| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Ankhanu wrote: | Over eager nerd author here...
The rate of fire for the Z-6 is to reflect that with a rotary weapon like this it is impossible to fire a single round. Any squeeze of the trigger is going to send multiple rounds at the enemy... hence the high damage. It's also put there to account for the high ammo rating and accommodate burst fire. It was written to balance the flavour text with in-game mechanics. |
That might be, but there are no rules for the weapon in d6 (caused no doubt by the fact the WEG lost the license several years before the Z-6 was introduced). Hence my desire to do up autofire rules.
For the most part it just gives players a bit more flexibility (damage, to hit, or attack 2 targets). The Z-6 can be a bit of a beast (with 4D+1 Burst Dice) but it pays for this in two ways. First, is that it does goes through its power pack that much more quickly. Secondly, things like that tend to make a character a "blaster magnet". The character gets off one vicious barage and suddenly all the opponents take notice of him and probably start shooting at the character. |
What kind of blaster packs do the weapon use? Looking at pictures theres no 'backpack' or 'ammo belt' which would mean that it should perhaps run on normal blaster packs.
A Light repeating blaster has Ammo 25. This is 25 bursts, and one could assume that if you could fire single shots it would have 100 as a rifle.
So, with a 'standard' blaster pack the Z-6 would have enough eneryg for less than a second worth of firing. This is obviously not very effective..  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
So, with a 'standard' blaster pack the Z-6 would have enough eneryg for less than a second worth of firing. This is obviously not very effective.. |
That is precisely the problem that autofire weapons, especially chain guns, have in the real world. They can go through their ammo too fast.
That is why many military weapons now come with a "autoburst" feature.
As I noted earlier, the M134 minigun that the Z-6 is based off of has a cyclic rate of fire of 6000 rounds per minute, but it actual sustained fate of fire is more like 400 rounds per minute.
If we assumed the same thing for the Z-6, then it would be firing only around 10 shots per second instead of 166. It would probably still be nearly as effective, a lot more controllable, and would last a bit longer on a power pack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
dont really follow what this is supposed to prove.. I guess you mean that 'real world' MGs are impossible to fire without support. That is not the case, even if the weapon systems are really made for that. Looking at the size of a light repeater I assume its the SW SAW, which would make the Med. Repeater a LMG and a E-Web a HMG. A minigun however, is impossible to fire without a mount (No matter what is done in certain Arnold movies  ). |
What it is supposed to prove is that real world MGs are generally fired from a bipod or tripod. I'd consider a LMG the same a a Light Repeating Blaster. Both are Light version. (The definition of a light machinegun is that it can be fired without the use of a tripod mount).
So any medium MG is not usable without a mount (No matter what was done in certain John Wayne movies ).
There is a difference between what is possible and what is practical. There is a single shock .50 cal pistol out there, the Girffin. It works, but it really isn't very practical.
| Quote: |
Well, many starfigthers fire no faster than one could pull the trigger, so they seem semi-automatic. What semi automatic fighter guns do you see today? Jango Fetts ship fire with what, 5-8 rounds per second. That is slower than most jetfighter mounted autocannons today. |
That is actually about dead on for the autofire rates of fire that most modern autoweapons actually fire at. A M2HB might have a cyclic rate of around 500 rpm, but it really fires about 2 rounds per second in actual use.
| Quote: |
You dont fire full auto because you dont hit anything and youll just spend a lot of ammo for nothing. |
That is only partially true. What happens is that you only can aim control some of the rounds being fired, so it is impractical to fire very fast because you will waste more ammo for the same effect.
Stuff like rotary cannons fire such a high volume of lead for the express purpose of covering a lot of area and improving the chances of hitting a fast moving target-like an airplane.
| Quote: |
Where Im from assault rifles dont jam because they are fired on auto. |
I don't know where you are from, but here on Earth it does indeed happen. Faster ROF means faster moving parts and a lot of excess heat to dump. You can jam any assault rifle if you just keep firing rounds through it all full auto.
| Quote: |
Perhaps it depends on what rifles you are thinking about. Blasters and firearms dont really compare when it comes to firing fast semi-auto shots, as blasters dont seem to have any recoil. |
No recoil!? Have you watched the films? Blasters do indeed have recoil. That is why everyone's hand moves right after they fire a shot.
| Quote: |
Originally that was surely the result of wanting 'cinematic' bolts. Sure, the 'slow' blasters have been 'explained' but not why anyone would use a weapon that is slower than an arrow. |
There are a couple of reasons. For one thing they would provide about the same targeting benefits as tracer rounds. Secondly, it the slower weapon is much more lethal than an arrow it it would be desirable.
| Quote: |
SMG-blasters dont really exist either.. |
How do you know that? There is nothing that specifically states this, and based on what we have seen the opposite would seem to be the case.
| Quote: |
Shooting at a speeder is no more difficult than shooting at a jetfighter. Sure, helicopters are easier to hit, but then speeders can also move slowly/hover. |
They are in the game. Remember in d6 there is scaling modfier. This means that speeder scale vehicles are harder to hit than starfighter scale vehicles.
Addtionally, becuase speeders often have very high move rates, they can get out of blaster range very quickly, making things like a E-Web useless against them.
In fact, I think the folks from Star Wrs would have a lot of trouble in a firefight against "primitive slugthrowers". The E-Web's 500m range is pathetic compared to 1300m effective range of a M2HB.
| Quote: |
All this really dont add up to anything... |
In your opinion.
| Quote: |
Blasters dont seem to be automatic in the SW universe with the exceptions of heavier weapons (ie Repeating blasters). The only really fast blaster shots seen in the movies are from ship mounted weapons, and they still fire slower than todays aircraft cannons. In the EU computer game TFU you have E-webs and Z-6 firing with a similar RoF. I havent seen the CW series where they apparently also make an appearance.
Edit:
BTW, im trying to find a forum discussion of the z-6 where someone who had actually used a minigun gave his opinion about the z-6. As I was looking for something else when I found it I cant remember where it was though.. |
I would suspect the opinion on the z-6 would not be very favorable. There is really no reason to make something like that as a man portable weapon.
| Quote: |
In the end I its as always up to each GM what types of weapons they want to have and what stats they will have. |
Yup. That is one of the reason why we there is a House Rule section. So we can discuss rule tweaks with each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
What it is supposed to prove is that real world MGs are generally fired from a bipod or tripod. I'd consider a LMG the same a a Light Repeating Blaster. Both are Light version.
|
The thing is, I have never questioned that MGs generally are used from at least a bipod, so I dont know why you started that discussion.
