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

How Piloting Affects Fire Control
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> How Piloting Affects Fire Control Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fallon Kell wrote:
The lack of explicitly stated swivel mounts doesn't preclude their existence. There are several things on an X-wing laser cannon that could be swivel mounts, or they could just be hidden, or they could be non-mechanical and directly bend the beam. They never did shoot at anything except what was in front of them, which makes sense since you generally fly towards what you attack. If the X-wings were behind the TIEs during the trench run, we may have seen their guns swivel.


At this point, I'm beginning to think you are retconning the films themselves just to fit your specific interpretation of WEG's rules. The only starfighter in the entire SWU that could be argued to have this type of mounting system, based on film evidence, is Vader's prototype TIE. Based on WEG's own stats, only the A-Wing has something resembling swiveling mounted cannon, and those cannon only rotate in the vertical axis.


Quote:
Also, the very definition of fire control implies the direction of the weapon by the system. I'd put modern fighter gunsights in a different category.


Actually, the definition of fire control (per Merriam-Webster) is "the planning, preparation and delivery of fire on targets." The definition from the DoD's Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms defines a fire control system as "A group of interrelated fire control equipments and/or instruments designed for use with a weapon or group of weapons." At no point does it say that those systems must include a swivel mount. While most modern weaponry is found in a turret mount of some kind, the lone exception is cannon weaponry on modern fighter aircraft. Even in the era of WWII, which George based starfighter combat on, fighters mounted fixed forward machineguns only. Only bombers and other strike craft had turrets, and those were for defensive purposes only.

Bottom line, I really think you are overreaching on this, not to mention completely ignoring the role that gunsights play in assisting the targeting of a fixed forward weapon. You are welcome to play however you want, but this idea is really just too far off base for me.
_________________
"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
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
Fallon Kell wrote:
The lack of explicitly stated swivel mounts doesn't preclude their existence. There are several things on an X-wing laser cannon that could be swivel mounts, or they could just be hidden, or they could be non-mechanical and directly bend the beam. They never did shoot at anything except what was in front of them, which makes sense since you generally fly towards what you attack. If the X-wings were behind the TIEs during the trench run, we may have seen their guns swivel.


At this point, I'm beginning to think you are retconning the films themselves just to fit your specific interpretation of WEG's rules. The only starfighter in the entire SWU that could be argued to have this type of mounting system, based on film evidence, is Vader's prototype TIE. Based on WEG's own stats, only the A-Wing has something resembling swiveling mounted cannon, and those cannon only rotate in the vertical axis.
Actually, WEG conveniently bookends with how I independently understand the SW universe in this instance. Slave 1 obviously had swivel guns, and the absence of off-boresight shots from other fighters isn't proof that they can't perform those shots.
crmcneill wrote:

Quote:
Also, the very definition of fire control implies the direction of the weapon by the system. I'd put modern fighter gunsights in a different category.


Actually, the definition of fire control (per Merriam-Webster) is "the planning, preparation and delivery of fire on targets." The definition from the DoD's Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms defines a fire control system as "A group of interrelated fire control equipments and/or instruments designed for use with a weapon or group of weapons." At no point does it say that those systems must include a swivel mount. While most modern weaponry is found in a turret mount of some kind, the lone exception is cannon weaponry on modern fighter aircraft. Even in the era of WWII, which George based starfighter combat on, fighters mounted fixed forward machineguns only. Only bombers and other strike craft had turrets, and those were for defensive purposes only.
If you look at a fire control system, though, you have more than an iron sight. Modern fire control systems will sometimes control turrets, or sometimes control the flightpath of guided missiles, or trigger the release of bombs at the correct time, but the one thing they all have in common is they control the destination of the weapon.
crmcneill wrote:

Bottom line, I really think you are overreaching on this, not to mention completely ignoring the role that gunsights play in assisting the targeting of a fixed forward weapon. You are welcome to play however you want, but this idea is really just too far off base for me.

I'm not ignoring gunsights, but I don't see how in the world you could get a gunsight that gave you +4D to targeting. The very very best should only yield about +1D, and those should demand experience and training to use. If you want to call that over-reaching, that's your prerogative.

I may be just a crack-brained reactionary, but I've actually thought this stuff out for quite awhile.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
garhkal wrote:
Which my chart shows.. The better "angle" is just descriptive"..
I think we are talking at cross purposes. My original comment was not in reply to your chart, but to crmcneil's top post. It just happened to list after your post. Your chart provides a bonus for better piloting, but no specific angle of attack. We are approaching this from different angles. Pun intended. You chose a increasing bonus for better piloting.


