The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Artillery.
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Artillery. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 20, 21, 22  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 318

PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2016 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
The way I'm picturing projectile artillery in the EU is that the current state-of-the-art uses gravity pulses for propellant, a generational step above railguns. The strength of the pulse can be varied from a lob-toss appropriate for high-angle launches like howitzers and mortars down to direct-path kinetic strikes at c-fractional velocities. The launcher itself would be mounted on a self-steering base, which could be mated with either a pedestal mount in a vehicle or a folding base-plate style mount on the ground. Rather than hand-loading and firing, as with modern mortars, it would be magazine fed, potentially with a multi-load magazine that can hold multiple warhead types and switch between them on command.

I have yet to work up stats for this, but this is where my thoughts are leaning...



I considered suggesting a bunker or vehicle mounted version of the grenade/mortar Metal Storm system with an automated reloading system but feared that may be way too overpowered for this game system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now, would that "hide" score be a static # or an opposed roll vs search/sensors/perception?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Now, would that "hide" score be a static # or an opposed roll vs search/sensors/perception?

Opposed roll.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the past i have often preferred a static roll.. BUT I can see the logic in making it an opposed roll.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
In the past i have often preferred a static roll.. BUT I can see the logic in making it an opposed roll.

The alternative would be to use the Hide skill roll from the initial deployment to generate the flat diff against which the Search/Per/Sensors roll is made.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we are using the same Scatter value for both energy and projectile weapons, should energy weapons have the same basic blast radius as projectile weapons? My thinking is to do that but have the energy weapon damage drop off more quickly the further out in the blast radius one gets. At the very least, there should be a distinction between weapons designed to have an area effect and those which focus their damage as tightly as possible.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which is why i feel blast radi for ballistics should be generally larger than compatible energy weaponry..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Which is why i feel blast radi for ballistics should be generally larger than compatible energy weaponry..

I tend to agree; my only reservation is that giving ballistics a larger blast radius increases their accuracy against smaller-scale targets. The question then is whether you want them more accurate or if you shift FC lower to compensate. A 1D shift either direction on Fire Control will shift the Scatter factor by a rate of 3.5 / 7 /10.5 meters.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its not just the FC though, but also the gunner's skill as well as the actual blast damage per zone..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Its not just the FC though, but also the gunner's skill as well as the actual blast damage per zone..

Well, yeah, but that would be in effect anyway. I'm concentrating on the base accuracy of the weapon itself. The numbers I generated above were contingent on a shooter with 4D in the appropriate skill. Naturally, a better gunner would get better accuracy, but we need to establish a baseline of performance, with all other things (including the skill level of the gunner) being equal. To achieve that, we shift Fire Control up or down to get a gauge of accuracy. Once that's established, we can introduce relative gunnery skill.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now, would BR be based on 'groupings of calibers', ie 40-65mm mortars are one BR grouping, 66-90mm's are another, and so on? Or would it be separate to each individual mortar/howitzer unit AND the ammo used?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Now, would BR be based on 'groupings of calibers', ie 40-65mm mortars are one BR grouping, 66-90mm's are another, and so on? Or would it be separate to each individual mortar/howitzer unit AND the ammo used?

I'd tie it in to the idea I suggested above, of having artillery ignore Scale when determining hits and damage. The BR should, IMO, get larger as the scale of the cannon increases, thus offsetting the accuracy penalty from the larger scale. The end result will be, as scale goes up, so does blast radius, thus maintaining the chances of getting some kind of hit on a smaller scale target simply by still catching it within the fringes of the BR. For the larger weapons (CS-Scale and maybe Walker-Scale to a degree), I'd like to run the damage levels at the fringes down to the around the 2D range to represent people caught in the shockwave / knocked off their feet / hit by shrapnel / etc, but just mildly injured instead of completely annihilated.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds sweet..

So for potential ammo types we have for mortars
Anti-personnel (large blast radi, quicker dissapaition of damage per Blast zone)
HE regular (standard for all others)
Anti-vehicle/structural (Shorter blast radi, but lesser drop per zone)
Flare (lasts x number of rounds giving light in a Y radi)
incendiary (smallest blast radi, and burns each round..)

For howitzer like artillery, what other types can be added in, such as radar locking shells, homing shells etc..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Sounds sweet..

So for potential ammo types we have for mortars
Anti-personnel (large blast radi, quicker dissapaition of damage per Blast zone)

For AP, I'd follow the pattern of the Frag grenade, where damage starts mid-range, but drops off more slowly. The damage drop-off on a frag grenade works out to 100% at Point Blank, 80% at Short, 60% at Medium and 40% at Long, at 20%, 40%, 60% and 100% of 10m, respectively.

As Scale (and thus damage) increases, the % value of the Long ring will have to drop so as to maintain an area within any blast radius where character-scale targets have a reasonable chance of surviving the damage.

Quote:
HE regular (standard for all others)

This would be the baseline, from which the other stats would deviate.

Quote:
Anti-vehicle/structural (Shorter blast radi, but lesser drop per zone)

My thinking was actually the reverse; high point-blank damage, but smaller blast radius and faster damage drop-off. The reasoning is that, to damage a vehicle or bunker requires the damage inflicted to be much more focused and concentrated on the target, so there will not be as much dispersal. This is what I was aiming for with the Concussion Grenade Launchers when I re-statted the Juggernaut and AT-ST.

Quote:
Flare (lasts x number of rounds giving light in a Y radi)

Expressed as a reduction in the Concealment penalty for darkness. For example, if total darkness provides a +4D Concealment bonus, a flare round would reduce that penalty to +1D or +2D.

Quote:
incendiary (smallest blast radi, and burns each round..)

This might offer some ideas. I worked this up in preparation for doing flamethrowers for my Warhammer 40K tech topic, but it stalled out.

Rather than minimal blast radius, I'd think it would be the opposite; low peak damage spread over a wider area, like the Frag grenade, with the real threat being from the fire damage.

Quote:
For howitzer like artillery, what other types can be added in, such as radar locking shells, homing shells etc..

That would be mixed in with my Lock-On rules and increased fire control, but it's also a little further ahead than I want to think at the moment. Precision shells would likely just be variations on the unguided warheads, just with higher FC, so let's concentrate on the basic ammunition first.

Also, I've heard mention of a proposed multi-role munition, with an armor piercing warhead combined with a fragmenting case for anti-personnel effects and a white phosphorus inner liner for incendiary effects. Imagine, rather than having AP, Frag and Incendiary rounds, a single round that did all three at once...
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 318

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
incendiary (smallest blast radi, and burns each round..)



Incendiary rounds set for airburst would have a wider area of effect.

The M734 Multi-Option Fuze is a rangefinder and collision detection system used on 60mm, 81mm, and 120mm mortar shells as a trigger to detonate the shells at the most damaging heights of burst

PRX = Proximity air burst between 3 and 13 feet

NSB = Near surface burst between 0 and 3 feet

IMP = Impact burst on contact. ( In the event an IMP setting fails, detonation is 1/2 seconds after impact. )

DLY = Delay after impact of 0.05 seconds in the fuze explosive train before the shell detonates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 20, 21, 22  Next
Page 13 of 22

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0