Looking at the size of light repeaters makes me think they are more like a SAW. Hvy repeaters are noted as needing a tripod, making me assume that they are the SW medium machineguns. However, if you look at my other thread I usually assume that the stats of the weapons as presented in the rules assume a bipod (especially the effective range).
| Quote: |
There is a difference between what is possible and what is practical. There is a single shock .50 cal pistol out there, the Girffin. It works, but it really isn't very practical.
|
Which was my point really.
| Quote: |
That is actually about dead on for the autofire rates of fire that most modern autoweapons actually fire at. A M2HB might have a cyclic rate of around 500 rpm, but it really fires about 2 rounds per second in actual use. |
First you say that SW weapons are faster than real world weapons, then you go on by pointing out how slow they should be?
Well, lets stick with ship/aircraft weapon comparisons now. Even if you have a need for a MG that fires two shots per second, you dont have any need for an aircraft gun that does the same (if you dont have some kind of 'magic' targeting system). This is exactly why gatling weapons (NOT 'chainguns') came into use again.
| Quote: |
That is only partially true. What happens is that you only can aim control some of the rounds being fired, so it is impractical to fire very fast because you will waste more ammo for the same effect.
Stuff like rotary cannons fire such a high volume of lead for the express purpose of covering a lot of area and improving the chances of hitting a fast moving target-like an airplane.
|
That is true if you by 'some of the rounds' mean the first few rounds. After that the precise aim is gone, and you are doing supressive fire or even waste of ammo depending on situation and circumstance. Hence 3 round burst weapons.
| Quote: |
I don't know where you are from, but here on Earth it does indeed happen. Faster ROF means faster moving parts and a lot of excess heat to dump. You can jam any assault rifle if you just keep firing rounds through it all full auto. |
'Your Earth' probably aint the one the rest of us live on then, or we have better weapons then you have at 'your earth'. What was originally discussed was why one wouldnt use his weapon on full auto, and you claimed it led to jammed weapons, which is not true at least with the weapons we use. Some weapons are however more prone to jam from heavy use. Google 'jam prone assault rifle' for example. However, perhaps you mistook firing in automatic mode fore some special case where you pull trigger until emtpy, reload, pull trigger, reload, pull trigger etc until eventually the gun jams from heat. I meant combat use which is not the same thing.
| Quote: |
No recoil!? Have you watched the films? Blasters do indeed have recoil. That is why everyone's hand moves right after they fire a shot. |
Yeah, theres some kind of symbolic hand movement but not something that can actually be called real recoil. However, I 'in game' my blasters generate recoil, so Im perfectly ok with blaster recoil. However, that would make the Z-6 impossible to use with the fire rate given, which is really what this discussion was all about to begin with...
| Quote: |
There are a couple of reasons. For one thing they would provide about the same targeting benefits as tracer rounds. Secondly, it the slower weapon is much more lethal than an arrow it it would be desirable. |
Nah, that doesnt hold water. If one would want tracers, one would use firearms. Even lethality doesnt mean much if you cant hit a moving target because your 'bold' aint moving faster than a paintball round. Shooting big holes in the air doesnt win you many fights.
| Quote: |
They are in the game. Remember in d6 there is scaling modfier. This means that speeder scale vehicles are harder to hit than starfighter scale vehicles. |
Hmm, your original statement was that Repeaters were not that effective vs Speeders, and now you bring up that they are easy to hit? Wouldnt that make them very effective? Also, a Snowspeeder (military) has a Body Strength of 3D. Add the +2D scaling difference and you have about a 50% chance of damaging one with a light repeater.
| Quote: |
Addtionally, becuase speeders often have very high move rates, they can get out of blaster range very quickly, making things like a E-Web useless against them.
|
That is not a 'blasters vs firearmes' problem, but comes from generally short ranges for heavier character scale weapons. Looking through 'Weapon Stats' I cant really find any MGs, but a firearm rifle has about the same range as a blaster rifle (300m), so it seems a SW MG would have the same problem.
| Quote: |
I would suspect the opinion on the z-6 would not be very favorable. There is really no reason to make something like that as a man portable weapon.
|
No it wasnt, it was a real bash-fest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: |
The thing is, I have never questioned that MGs generally are used from at least a bipod, so I dont know why you started that discussion.
Looking at the size of light repeaters makes me think they are more like a SAW. Hvy repeaters are noted as needing a tripod, making me assume that they are the SW medium machineguns. However, if you look at my other thread I usually assume that the stats of the weapons as presented in the rules assume a bipod (especially the effective range). |
I think where we are differing here is on what type of blaster equates to what type of MG.
Generally I assume that Light Repating blasters match up with Light Machineguns, Medium Blaters with Medium MGs, and Heavy RBs with Heavy MGs.
So I would view an E-Web as the eqivlanet of a .50 cal HMG rather than a 7.62. MMG
| Quote: |
First you say that SW weapons are faster than real world weapons, then you go on by pointing out how slow they should be? |
Yes, because while they are faster, neither weapons are fired as fast as their cyclic rates. |
| Quote: |
Well, lets stick with ship/aircraft weapon comparisons now. Even if you have a need for a MG that fires two shots per second, you dont have any need for an aircraft gun that does the same (if you dont have some kind of 'magic' targeting system). This is exactly why gatling weapons (NOT 'chainguns') came into use again. |
Actually you DO have a need. That is why high ROF weapons were itnroduced. To spray a lot of lead into an area to increase the chances of a hit and/or kill. What gunners do is use the tracer rounds to move thier pooint of aim onto the fast moving aircraft.
And by the way, it is a chain weapon,. The orginal Gatling design was hand cranked and feed from a hopper and was obsolete by the end of the 19th century.There actually hasn't been a "Gatling" gun since the Gatling company closed it doors.
BTW one of the reasons for the six barrel design was to deal with the problems of excess heat, that you've been dismissing.