Perhaps we are indeed seeing this from different angles...
_________________
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: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fallon Kell wrote:
Actually, WEG conveniently bookends with how I independently understand the SW universe in this instance. Slave 1 obviously had swivel guns, and the absence of off-boresight shots from other fighters isn't proof that they can't perform those shots.


Slave 1 is the custom ship of one of the galaxy's best bounty hunters, not a mass produced fighter craft. Even the WEG stats give it special twin-mounted blaster cannon, and those were on the ESB version (look closely in AOTC, and you will see the tracking cannon fire from the Slave I is coming from a point below and to one side of the cockpit, not the "chin" cannon seen in ESB).

As far as WEG evidence, the only official starfighter stat to include swivel mounted cannon is the A-Wing, and they only swivel vertically. If swivel mounted cannon are the sole reason for fire control dice ratings in WEG, why don't all the rest of the write-ups for starfighters include the notation of swivel mounting?

I have seen swivel mountings used to great effect in starfighter combat in other genres, but not Star Wars (excepting special cases like Slave I and Vader's TIEx1). Putting aside the perilous logic of "just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there", let's assume that all of the starfighters in the SWU are equipped with swivel mounted cannon, which is the sole explanation for their fire control dice. It seems logical that such a weapon system would have visual evidence in the SWU, specifically of some starfighter firing its forward mounted lasers in battle, since that is where weapon accuracy would be the most critical. Yet I can't recall a single instance where weaponry was seen to fire off-axis from the firing starfighter's flight path (except for the two special cases I mentioned above).


Quote:
If you look at a fire control system, though, you have more than an iron sight. Modern fire control systems will sometimes control turrets, or sometimes control the flightpath of guided missiles, or trigger the release of bombs at the correct time, but the one thing they all have in common is they control the destination of the weapon.


More specifically, they allow the gunner to control the destination of the weapon. That means that, in a SWU starfighter, you may have a fire control system that calculates the speed and trajectory of a targeted enemy starfighter, then calculates both an intercept course and a likely firing angle that will allow the pilot to maneuver his starfighter so that his fixed-forward weaponry is placed at an optimum angle to hit his target and do damage. Such a system might include visual indicators on the HUD or audio signals that play in the cockpit to advise the pilot when to fire. All of these are systems that exist right now that increase a pilot's accuracy with fixed forward weaponry. They are also systems that are much more in keeping with the visual evidence of the films, with regards to fire control systems on starfighters.


Quote:
I'm not ignoring gunsights, but I don't see how in the world you could get a gunsight that gave you +4D to targeting. The very very best should only yield about +1D, and those should demand experience and training to use.


There are other aspects that come into play as well. Fire Control in general is an indicator of how likely it is that a weapon system will hit and do damage. A weapon with 4D Fire Control could have a very high fire rate, and be able to put a lot of energy in space at the same time, thus increasing the likelihood of a hit. Plus, the major limiting factor in combat aircraft design today are the physical limitations of the pilot (as in how many g's can he pull; I think the max is 9 g's for short periods). In the SWU, with one-seat fighters being equipped with acceleration compensators, they can reef into incredibly tight turns and bring their guns to bear with far more speed and accuracy than anything modern fighter craft are capable of.

I'm not saying that swivel mounted cannon don't exist in the SWU, nor am I saying that I think it's a bad idea; I've actually reworked the stats on the autoblaster cannon to do just what you are describing. What I'm saying is that there is no film evidence to support this system being standard equipment on starfighters (not to mention in the novels and other official material), and that (IMO) it is a mistake to ignore all the other possible sources of a high fire control rating in favor of this single idea.
_________________
"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
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:

As far as WEG evidence, the only official starfighter stat to include swivel mounted cannon is the A-Wing, and they only swivel vertically. If swivel mounted cannon are the sole reason for fire control dice ratings in WEG, why don't all the rest of the write-ups for starfighters include the notation of swivel mounting?
At +/- 60 degrees, the A wing's guns can swivel out of their normal fire arc. The 180 degree modified ones can hit behind them. Vader's TIE doesn't mention swivel guns in the WEG stats either.
crmcneill wrote:

I have seen swivel mountings used to great effect in starfighter combat in other genres, but not Star Wars (excepting special cases like Slave I and Vader's TIEx1). Putting aside the perilous logic of "just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there", let's assume that all of the starfighters in the SWU are equipped with swivel mounted cannon, which is the sole explanation for their fire control dice. It seems logical that such a weapon system would have visual evidence in the SWU, specifically of some starfighter firing its forward mounted lasers in battle, since that is where weapon accuracy would be the most critical. Yet I can't recall a single instance where weaponry was seen to fire off-axis from the firing starfighter's flight path (except for the two special cases I mentioned above).
Off-boresight targeting while flying, while easier than lead-computing gunsights to learn, is a difficult task. Since you normally fly toward what you're shooting at, and since wide angles of off boresight shooting is such a distracting proposition, most of the shots we see in Star Wars are probably aided only by minute adjustments made by the fire control system. The more advanced pilots like Vader and Fett are obviously more confident, and more likely to use their guns' swivel abilities to maintain fire on their quarries, or avoid colliding with Death Star trench walls.
crmcneill wrote:

Quote:
If you look at a fire control system, though, you have more than an iron sight. Modern fire control systems will sometimes control turrets, or sometimes control the flightpath of guided missiles, or trigger the release of bombs at the correct time, but the one thing they all have in common is they control the destination of the weapon.


More specifically, they allow the gunner to control the destination of the weapon. That means that, in a SWU starfighter, you may have a fire control system that calculates the speed and trajectory of a targeted enemy starfighter, then calculates both an intercept course and a likely firing angle that will allow the pilot to maneuver his starfighter so that his fixed-forward weaponry is placed at an optimum angle to hit his target and do damage. Such a system might include visual indicators on the HUD or audio signals that play in the cockpit to advise the pilot when to fire. All of these are systems that exist right now that increase a pilot's accuracy with fixed forward weaponry. They are also systems that are much more in keeping with the visual evidence of the films, with regards to fire control systems on starfighters.
Not really. If a CCRP bombing system wants to drop a bomb 50 feet shy of it's target, there's not a dang thing the pilot or gunner can do about it. The gunner only tells the fire control what to hit and when it can fire. The fire control guides the weapon.

In SWU fighters, we've seen views of shots from the cockpit (like the battle of Yavin) and there was no HUD aiming cue. We've also seen a fire control computer switched off because it would cause Luke to miss. This implies that it, not he, is actually aiming the weapon itself.
crmcneill wrote:

Quote:
I'm not ignoring gunsights, but I don't see how in the world you could get a gunsight that gave you +4D to targeting. The very very best should only yield about +1D, and those should demand experience and training to use.


There are other aspects that come into play as well. Fire Control in general is an indicator of how likely it is that a weapon system will hit and do damage. A weapon with 4D Fire Control could have a very high fire rate, and be able to put a lot of energy in space at the same time, thus increasing the likelihood of a hit.

TIEs have a very high fire rate, but 2D fire control. Repeating blasters have a high fire rate and no fire control. Turbolasers have a low fire rate and often higher fire control than TIEs.
crmcneill wrote:

I'm not saying that swivel mounted cannon don't exist in the SWU, nor am I saying that I think it's a bad idea; I've actually reworked the stats on the autoblaster cannon to do just what you are describing. What I'm saying is that there is no film evidence to support this system being standard equipment on starfighters (not to mention in the novels and other official material), and that (IMO) it is a mistake to ignore all the other possible sources of a high fire control rating in favor of this single idea.

I don't think we even see ISDs firing off boresight in the movies. (Maybe in RotJ, or very rarely in the asteroid field.) I've never seen anyone argue that an ISD doesn't have swivel guns from film evidence.

I'm not ignoring all the other sources of a high fire-control either. I'm just saying that swivel mounts are an integral part of most laser cannon fire control systems.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fallon Kell wrote:
At +/- 60 degrees, the A wing's guns can swivel out of their normal fire arc. The 180 degree modified ones can hit behind them. Vader's TIE doesn't mention swivel guns in the WEG stats either.


Yet another example of why WEG stats should not be taken as gospel.

My version of the TIEx1 stats replaces the dual lasers with dual autoblasters (see the stats on the B-Wing). The back story on these is that they were designed as a weapon that would allow TIE fighters to shoot down missiles or torpedoes being fired at the TIE's mothership (as well as being particularly deadly in a fight). The short version of the rules is based on the visual evidence of the film, with Vader's cannon firing while tracking to the right at the Y-Wing. Every shot fired at the target adds a +1D bonus to the next shot, up to a maximum of +4D, in addition to the fighter's electronic fire control system.


