| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16258
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: 14132
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: 107
|
| 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: 16258
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: 4847
|
| 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: 14132
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: 10395
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: 4847
|
| 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: 14132
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: 16258
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: 16258
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: 14132
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 |
|
|
|