The ability to reach very high rate of fires required a motor an chain attachment instead of the hand crack. Hence the term "chain gun". Calling them all Gatling guns is like calling all cars Fords or Hondas.
| Quote: |
That is true if you by 'some of the rounds' mean the first few rounds. After that the precise aim is gone, and you are doing suppressive fire or even waste of ammo depending on situation and circumstance. Hence 3 round burst weapons. |
Not quite. With a high RoF weapon, you don't always need precise aim. Especially with mounted weapons. What you do with a MG is to traverse an area. This turns the situation around fro trying to hit a target to one of statistical probabilities. I.E. If you spray 4500 rounds into a 3x3 area, then each square meter gets hit about 500 times, making it very likely that anything (or anyone) in that area is also hit.
That is the whole point of very high ROF.
| Quote: |
'Your Earth' probably aint the one the rest of us live on then, or we have better weapons then you have at 'your earth'. What was originally discussed was why one wouldnt use his weapon on full auto, and you claimed it led to jammed weapons, which is not true at least with the weapons we use. |
I claimed it was one of the reasons, and it is. Others include:
-It tends to waste lots of ammo
-The heat buildup also makes the weapons difficult to handle.
-The excess heat and start to cause round to "cook off" igniting the powder prematurely (this was yet another problem that lead to the gatling gun using six barrels).
I don't think you are very familiar with just how much of a problem heat actually is.
| Quote: |
However, perhaps you mistook firing in automatic mode fore some special case where you pull trigger until empty, reload, pull trigger, reload, pull trigger etc until eventually the gun jams from heat. I meant combat use which is not the same thing. |
Real world combat use, M60s come with multiple barrels and a "oven mitt". Under combat use it is quite possible to overheat the barrel necessitating a chage, or even jam the weapon (the heat causes expansion).
| Quote: |
Yeah, theres some kind of symbolic hand movement but not something that can actually be called real recoil. |
Its bad acting. BTW, the "making of" films did have parts where guys were showing the extras to "add recoil" to their shots.
| Quote: |
However, I 'in game' my blasters generate recoil, so Im perfectly ok with blaster recoil. However, that would make the Z-6 impossible to use with the fire rate given, which is really what this discussion was all about to begin with... |
It might be possible if they have some sort of recoil compensation. The most assured have the technological means (some sort of anti-inertial system must be in existence just for the starships to work).
As for how fast the Z-6 is firing, that is what I mean about the difference between cyclic rate of fire and actual sustained fire. The high ROF figures given for real world machine guns are cyclic rate. That means how fast the weapon can continually fire, until empty. It doesn't even factor in for reloading, but assumes infinite ammo and no need to aim.
So most MGs don't really fire at anywhere near the "mythical" cyclic rate. The M134's practical RoF is more like 6-7 shots per second instead of 100. And by extension the Z-6 would probably be firing 10 shots per second instead of the 166 figure.
The gunner could hold town the trigger and empty the clip in a second or two (many real world guns can do so), but it will almost always be a bad idea to do so.
| Quote: |
Nah, that doesnt hold water. If one would want tracers, one would use firearms. |
Not really. If one wants an aiming beneift they won't necessairly change everything else. Being able to see where your shot is actually hitting is a big plus.
| Quote: |
Even lethality doesnt mean much if you cant hit a moving target because your 'bold' aint moving faster than a paintball round. Shooting big holes in the air doesnt win you many fights. |
Real world you noprmally can't hit a fast moving target becuase by the time the bullet gets there, the target has moved on. So you lead the target, then use the tracers to correct your airm after seeing where your shots end up. High RoF weapons are great for this.
| Quote: |
Hmm, your original statement was that Repeaters were not that effective vs Speeders, and now you bring up that they are easy to hit? Wouldnt that make them very effective? |
Not if they don't have the range to hit it-or the power to penetrate it.
| Quote: |
Also, a Snowspeeder (military) has a Body Strength of 3D. Add the +2D scaling difference and you have about a 50% chance of damaging one with a light repeater. |
Assuming that it is nice enough to get withing 300m, something that it has no need to do, since it's weapons have a range of 1.5 km.
[quote]
That is not a 'blasters vs firearmes' problem, but comes from generally short ranges for heavier character scale weapons. Looking through 'Weapon Stats' I cant really find any MGs, but a firearm rifle has about the same range as a blaster rifle (300m), so it seems a SW MG would have the same problem. [/quopte]
No it is a "blaster vs firearm" issue. The range of reparting blasters in the game is much less than the range of machineguns. Even if you assume than a HRB equates to aMMG (which I don't) you still end up with a E-Web having half the range of a .30 cal Browning MG.
In a setting where the"jeeps" are five to tens times as fast, and the vehicle mounted weapons 3 times as nasty (or more).
One big difference between Star Wars blasters and real world firearms is that as weapons get go up in scale in Star Wars their ranges increase to well beyond hat of a character scale weapon, while in the real world that isn't the case. A vehicle mounted MG or cannon doesn't throw lead any father than a tripod mounted weapon. In fact, they are ofte the same weapon.
So I think the reason why RBs aren't as common in SW is that they aren't as useful as in the real world. Two points:
1)In the real world a MMG is effective against a jeep. In SW a MRB or HRB isn't going to get within range of a combat speeder. The speeder can blast away safely at range.
2) In the real world MGs are effective against most targets. Only hardend targets like tanks are really proof against them. In Star Wars anything above Speeder scale is very resistant if not immune to character scale RBs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
Yes, because while they are faster, neither weapons are fired as fast as their cyclic rates. |
I cant really see how the 'actual' number of rounds fired during a minute (or whatever) has any pointe here. That number is the result of a large number of factors outside the actual specifications of the weapons. For example, how intense the fight is. What Im interested in is how fast the weapon actually fires when actually fired. Does it fire 100 rounds in a second or one. If you then has to reload it for 1 hour after you have attacked is not important. If ships and weapons are seen as shooting at a slow rate of fire (yes, even Fetts ship) in a short period of time, then that is whats interesting, not that their average number of shots fire per minute is lowered because of 'off camera' reloading or whatever.