Quote:
Off-boresight targeting while flying, while easier than lead-computing gunsights to learn, is a difficult task. Since you normally fly toward what you're shooting at, and since wide angles of off boresight shooting is such a distracting proposition, most of the shots we see in Star Wars are probably aided only by minute adjustments made by the fire control system.


My point is that, if your system was commonplace in the SWU, there would be some sort of visual evidence of it in the films, but apart from the two specific examples, all fighter mounted weaponry seems to fire directly ahead. There is even mention in the first X-Wing novel of Wedge's X-Wing having its laser cannon zeroed at 500 meters (as in, if all four cannon were fired at once, their beams would intersect 500 meters in front of the X-Wing). If the cannon on X-Wing were swivel mounted, they wouldn't need to be zeroed at a set range because they could automatically adjust themselves to zero at the optimum range to the target.


Quote:
Not really. If a CCRP bombing system wants to drop a bomb 50 feet shy of it's target, there's not a dang thing the pilot or gunner can do about it. The gunner only tells the fire control what to hit and when it can fire. The fire control guides the weapon.


Conversely, if a swivel mounted auto-aiming system is not properly adjusted, it will automatically miss its target, and there won't be a thing the pilot/gunner can do about it. However, if the starfighter's weapon systems are fixed-forward, the pilot can manually adjust his in-cockpit targeting system to account for the missed shot and try again.

Quote:
In SWU fighters, we've seen views of shots from the cockpit (like the battle of Yavin) and there was no HUD aiming cue. We've also seen a fire control computer switched off because it would cause Luke to miss. This implies that it, not he, is actually aiming the weapon itself.


As far as the HUD aiming cue, you are technically correct. However, there was the in-cockpit targeting screen that showed Luke when he had a TIE in his sights, completely with flashing crosshairs that told him when to fire. With swiveling guns, he could've just opened fire and the guns would've automatically tracked whatever he was shooting at until he got a hit, just like Vader did.

Also, to be technically correct, we see Luke deliberately switch off his targeting computer because Obi-wan Kenobi told him to. No other reason is given, and any reason above and beyond that is pure assumption.


Quote:
TIEs have a very high fire rate, but 2D fire control.
Repeating blasters have a high fire rate and no fire control. Turbolasers have a low fire rate and often higher fire control than TIEs.


As I said, other aspects come into play.

TIEs have a very high fire rate with 2D fire control, but they are also cheap and mass produced, and are used most effectively in large swarming attacks. The cheap, mass-produced mindset very likely extended to the targeting computer as well, because TIEs are intended to be used in group attacks (i.e. even if one TIE pilot can't hit his target, the other eleven guys shooting at the same target greatly increase the odds of a hit).

Not sure what your point is on the repeating blasters, since they are usually character scale, and at that level, fire control is usually a scope or a pair of eyeballs. Plus, in the case of the E-Web, it could very easily be argued that the reason it inflicts 8D damage is because it fires blaster fire at a cyclic rate at one target.

Turbolasers are also a 6D scale step above the lasers on TIEs, which means that any ship mounted turbolaser would have to have a Fire Control of 8D to be as accurate as the laser cannon on a TIE. Also, unlike the fixed-forward weaponry on a starfighter, capital ship turbolasers are generally turret mounted, and can actually track and elevate to fire off-axis shots at their targets. My original premise was intended solely for starfighters with one crewman controlling both the piloting and the weaponry, not for capital ships, or even for space transports where piloting and gunnery are separate crew duties.


Quote:
I don't think we even see ISDs firing off boresight in the movies. (Maybe in RotJ, or very rarely in the asteroid field.) I've never seen anyone argue that an ISD doesn't have swivel guns from film evidence.


And I'm not arguing it now, because both film evidence and the ship design (The ILM model that actually shows flank turrets) do not support it. Film evidence clearly shows cannon firing off-axis on multiple occasions. The same cannot be said for the film's mass-produced starfighters.

Quote:
I'm not ignoring all the other sources of a high fire-control either. I'm just saying that swivel mounts are an integral part of most laser cannon fire control systems.


Ok, if that was your intent, then I apologize. My reading of what you wrote made it seem as though swivel mounted cannon were the only reason for Fire Control rating, and that just seemed so off that I had to debate the point. I still don't think film evidence supports your idea, but if you want to play it that way in your world, more power to you.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:

Quote:
I'm not ignoring all the other sources of a high fire-control either. I'm just saying that swivel mounts are an integral part of most laser cannon fire control systems.


