| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I could see that...
So lets take an example.
Qualen pennik has modified his landspeeder to have paired Ma Duses on the back. Each is rated at 6d+1 base damage, with a full auto rate of 25 shots a round max (6 sec). The auto fire dice lets say are 6.
He wants to do a 25 round spray of a zone of 30x30, where there are currently 8 imperials in heavy armor. 5 of his 6 Autofire dice go in to negate 5 of the 8 imperials MAP, leaving only 3 to apply maps from. So he now rolls his firearms at -2d (for maps).
So assuming he hits, his 1d remaining auto fire rules give him 6d+1 damage, +1 2 or 3 based on the last die.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If he hits exactly with his skill dice, correct. I think I followed everything you were saying there.
In your example, we're doing even scale, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yup.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheshire wrote: | Autofire is something that's bothered me quite a lot, so I understand where you're coming from. However, rather than trying to determine armor ratings or whatnot, why not simply determine how many shots per second (or minute) the weapon is capable of. Take into account that it is nearly impossible (from what I've been told) to have every round hit someone when on full auto, and assign a die code.
For example, a weapon might hit a target a maximum of 1D-2 times per shot (minimum 1).
An Eweb might hit as many as 2D+2 times per round. |
Thats not a bad way to o. I think the reasoning behind rapid fire adding damage dice was to simply things by avoiding rolling damage multiple times. But if the solution icauses more problems that it solves...
If it helps, modern SMGs and assulat rifles tend to fire in short (3-5 round) burst. with the idea of ensuring ONE hit.
Medium and long burst are possible firing two and three times as many shots, respectively.
A simplemethod would be:
Short burst+ +1D to hit, 1 hit
Medium* +2 D to hit, 2 hits (i.e. roll damage 2 times)
Long: +3D to hit, 3 hits |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Random Numbers
Commander
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 454
Location: Gladsheim
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Using a riffle on full auto efficiently is kind of situational. Depending on range and recoil. It's not easy to center a full auto burst at long range. What's the recoil on a blaster? The bonus for automatic fire should decrease with range for most weapons.
I'm not a fan of getting more hits with only one skill roll.
_________________
Random is who random does... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What if you got more hits depending on how much you beat the to hit difficulty by? Say +1 hit for every 5 or 10 over.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | I think the reasoning behind rapid fire adding damage dice was to simply things by avoiding rolling damage multiple times. But if the solution icauses more problems that it solves... |
This is exactly the case. Rolling for damage multiple times per target quickly evolves into a dice-rolling fest when several combatants have automatic fire.
The only 'problem' that putting autofire dice to damage creates is in situation where you can assume that each individual blast is more or less harmless. Light blaster weapons with a very high rate of fire for example.
The rotary blaster comes to mind.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Random Numbers
Commander
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 454
Location: Gladsheim
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe the easiest solution is simply to apply special rules to a few weapons then.
_________________
Random is who random does... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I still think the best and easy way is to go by scale. Looking at real life examples, and E-Web is roughly the equivalent of an M-2 .50 cal. Machinegun. This gun mows down infantry, and can do a number on vehicles, but bounces off tanks and armored vehicles like rubber balls.
In the SWU, speeders are roughly the equivalent to the average car or truck, and walkers are roughly equivalent to tanks. Simply make a rule that the autofire rules can be applied to either fire control or damage as normal against targets that are the weapon's scale or one level higher, but can only be applied to fire control at targets that are two or more scale levels above.
This rule would also affect Speeder-Scale weapons with autofire capacity, in that they might be able to concentrate their fire sufficiently to damage a weak point on a more heavily armed walker (In real life, a 30mm cannon would be the equivalent of a Speeder-Scale Heavy Blaster Cannon, and the 30mm cannon on an A-10 Thunderbolt is capable of tearing the average tank to shreds if it attacks them from behind or above).
_________________
"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 |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | I still think the best and easy way is to go by scale. Looking at real life examples, and E-Web is roughly the equivalent of an M-2 .50 cal. Machinegun. This gun mows down infantry, and can do a number on vehicles, but bounces off tanks and armored vehicles like rubber balls.
In the SWU, speeders are roughly the equivalent to the average car or truck, and walkers are roughly equivalent to tanks. |
The .50 HMG makes short work of an 18-wheeler. Unfortunatlely the scales do not follow civilian/military. We have both speeder scaled tanks and walker scaled trucks. But if WEG would have been more consistent it would have been a good rule (and still is if you are prepared to 'wing it' when it starts to seem weird).
I guess winging it in few places is the best solution so far... 
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | The .50 HMG makes short work of an 18-wheeler. Unfortunatlely the scales do not follow civilian/military. We have both speeder scaled tanks and walker scaled trucks. But if WEG would have been more consistent it would have been a good rule (and still is if you are prepared to 'wing it' when it starts to seem weird).