| Quote: |
Well, lets stick with ship/aircraft weapon comparisons now. Even if you
Actually you DO have a need. That is why high ROF weapons were itnroduced. To spray a lot of lead into an area to increase the chances of a hit and/or kill. What gunners do is use the tracer rounds to move thier pooint of aim onto the fast moving aircraft. |
What I actually said was that there was no need for a MG/Aircraft gun that shot 2 rounds per second. But thanks for agreeing with me. And no, hand cranking is not the same as 'chaingun'. Gatlings are not chainguns, outside computer/rpg games that is... Chain guns are one barrel weapons that has the firing mechanics driven by a electric motor instead of gas pressure. This is mainly done for reliability. The 30mm M230 on the Apache is a chaingun. The M242 25mm is another example. However, the term is often mistakenly used for gatling-type weapons (like the M61). Like Nylon has become a material, Gatling has come to mean more than just the original gun.
| Quote: |
Not quite. With a high RoF weapon, you don't always need precise aim. Especially with mounted weapons.
|
Again, the original question was regarding shooting the Z-6 unmounted (ie hand held). Of course you can fire many rounds quite accurate with a coaxial machinegun or similar.
| Quote: |
I claimed it was one of the reasons, and it is. Others include:
-It tends to waste lots of ammo
-The heat buildup also makes the weapons difficult to handle.
-The excess heat and start to cause round to "cook off" igniting the powder prematurely (this was yet another problem that lead to the gatling gun using six barrels).
I don't think you are very familiar with just how much of a problem heat actually is.
Real world combat use, M60s come with multiple barrels and a "oven mitt". Under combat use it is quite possible to overheat the barrel necessitating a chage, or even jam the weapon (the heat causes expansion).
|
Actually never had big problems with it, but this part of the discussion was originally about assault rifles/SMGs of the SW world (or at least non-repeaters)so the comparison should not be made with MGs. You cant shoot continously for as long as with a belt fed weapon like an MG. Also, you dont use an assault rifle in the same way as an MG, hence no replacable barrels.
| Quote: |
It might be possible if they have some sort of recoil compensation. The most assured have the technological means (some sort of anti-inertial system must be in existence just for the starships to work).
|
The description actually mentions recoil as a problem, and that different ways of managing that had been tried (gyromount systems and repulsor units). These additions made the weapon even more prone to malfunction.
| Quote: |
As for how fast the Z-6 is firing, that is what I mean about the difference between cyclic rate of fire and actual sustained fire. .... And by extension the Z-6 would probably be firing 10 shots per second instead of the 166 figure.
|
Again, its the actual RoF when you actually shoots the gun thats important mechanically-wise. If you then have to reloas for several minutes makes no difference to the actual number of blasts that leave the gun for a few seconds.
| Quote: |
The gunner could hold town the trigger and empty the clip in a second or two (many real world guns can do so), but it will almost always be a bad idea to do so.
|
Most modern guns that empties themself in a second or two have fast easy ways of putting in another magazine, and the general use is not suppressive fire but direct fire. Carrying around a 25 kg gun with massive ammo that empties itself in a few seconds just makes no sense.
| Quote: |
Not really. If one wants an aiming beneift they won't necessairly change everything else. Being able to see where your shot is actually hitting is a big plus.
|
What I actually meant was that it was just plain stupid to use 'slower than arrow' blasters just to have 'tracer ability' when you instead could use a (very fast) firearm.
| Quote: |
Real world you noprmally can't hit a fast moving target becuase by the time the bullet gets there, the target has moved on. So you lead the target, then use the tracers to correct your airm after seeing where your shots end up. High RoF weapons are great for this.
|
I promise you I can hit a hell of a lot more moving targets with my 1000m/sec 5,56 AK5 than you with your 'less than arrow speed' blaster If i shoot at a target (lets say a car/speeder) doing 90 km/h at a 100m range, the target move just 2,5 meters during the flight of the bullet. Even with 'tracer blasters' it would be very tricky to hit, as the target would have moved over 35 meters during time of flight.
| Quote: |
Not if they don't have the range to hit it-or the power to penetrate it.
|
Well, pointed out they do have the power to penetrate. Excuse me if I leave the walkers you mention outside of this, as walkers are really SW 'tanks'. A LRB has a max range of 300 meters, which is quite a range if you are not fighting in a desert or grasslands. Sure, its lower than our world MGs, but see below.
| Quote: |
Assuming that it is nice enough to get withing 300m, something that it has no need to do, since it's weapons have a range of 1.5 km.
|
Again, we cant assume all combat is on the ice plains of Hoth, and also as scale is a factor, hitting those character scale targets in at least soft cover might mean having to close in on the targets.
| Quote: |
No it is a "blaster vs firearm" issue. The range of reparting blasters in the game is much less than the range of machineguns. Even if you assume than a HRB equates to aMMG (which I don't) you still end up with a E-Web having half the range of a .30 cal Browning MG.
|
Eeh, what in game machineguns do you find to back up that idea? As pointed out, if you compare Blaster Rifles to Firearm Rifles in the game they have about the same range. This means that its not a 'Blaster vs Firearms' problem, but a 'character vs speeder scale' problem when it comes to ranges.
| Quote: |
One big difference between Star Wars blasters and real world firearms is that as weapons get go up in scale in Star Wars their ranges increase to well beyond hat of a character scale weapon, while in the real world that isn't the case.
|
Which was my point when I said it was not a 'Blaster vs Firearms' problem that you claimed.
| Quote: |
So I think the reason why RBs aren't as common in SW is that they aren't as useful as in the real world. Two points:
1)In the real world a MMG is effective against a jeep. In SW a MRB or HRB isn't going to get within range of a combat speeder. The speeder can blast away safely at range.
2) In the real world MGs are effective against most targets. Only hardend targets like tanks are really proof against them. In Star Wars anything above Speeder scale is very resistant if not immune to character scale RBs.
|
1) I think you give WAY to much credit to game designers. Theres no 'master plan' to make RB rarer behind the difference in ranges. Its just bad game design, usually inherited from 1st ed and never redone (just look at the Atgar anti infantry cannon for example). However, sure the speeder can keep out of range on an open battlefield, but then it wont hit much itself.