Ok, if that was your intent, then I apologize. My reading of what you wrote made it seem as though swivel mounted cannon were the only reason for Fire Control rating, and that just seemed so off that I had to debate the point. I still don't think film evidence supports your idea, but if you want to play it that way in your world, more power to you.

Okay, well let me clarify what I am saying. I think the basis of most fire control systems in SW, especially those attached to laser cannons is a swivel mount or electronic beam-bending device that allows a gunner to aim his weapons off the boresight of the fighter. This device is linked to aim-assist software not unlike the aim-assist algorithms we find in modern first person shooters like Halo. The gunner in an X-wing, for example, would likely have a thumb stick or other similar device used to slew his weapons around in his forward arc. When these weapons were pointed near a target, the aim assist software would come into play and automatically track with the target. The gunner could then finely adjust his aim without having to worry about tracking the target.

This is still a very difficult proposition, however, in the heat of combat while trying to fly a spaceship. Most pilots prefer to just point their nose directly at the target and let the auto aim take care of the small adjustments (of a degree or two) required to actually hit the target.

Fire control computers will also provide readouts (HUDs, screens, holograms, etc.) that attempt to predict an enemy's flightpath, compute lead, and confirm when a gun is properly aimed to hit.

I've mentioned most of the reasons I have for this idea, but cardinal among them is the fact that I can see no other system that could provide such high bonuses to the aiming of "ballistic" "projectiles" like blaster bolts. 2D fire control represents the same benefit as 4 gunners working together to hit a target.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I don't agree, but then, neither of us has to.
_________________
"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
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And I can't argue with that! Smile
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How should a target's Speed Code affect dogfighting? For instance, if a TIE (Space 10) has an X-Wing (Space 8) on its tail, should it receive a bonus to evade since it can pull away from the X? Conversely, would a TIE on the tail of an X-Wing have a bonus since it can keep up with the X without having to use all of its speed? Should any bonuses from Speed be negated if the leading craft makes a sudden maneuver and tricks his pursuer into overshooting?

Thoughts?
_________________
"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
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
How should a target's Speed Code affect dogfighting? For instance, if a TIE (Space 10) has an X-Wing (Space 8) on its tail, should it receive a bonus to evade since it can pull away from the X? Conversely, would a TIE on the tail of an X-Wing have a bonus since it can keep up with the X without having to use all of its speed? Should any bonuses from Speed be negated if the leading craft makes a sudden maneuver and tricks his pursuer into overshooting?

Thoughts?


I ususally convert the Space rating into D:s, add it together with the Maneuverability bonus and Piloting skill. This is of course depending on what the pilots do. If they just try to outpower while maneuvering then I add them. If theres any kind of sudden trick only Maneuverability is added (but intstead a plain Piloting roll is needed to pull it off in the first place).

When it comes to fighters I normally assume then do not have swivel mounts, but not totally fixed weapons either. As said above, I assume that small adjustments are made by the weapon system to come completely on target, but any large shifts in firing direction must be done with the ship. This is normally made with the firing pilot trying to beat the targets piloting roll to get into firing position. A really good result may give a bonus to firing, but I have no hard rules. I never assume you can fire 45 degrees to the side with the front weapons if the weapon is not supposed to be controlled by a dedicated gunner.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZzaphodD wrote:
I ususally convert the Space rating into D:s, add it together with the Maneuverability bonus and Piloting skill. This is of course depending on what the pilots do. If they just try to outpower while maneuvering then I add them. If theres any kind of sudden trick only Maneuverability is added (but intstead a plain Piloting roll is needed to pull it off in the first place).


I was considering going with the difference in Space ratings as a D value (i.e. if the TIE has a Space of 10 and the X-Wing has a Space of 8, the difference between the two is 2, for 2D) which is applied as a bonus/penalty depending on the situation. For instance, a faster fighter applies the bonus to piloting rolls when leading or trailing in a dog fight, but when trailing, if its target makes a sudden maneuver, the pursuer's greater speed is more likely to cause him to overshoot (-2D to Starfighter Piloting if his target makes a sudden maneuver).


Quote:
When it comes to fighters I normally assume then do not have swivel mounts, but not totally fixed weapons either. As said above, I assume that small adjustments are made by the weapon system to come completely on target, but any large shifts in firing direction must be done with the ship. This is normally made with the firing pilot trying to beat the targets piloting roll to get into firing position. A really good result may give a bonus to firing, but I have no hard rules. I never assume you can fire 45 degrees to the side with the front weapons if the weapon is not supposed to be controlled by a dedicated gunner.