I guess winging it in few places is the best solution so far... |
I suppose that issue hinges on whether or not you consider 18-wheelers to be speeders with high Body Strength and Low Maneuverability, or Walkers with Low Body Strength and Average Maneuverability.
When I tried to wrap my mind around WEG's vehicle inconsistencies, I usually end up putting the speeder-scale armored vehicles in the same class as vehicles like the LAV-25 or the Stryker. After all, with only a 2D scale difference, even the heaviest Imperial Repulsortanks gives up 1D in Body Strength to the Damage of an E-Web (and notice that the Light, Medium and Heavy Repulsortanks all have the same Body Strength. Someone wasn't doing a very good job fact checking the Adventure Journal that issue).
For myself, to make things a bit more "real-world" accurate, I leave the Light Repulsortank speeder scale, but change the scale on the Heavy and Medium Repulsortanks to Walker Scale, with all that that implies (less maneuverable, heavier armor, more firepower), and dropping the Body Strength of the Medium Repulsortank by 1D.
With all the emphasis on tanks, I'm surprised no one has ever bothered to do APCs or IFVs. Even the Imperial Sourcebook specifically mentions light transport vehicles as part of their Repulsorlift units, but we never ever see any stats for them. The closest I have seen is the Freerunner APC conversion in RoE. Doctrinally speaking, tanks always work best when supported by infantry. Has anyone ever done rules for why?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My favourite is the floating fortress (with higher altitude and downwards pointing guns, see my thread 'floating stupidity') when I want to harass the players. Otherwise I usually use the established walkers as they feel more SW-ish in a sense.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | My favourite is the floating fortress (with higher altitude and downwards pointing guns, see my thread 'floating stupidity') when I want to harass the players. Otherwise I usually use the established walkers as they feel more SW-ish in a sense. |
My theory on tanks needing infantry support was that, the larger a weapon got, the less effective it was at point blank range. A walker's Heavy Laser Cannon might be murder, but there would be no way it could traverse to target something right at its feet. The same would be true of tank turret guns, capital ship weaponry, etc. A weapon designed for ranged combat would have a very difficult time engaging a smaller scale target at point blank range.
For a repulsortank in close terrain, that would mean Rebel infantry could pop out of concealment right next to a tank and slap a shaped charge on it because the tank's guns wouldn't be able to depress sufficiently to target them. I vaguely recall that being how it works in real life, as well.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | My favourite is the floating fortress (with higher altitude and downwards pointing guns, see my thread 'floating stupidity') when I want to harass the players. Otherwise I usually use the established walkers as they feel more SW-ish in a sense. |
My theory on tanks needing infantry support was that, the larger a weapon got, the less effective it was at point blank range. A walker's Heavy Laser Cannon might be murder, but there would be no way it could traverse to target something right at its feet. The same would be true of tank turret guns, capital ship weaponry, etc. A weapon designed for ranged combat would have a very difficult time engaging a smaller scale target at point blank range.
For a repulsortank in close terrain, that would mean Rebel infantry could pop out of concealment right next to a tank and slap a shaped charge on it because the tank's guns wouldn't be able to depress sufficiently to target them. I vaguely recall that being how it works in real life, as well. |
Exactly. In my thread about the AT-ST I mention that I switched the (by the RAW) pointless lesser gun to a character scale E-web exactly for this reason.
Google the first russion invasion of Grozny for a good example on how to ambush tanks.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | Exactly. In my thread about the AT-ST I mention that I switched the (by the RAW) pointless lesser gun to a character scale E-web exactly for this reason.
Google the first russion invasion of Grozny for a good example on how to ambush tanks. |
I once saw a CGI image of an AT-ST modified with a ramped troop compartment at the rear. I always figured a clamshell-type hatch with retracting fast-rope lines made more sense, but what the heck. Bottom line, an AT-ST with its own rapid-deployment troop detachment would be much less vulnerable to the types of tactics the Ewoks used in ROTJ.
I did something similar on the AT-AT. It's got the two main laser cannon that are walker scale, then it has the two medium blaster cannon that are also Walker Scale, but with identical FC and 3D damage instead of 6D. I changed them to Speeder-Scale with FC of 3D and a Damage of 5D. After all, in ESB, an AT-AT can very clearly be seen to shoot down an airspeeder with those cannon.
I always figured an upgraded AT-AT would have an after turret with a single heavy laser to cover the arcs that the head turrets couldn't hit. I also figured a single blaster cannon mounted on the rear as well, but low enough that it could rotate 360 degrees and engage targets at the AT-AT's feet.
Speaking of the AT-AT, do you ascribe to the kneeling disembarkation method for troops, or the fast-rope lines?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