2) Well, things above Speeders are more or less tanks in most cases (at-ats, at-sts). The main problem here is not the weapons, but the fact that SW uses one stat for both armor and body strength/size. In the real world a large vehicle would be shot to pieces by an MG, even if it took longer time because of its size. In SW that vehicle has a high Body Str because of its size, and hence become resistant to all fire (not just blasters, MGs too). Its one of those trade offs they made to keep the system fast and fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
Yes, because while they are faster, neither weapons are fired as fast as their cyclic rates. |
I cant really see how the 'actual' number of rounds fired during a minute (or whatever) has any pointe here. That number is the result of a large number of factors outside the actual specifications of the weapons. For example, how intense the fight is. What Im interested in is how fast the weapon actually fires when actually fired. Does it fire 100 rounds in a second or one. If you then has to reload it for 1 hour after you have attacked is not important. If ships and weapons are seen as shooting at a slow rate of fire (yes, even Fetts ship) in a short period of time, then that is whats interesting, not that their average number of shots fire per minute is lowered because of 'off camera' reloading or whatever.
| Quote: |
Well, lets stick with ship/aircraft weapon comparisons now. Even if you
Actually you DO have a need. That is why high ROF weapons were itnroduced. To spray a lot of lead into an area to increase the chances of a hit and/or kill. What gunners do is use the tracer rounds to move thier pooint of aim onto the fast moving aircraft. |
What I actually said was that there was no need for a MG/Aircraft gun that shot 2 rounds per second. But thanks for agreeing with me. And no, hand cranking is not the same as 'chaingun'. Gatlings are not chainguns, outside computer/rpg games that is... Chain guns are one barrel weapons that has the firing mechanics driven by a electric motor instead of gas pressure. This is mainly done for reliability. The 30mm M230 on the Apache is a chaingun. The M242 25mm is another example. However, the term is often mistakenly used for gatling-type weapons (like the M61). Like Nylon has become a material, Gatling has come to mean more than just the original gun.
| Quote: |
Not quite. With a high RoF weapon, you don't always need precise aim. Especially with mounted weapons.
|
Again, the original question was regarding shooting the Z-6 unmounted (ie hand held). Of course you can fire many rounds quite accurate with a coaxial machinegun or similar.
| Quote: |
I claimed it was one of the reasons, and it is. Others include:
-It tends to waste lots of ammo
-The heat buildup also makes the weapons difficult to handle.
-The excess heat and start to cause round to "cook off" igniting the powder prematurely (this was yet another problem that lead to the gatling gun using six barrels).
I don't think you are very familiar with just how much of a problem heat actually is.
Real world combat use, M60s come with multiple barrels and a "oven mitt". Under combat use it is quite possible to overheat the barrel necessitating a chage, or even jam the weapon (the heat causes expansion).
|
Actually never had big problems with it, but this part of the discussion was originally about assault rifles/SMGs of the SW world (or at least non-repeaters)so the comparison should not be made with MGs. You cant shoot continously for as long as with a belt fed weapon like an MG. Also, you dont use an assault rifle in the same way as an MG, hence no replacable barrels.
| Quote: |
It might be possible if they have some sort of recoil compensation. The most assured have the technological means (some sort of anti-inertial system must be in existence just for the starships to work).
|
The description actually mentions recoil as a problem, and that different ways of managing that had been tried (gyromount systems and repulsor units). These additions made the weapon even more prone to malfunction.
| Quote: |
As for how fast the Z-6 is firing, that is what I mean about the difference between cyclic rate of fire and actual sustained fire. .... And by extension the Z-6 would probably be firing 10 shots per second instead of the 166 figure.
|
Again, its the actual RoF when you actually shoots the gun thats important mechanically-wise. If you then have to reloas for several minutes makes no difference to the actual number of blasts that leave the gun for a few seconds.
| Quote: |
The gunner could hold town the trigger and empty the clip in a second or two (many real world guns can do so), but it will almost always be a bad idea to do so.
|
Most modern guns that empties themself in a second or two have fast easy ways of putting in another magazine, and the general use is not suppressive fire but direct fire. Carrying around a 25 kg gun with massive ammo that empties itself in a few seconds just makes no sense.
| Quote: |
Not really. If one wants an aiming beneift they won't necessairly change everything else. Being able to see where your shot is actually hitting is a big plus.
|
What I actually meant was that it was just plain stupid to use 'slower than arrow' blasters just to have 'tracer ability' when you instead could use a (very fast) firearm.
| Quote: |
Real world you noprmally can't hit a fast moving target becuase by the time the bullet gets there, the target has moved on. So you lead the target, then use the tracers to correct your airm after seeing where your shots end up. High RoF weapons are great for this.
|
I promise you I can hit a hell of a lot more moving targets with my 1000m/sec 5,56 AK5 than you with your 'less than arrow speed' blaster If i shoot at a target (lets say a car/speeder) doing 90 km/h at a 100m range, the target move just 2,5 meters during the flight of the bullet. Even with 'tracer blasters' it would be very tricky to hit, as the target would have moved over 35 meters during time of flight.
| Quote: |
Not if they don't have the range to hit it-or the power to penetrate it.
|
Well, pointed out they do have the power to penetrate. Excuse me if I leave the walkers you mention outside of this, as walkers are really SW 'tanks'. A LRB has a max range of 300 meters, which is quite a range if you are not fighting in a desert or grasslands. Sure, its lower than our world MGs, but see below.
| Quote: |
Assuming that it is nice enough to get withing 300m, something that it has no need to do, since it's weapons have a range of 1.5 km.
|
Again, we cant assume all combat is on the ice plains of Hoth, and also as scale is a factor, hitting those character scale targets in at least soft cover might mean having to close in on the targets.
| Quote: |
No it is a "blaster vs firearm" issue. The range of reparting blasters in the game is much less than the range of machineguns. Even if you assume than a HRB equates to aMMG (which I don't) you still end up with a E-Web having half the range of a .30 cal Browning MG.
|
Eeh, what in game machineguns do you find to back up that idea? As pointed out, if you compare Blaster Rifles to Firearm Rifles in the game they have about the same range. This means that its not a 'Blaster vs Firearms' problem, but a 'character vs speeder scale' problem when it comes to ranges.
| Quote: |
One big difference between Star Wars blasters and real world firearms is that as weapons get go up in scale in Star Wars their ranges increase to well beyond hat of a character scale weapon, while in the real world that isn't the case.
|
Which was my point when I said it was not a 'Blaster vs Firearms' problem that you claimed.
| Quote: |
So I think the reason why RBs aren't as common in SW is that they aren't as useful as in the real world. Two points:
1)In the real world a MMG is effective against a jeep. In SW a MRB or HRB isn't going to get within range of a combat speeder. The speeder can blast away safely at range.