I'm using a combination of the rules suggested earlier in this topic:

Roll opposed Starfighter Piloting skills, then compare the results to the following table:
0-4 = Maneuvering (Neither fighter has a shot)
5-8 = Head-To-Head (Both sides have a shot at +5 Difficulty)
9-12 = Deflection Shot (One fighter crosses in front of the other at near right angles. The attacker has a shot at +10 Difficulty, but the defender reacts at +10 Difficulty)
13+ = Tail Shot (Attacking fighter is on the defender's tail in perfect firing position. Defender can only try to evade; it can't shoot back).

Special Rules for fixed-forward weapons:
1) Pilots can use their Starfighter Piloting and Starfighter Gunnery skills in the same round without incurring a MAP. However, they still incur MAPs as normal when firing multiple shots
2) Because the accuracy of fixed-forward weapons is highly dependent on how well the pilot orients his fighter, the fighter who wins the opposed Starfighter Piloting roll (mentioned above) receives a +1 bonus to Starship Gunnery for every 3 points by which the roll succeeded.
_________________
"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
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont have a fixed table. Instead I describe the situation, the players tell me what they want to achieve and then roll the dice vs the opponent (with a penalty if they want to do something difficult). If they win with 5+ (usually) they get into position (for example tailing the opponent).. Theres a lot of hands 'flying' in the air involved....

When it comes to fire fixed weapons, I just juse the normal rules (Maps). However, I dont allow firing turrets (if not fixed forward) while flying so fixed forward mounted weapons are the only ones you can use while flying to begin with.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4866

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Certainly speed could make a difference, though I'm not sure I would put any additional mechanics on the system beyond what advantage is already represented. The main thing that makes something hard to hit is how readily it moves from its current position with regards to your sights. Assuming that the target is within your sights and moved in a trajectory still directly within your sights doesn't really affect your ability to hit it. If it's dead on, it's still dead on. Depending on how far away the target is, I may apply some slight penalty given that things are seldom ever DIRECTLY in the middle of the sights, though that penalty would only coincide with that target moving from short to medium range or medium to long range.

If we're talking about other ability of a starfighter to move in and out of someone's sights, that's usually accounted for in its maneuverability. Assume someone made a "target practice rocket" with a space rating of 10, but no ability to alter its trajectory. Assuming that the fighter has a rating of 6 or 7, I don't think that such a thing is going to be so substantially harder to hit than a similar rocket with a rating of 7. If a quick starfighter is zippy enough to get in and out of sights, I would assume that a smart game designer would bump up the maneuverability to represent that zip-factor.

Though it is certainly not the case straight across the board, it seems as though many of the D6 starships are designed in such a way that those which have the higher space rating also tend to have a higher maneuverability.
_________________
__________________________________
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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZzaphodD wrote:
I dont have a fixed table. Instead I describe the situation, the players tell me what they want to achieve and then roll the dice vs the opponent (with a penalty if they want to do something difficult). If they win with 5+ (usually) they get into position (for example tailing the opponent).. Theres a lot of hands 'flying' in the air involved....


I like Bren's chart approach because, having watched more than a few episodes of Dogfights, the scenarios seem to fit with known dogfighting situations like the head-to-head, the deflection shot, etc. The RAW for dogfighting (as featured in the Rebel Alliance sourcebook) includes the opposed skill roll method, and includes plenty of maneuvers for when one fighter is on another's tail, but it includes little detail on the maneuvering required to get into position. Personally, I'd like to see more streamlined rules on the opening phases of starfighter combat: how sensor ranges allow a fighter to detect their enemy first, the advantages provided by superior training and tactics, the effectiveness of flight controllers, etc.


Quote:
When it comes to fire fixed weapons, I just juse the normal rules (Maps). However, I dont allow firing turrets (if not fixed forward) while flying so fixed forward mounted weapons are the only ones you can use while flying to begin with.


There's something to be said for that as well. Maybe rather than a bonus based on how well the pilot rolled his Starfighter Piloting roll, a pilot could split his maneuver dice similar to how we run auto-fire; he can use his fighter's maneuverability to perform difficult maneuvers or to line up a shot with fixed forward weapons, and he has to decide which way he is going to split the dice at the beginning of the round.
_________________
"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
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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