-down traverse is already measured into the turrets capaciy.
What I would do is to use the fire control, reduce it in lieu of MAP. and even allow multiple shots.
Again going back to other discussions about autofire and the like.
So Luke is in the falcon fireing at the Attacking TIEs, and so is Han, with Chewie doing the flying.
Chewie IMO would have to fly and use countermesures, like shields and even change the arch or them.
This will give the Pilot MAP, but reduced by the ship's systems, like the manuverability (bonus) and calculate that in to any MAP penalty.
The gunners on the otherhand would IMO only have MAP calculated if they fire more than once (or what weapon allows) times in a round, with any and all directional movement being free actions. it is the onlynthings that makes sense.
So back to the falcon, the gunner would have a fire control rating, calculated into any possible MAP. he would only get MAP with fireing more times than 1 or 2 shots a round, and we can argue that a rapid fire wepon should incure MAP at a slower pace than a non rapid fire one, anything lese is just not logical to me.
So the cannons appeared to have a fairly slow repeating fire, making it a repeater cannon with "auto" fire capabilities.
The cannon on the falcon here has 4 barrels, with two and two fireing at the same time, retracting the "non firing" barrel pair and extracring the firing ones.
SO I would allow the gun to fire BOTH shots in this case, using the fire control and NOT incure MAP.
First shot is roll + firecontrol. Second shot is roll + firecontrol -1D to compencate for the MAP that would normally incure.
Depending on firecontrol this is a value that varies. some wepons having 2D and some having 3D and more, allowing more shots from the weapon before MAP.
After all it is a ship with a crew, with "designated" gunners, pilots and shield/countermeasures operator, each doing ONE job, using inbuilt system in the ship and weapon suite to allow for MAP compencation.
So Luke would be able to shoot "normally" so would HAN, both would benefit from the repeating rate of fire and would reduce the fire control only while using the weapon turret.
Once they shoot more then we first reduce firecontrol dice, and only then apply MAP.
So if the cannon is now fired 4 times in a round, this is "auto/rapid fire" and the weapon has a +2D firecontrol, then shot 1 is fired with no MAP and full firecontrol bonus, finrecontrol is both traverse and targeting controls.
Second shot will reduce the firecontrol by 1D, still no MPA for the gunner as the Firecontrol dice still has a positive value.
Third shot is now fired at skill roll only, with the firecontrol reduced to 0D and still will not incure any MAP.
Now on the fourth shot here, we will have a MAP incured of .1D to the roll but not before the 4th shot in this case.
This is to me the only way to propperly simulate any form of rapid fire from a turrest, stationary ot otherwise starship weapon.
So with the firecontrol replacing any MPA penalties, we can now actually use a turbolaser, a gun turret etc in a make sense way.
I would also say that it should apply to any and all weapons with a fire control Dice, be them hand held or otherwise.
I do not see how this can break the system or be overly powerful in any way, but totally make sense.
An assault craft firing in ONE arch theri torpedos with 3D firecontrol can fire 1 time with full fire control, another iwht -1D to fire control and so on, with map only occuring whrn the fire control dice is spent (being +0D).
I will not call a ship firing Once every 5 secods as asulting anything, but a ship that comes in and fires several times ato overwhelm the defender is assualting.
So to me I would use and reduce fire control and allow actions with no MAP until the fire control dice is reduced to 0D, and then give map on subsequent actions.
This could also be used with rapid/repeating fire, where a weapon may be designed to fire multiple shots.
If a mutlit barrel cannon we use the "linked" bonus for barrel pairs.
Again the Falcon and Luke in the turret we would link the upper pair of barrels and the lower pair seperately, each pai firing with the linked bonus, for the added damage and so on.
so in short, link pairs and then use the fire control dice before adding in any MAP penalties. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|