2) In the real world MGs are effective against most targets. Only hardend targets like tanks are really proof against them. In Star Wars anything above Speeder scale is very resistant if not immune to character scale RBs.
|
1) I think you give WAY to much credit to game designers. Theres no 'master plan' to make RB rarer behind the difference in ranges. Its just bad game design, usually inherited from 1st ed and never redone (just look at the Atgar anti infantry cannon for example). However, sure the speeder can keep out of range on an open battlefield, but then it wont hit much itself.
2) Well, things above Speeders are more or less tanks in most cases (at-ats, at-sts). The main problem here is not the weapons, but the fact that SW uses one stat for both armor and body strength/size. In the real world a large vehicle would be shot to pieces by an MG, even if it took longer time because of its size. In SW that vehicle has a high Body Str because of its size, and hence become resistant to all fire (not just blasters, MGs too). Its one of those trade offs they made to keep the system fast and fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | I cant really see how the 'actual' number of rounds fired during a minute (or whatever) has any pointe here. That number is the result of a large number of factors outside the actual specifications of the weapons. For example, how intense the fight is. What Im interested in is how fast the weapon actually fires when actually fired. Does it fire 100 rounds in a second or one. If you then has to reload it for 1 hour after you have attacked is not important. If ships and weapons are seen as shooting at a slow rate of fire (yes, even Fetts ship) in a short period of time, then that is whats interesting, not that their average number of shots fire per minute is lowered because of 'off camera' reloading or whatever. |
Because it is the actual number of rounds, NOT the listed cuylci rate that are what are going to be fired in combat. That is a M134 is going to fire about 6-7 rounds at a time rather than 100, because the character is not going to hold down the trigger without aiming until the weapon is empty. He is going to fire it in aimed bursts.
So the Z-6 would probably fire closer to 10 shots at a time instead of 166. It would probably never fire 10,000 shots per minute, even if hooked up to a generator, unless the gunner were shooting at something like a Star Destroyer.
| Quote: |
Well, lets stick with ship/aircraft weapon comparisons now. Even if you
Actually you DO have a need. That is why high ROF weapons were itnroduced. To spray a lot of lead into an area to increase the chances of a hit and/or kill. What gunners do is use the tracer rounds to move thier pooint of aim onto the fast moving aircraft. |
What I actually said was that there was no need for a MG/Aircraft gun that shot 2 rounds per second. But thanks for agreeing with me. {quote]
I didn't. You said there was no need, I say there is. That is not agreement.
| Quote: |
And no, hand cranking is not the same as 'chaingun'. Gatlings are not chainguns, outside computer/rpg games that is... Chain guns are one barrel weapons that has the firing mechanics driven by a electric motor instead of gas pressure. This is mainly done for reliability. The 30mm M230 on the Apache is a chaingun. The M242 25mm is another example. However, the term is often mistakenly used for gatling-type weapons (like the M61). |
The vast majority of modern rotary barrel guns are driven by an electric motor and chain rather than gas pressure.
| Quote: |
Like Nylon has become a material, Gatling has come to mean more than just the original gun. |
The same way all photcopiers have become known as "xerox machines", i.e. incorrectly.
| Quote: |
Again, the original question was regarding shooting the Z-6 unmounted (ie hand held). Of course you can fire many rounds quite accurate with a coaxial machinegun or similar. |
No, the orginal question was about autofire weapons in general.
| Quote: |
Actually never had big problems with it, but this part of the discussion was originally about assault rifles/SMGs of the SW world (or at least non-repeaters)so the comparison should not be made with MGs. You cant shoot continously for as long as with a belt fed weapon like an MG. Also, you dont use an assault rifle in the same way as an MG, hence no replacable barrels. |
Check again. Many MGs having cooling system to prvent the weapon overhating and jamming. In fact, the rotary barrel design exists precisly for that reason. Six barrles can fire six times as often without overheating the barrel.
[quote]
The description actually mentions recoil as a problem, and that different ways of managing that had been tried (gyromount systems and repulsor units). These additions made the weapon even more prone to malfunction. [.quote]
Neither answer is surprising. First off, any weapon with that high a RoF is going to have some recoil problem. Especially if hgand carried. Seocndly, any thing that adds to a weapon gives it one more thing that can go wrong. Doesn't mean it won't work, just that it doesn't work well.
[quote]
Again, its the actual RoF when you actually shoots the gun thats important mechanically-wise. If you then have to reloas for several minutes makes no difference to the actual number of blasts that leave the gun for a few seconds. | Quote: |
Yes, and that i going to be closer to 10 shots that 166. As I kep trying to point out, the CLYLIC rates of fire for autoweapons are NOT real numbers. They are numbers based on what would happen if:
A) You never bothered to aim
B) You just kept you finger on the trigger for an entire minute.
In actual combat niether of these would happen. Peple aim, fire a short burst, aim again, and so on.
|
Most modern guns that empties themself in a second or two have fast easy ways of putting in another magazine, and the general use is not suppressive fire but direct fire. Carrying around a 25 kg gun with massive ammo that empties itself in a few seconds just makes no sense.
| Quote: |
Carrying around a 25kg weapon makes no sense, peroid
As far as a weapon going through in't ammo in a second or two, virtually all MGs are cable of going through thier ammo fast. The 105 round belt of a M2 can be fired off in 10 seconds, if the shooter just "sprays and prays".
| Quote: |
What I actually meant was that it was just plain stupid to use 'slower than arrow' blasters just to have 'tracer ability' when you instead could use a (very fast) firearm. |
No argument there. One must assume that blasters have some advantage to explain why they are used in stead of firearms. Yes, we know becuase laser guns are cooler and more Sci-Fi, but the "in game" rationale appears to be a higher damage rating.
| Quote: |
I promise you I can hit a hell of a lot more moving targets with my 1000m/sec 5,56 AK5 than you with your 'less than arrow speed' blaster |
Not at 1km you won't.
If i shoot at a target (lets say a car/speeder) doing 90 km/h at a 100m range, the target move just 2,5 meters during the flight of the bullet. Even with 'tracer blasters' it would be very tricky to hit, as the target would have moved over 35 meters during time of flight.
| Quote: |
Not if they don't have the range to hit it-or the power to penetrate it.
|
Well, pointed out they do have the power to penetrate. Excuse me if I leave the walkers you mention outside of this, as walkers are really SW 'tanks'. A LRB has a max range of 300 meters, which is quite a range if you are not fighting in a desert or grasslands. Sure, its lower than our world MGs, but see below.
You can't leave the walkers out, since they are also the SW APCs. And you can't leave Starfighters out either since they would be used as fighters and strike craft. (and why the rebels defended Hoth instead of with X-Wings is is one of those thing I'll leave to Lucas. I guess it wouldn't have looked right if Luke and Wedge had wipedout the AT-ATs before they could overrun Echo base).
| Quote: |
Again, we cant assume all combat is on the ice plains of Hoth, and also as scale is a factor, hitting those character scale targets in at least soft cover might mean having to close in on the targets. |
No. if they can target a ship moving at ultrahigh speeds ant hit it at vast distances, they can hit a man at 1000m.
And in game terms the scaling penalty (2D) for speeders is offset by Firce Control, so there really is no reason for the snowspeeders to close in to HRB range, other than dramatic license or pilot stupidity.
| Quote: |
Eeh, what in game machineguns do you find to back up that idea? |
How about real world data for MG ranges. They are much higher than the repeating blaster ranges.
| Quote: |
Which was my point when I said it was not a 'Blaster vs Firearms' problem that you claimed. |
Since real world MGs and rifles have much better ranges than their blaster counterparts, I disagree.
| Quote: |
So I think the reason why RBs aren't as common in SW is that they aren't as useful as in the real world. Two points:
1)In the real world a MMG is effective against a jeep. In SW a MRB or HRB isn't going to get within range of a combat speeder. The speeder can blast away safely at range.
2) In the real world MGs are effective against most targets. Only hardend targets like tanks are really proof against them. In Star Wars anything above Speeder scale is very resistant if not immune to character scale RBs.
|
1) I think you give WAY to much credit to game designers. Theres no 'master plan' to make RB rarer behind the difference in ranges. Its just bad game design, usually inherited from 1st ed and never redone (just look at the Atgar anti infantry cannon for example). However, sure the speeder can keep out of range on an open battlefield, but then it wont hit much itself. |
I think the master plan was to make RBs rarer because character wouldn't be using them. Heck by cannon the E-Web wasn't a repeating blaster (it was being set up on the Falcon, so it was probably a heavy cannon that could damage the ship, or at least blow open a hatch).
As for the Atgar, that isn't a 1st edition bug, but a prescaling bug. Way back when the sorucebook came out there were no scaling rules and most of the vehicles didn't match up well. Could cars were too slow, T-47 snowsppeders could kick AT-AT butt and so on. But the Atgar does have the saving grace of range.
And keeping out of the enemy's effective range doesn't hurt you too much when you are still within your own range. The T-47 can be within it's own medium range without even getting within range of handheld weapons.
| Quote: |
2) Well, things above Speeders are more or less tanks in most cases (at-ats, at-sts). The main problem here is not the weapons, but the fact that SW uses one stat for both armor and body strength/size. In the real world a large vehicle would be shot to pieces by an MG, even if it took longer time because of its size. In SW that vehicle has a high Body Str because of its size, and hence become resistant to all fire (not just blasters, MGs too). Its one of those trade offs they made to keep the system fast and fun. |
I think it is less a Body Stregth/SIZ thing than a scaling thing. Basically, anything that is a larger scale is tougher, and the results are often stupid. Since the scaling rules were a patch to fix the bad stats from the SW sorucebook, the problem has never been fixed.
Snub fighters are smaller that AT-ATs but tend to be as tough or due to scaling.
However the effects of this are felt in game play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damn forum ate my post!
So ill keep it short and cut away some of the strange twists the thread has taken (as they did not really contribute to the issue at hand).
-Chainguns are not Rotary cannons-or vice versa. The misconceptions comes from computer games. Both are usually externally powered though. This is not the main issue, but just to make things clear. Just go ahead and check it out.
-As recoil is an issue, having a weapon that shoots 166 rnds/second is plain stupid. Also, given the fact that its not powered by a generator, this would mean that you empty the ammo in less than a round. Hence my idea that the RoF came from an author with little or no knowledge about weapons, but had played a lot of computer games.
-Cyclic RoF means everything when calculating how many rounds a half second burst will fire at a target. Later reloading times or pauses to scratch your butt have absolutely no effect.
-The problem with Rep. Blasters vs 'real world' MGs is not a 'Blaster vs Firearms' problem as 'in game' firearms has about the same range as 'in game' blasters. The fact that 'real life' MGs have longer ranges than 'in game' RBLs while the same cannot be said for 'in game' firearms just point to the fact that the problem lies with character scale heavier weapons having too short ranges, or upscaled weapons having to long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | d*mn forum ate my post! |
Ouch! I hate when that happens. 
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
-As recoil is an issue, having a weapon that shoots 166 rnds/second is plain stupid. Also, given the fact that its not powered by a generator, this would mean that you empty the ammo in less than a round. Hence my idea that the RoF came from an author with little or no knowledge about weapons, but had played a lot of computer games. |
Well, since we don't have a Z-6 to test fire, we can't really say just how much of a factor recoil actually is. There are actually a few real world firearms with very high rates of fire that are controllable because they fire low powered rounds. I thoery something like the Z-6 might be on par with a holdout blaster, which would keep recoil under control for a weapon it it's mass.But again, we don't have any real world comparison.
However, the fact that the weapon does exist and is at least somewhat useable would suggest that it must have far less recoil than the weapon that inspired it.
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
-Cyclic RoF means everything when calculating how many rounds a half second burst will fire at a target. Later reloading times or pauses to scratch your butt have absolutely no effect. |
No. Reason being that you won't hold down the trigger as long. Again, usuing real world analogues shooter tend to tap the trigger unless they are trying to strafe a area trying to nab a fast moving taget, and that only with mounted weapons.
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
-The problem with Rep. Blasters vs 'real world' MGs is not a 'Blaster vs Firearms' problem as 'in game' firearms has about the same range as 'in game' blasters. The fact that 'real life' MGs have longer ranges than 'in game' RBLs while the same cannot be said for 'in game' firearms just point to the fact that the problem lies with character scale heavier weapons having too short ranges, or upscaled weapons having to long. |
-RBs don't have comparable range vs. vehicle weapons that MGs do. Basiclay Star Wars vehicle weapons far outstrip real world vehicle weapons in terms of range, and often in terms of power as well.
-What "in game" firearms presented are few, and usually not very high tech by modern standard let along those of the Star Wars universe. What we don't see in SW are the analogues to the heavier rifles we have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, if you fire 166 rounds per second ANY recoil is a problem..
Having looked through a larger selection of scenes I think we can assume that blasters have recoil, even if its not very much (looking at firing blaster pistols Id say about half). Also, if you half the recoild from a 5,56 assault rifle you end up with almost nothing.
The unsuccessful 5,56 M214 Gatling-type gun (The 'man portable' Six-pack from Predator) had an average recoil force of 45kg/99lbs and peak at 100kg/220 lbs at only 4000 rounds per minute (ie 67 rpm). Even if we are 'generous' and say a comparable blaster would have 1/3 of the recoil, we are not going to fire at 10.000 rpm speeds while hand-held (Not even short 50 round bursts).
It would be logical that the weapon has at least two settings though. One for 'hand held' firing and at least one for mounted/tripod fire.
Half second bursts (ie about 5 rounds with most assault rifles) are not that unusual. Only slightly longer than the 'set' 3 round burst of some weapons. In any case, its beyond the point. What I mean is that the 'cyclic' RoF is the factor that determines how many round will be shot when you fire at a target, not the average round/second during 10 minutes of combat.
Yeah, its the vehicle weapons of most 'scaled' vehicles thats the problem. Also, often its hard to understand the actual difference between the weapons, except one is mounted and the other is not. One solution would be to have some weapons use a different scale than the vehicle (for example repeating blasters mounted on speeders/walkers). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="ZzaphodD"]Well, if you fire 166 rounds per second ANY recoil is
It would be logical that the weapon has at least two settings though. One for 'hand held' firing and at least one for mounted/tripod fire. | ZzaphodD wrote: | logical. In fact some autocannons have mutiple settings to prevent them from wasting ammo. And some handhel;d autofire weapons have an adjustable setting as well (the H&K MP5 for example).
[quote="ZzaphodD"]
Half second bursts (ie about 5 rounds with most assault rifles) are not that unusual. Only slightly longer than the 'set' 3 round burst of some weapons. In any case, its beyond the point. What I mean is that the 'cyclic' RoF is the factor that determines how many round will be shot when you fire at a target, not the average round/second during 10 minutes of combat. |
I think the difference here is how we are expecting PCs to use the weapon. I'm assuming that they will be firing in bursts, with one burst taking an "action". Doing it that way, characters won't be firing a full 830 shots in a 5 second combat round, but a couple of hundred shots at most.
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
Yeah, its the vehicle weapons of most 'scaled' vehicles thats the problem. Also, often its hard to understand the actual difference between the weapons, except one is mounted and the other is not. One solution would be to have some weapons use a different scale than the vehicle (for example repeating blasters mounted on speeders/walkers). |
Indeed. The difficulty stems from the fact that WEG's stats from the Star Wars Sourcebook just sucked, and the scaling rules were a way to fix them without redoing them. It doesn't quite work. Especially in terms of character scale vs. Speeder scale. Or in airspeeders vs. starfighters.
In a few cases the same weapon has been done up in different scales and worked quite differently each time (for example the "drop down" repeating blaster on the Millennium Falcon).
There are some ways to fix this, but not without redoing some of the stats, and that would mean a complete overhaul.
BTW, have you noticed the net never eats the small messages? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | In fact some autocannons have mutiple settings to prevent them from wasting ammo. And some handhel;d autofire weapons have an adjustable setting as well (the H&K MP5 for example).
|
Yes I know, and having the Z-6 fire at different speeds might be a way to 'stick to canon' and still keep the weapon on the somewhat realistic (for SW universe at least) side.
| Quote: |
I think the difference here is how we are expecting PCs to use the weapon. I'm assuming that they will be firing in bursts, with one burst taking an "action". Doing it that way, characters won't be firing a full 830 shots in a 5 second combat round, but a couple of hundred shots at most.
|
Actually I was talking about half second bursts, so that is 'only' 83 rounds at 'full speed'. However, I think that is enough.
| Quote: |
BTW, have you noticed the net never eats the small messages? |
Could be because they dont take an hour to type.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
Yes I know, and having the Z-6 fire at different speeds might be a way to 'stick to canon' and still keep the weapon on the somewhat realistic (for SW universe at least) side. |
Not to mention making the weapon a lot more useful. Based on what we see in the Clone Wars TV episodes, It doesn't look like it is firing several hundred shots.
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
Actually I was talking about half second bursts, so that is 'only' 83 rounds at 'full speed'. However, I think that is enough. |
Yeah, but I'm thinking of what happens when a character takes 3 or 4 attacks during a action round.
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
Could be because they dont take an hour to type.. |
Could be. Or it might just be some malevolent entity at work (I wonder
what malevolent entities do on vacation, go somewhere and be nice to people for a change?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobenhotep
Commander
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 333
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wow, i see a lot of differing viewpoints...
M2 machineguns are mentioned. Every time i shot the M2 .50 cal i shot it in the 5-7 shot burst technique. that is a burst that takes a little less than a second. anything more than that the gun wont accurately hit anything, and will just get hot and waste ammo. changing hot barrels sucks.
someone mentioned no such thing as blaster SMG, but such a weapon is mentioned in the han solo books, a selective fire carbine.
tracer bullets look like they are moving really slow when you shoot at stuff a couple hundred yards away, so blaster bolts are moving pretty fast.
i guess a " bonus to hit " rule needs to be put into effect, and a " how many shots hit" rule needs to be figured. also, a malfunction rule of some kind. ill come up with something, i have 24 hr duty tommorow and plenty of time to figure it out...
_________________
D&D 5e DM and WEG Star Wars GM for two kids who will hopefully carry on with RPGs for years to come
The Chijawa said so, that's why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
