Static range for blasters and other ranged weapons

[CRMcNeill]

[Ning Leihrec]

Truly, but doable on the fly if necessary.

Amending my earlier atmosphere ranges... There's no need for speeders to skip categories. Their speed code allows them to cross each faster anyway. It's really a matter of limits to small arms and vehicle mounted weapons. Small arms would be limited to Long Range (with few exceptions ie heavy sniper rifle maxing out at very long), and vehicles would be ineffective at point blank. Extreme range would be the reach of blaster artillery (also with exceptions such as the heavy guns on an AT AT walker).


Atmosphere Ranges:
Point Blank --- Small Arms
Short --- Small Arms / Vehicle
Medium --- Small Arms / Vehicle
Long --- Small Arms / Vehicle
Very Long (out-of-unaided-sight) --- Vehicle
Extreme --- blaster artillery / walker cannons

[CRMcNeill]

The problem is that not all speeder-scale weapons are going to be mobile; there is a lot of fixed emplacement speeder and walker scale weaponry. On top of that, there is also ballistic artillery, with ranges measured in dozens of kilometers (although those could conceivably be upgraded to Atmosphere range from Ground Vehicle). Most modern militaries use vehicle mounted support weaponry (heavy machine guns, guided missile launchers, etc.) from stationary firing positions, so vehicle speed is not always going to be a factor.

That being said, overlapping personal weapons and vehicle weapons is a workable solution, if somewhat more complicated than I was envisioning. There should still be a range at which even walker can see a target but are still too far out of range to engage it...
_________________
"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

[Ning Leihrec]

The more I consider implementing this the more I like the scale-based ranges from the earlier post. It addresses practically everything I'm trying to rework into the terrain ranges. How do you see the terrain ranges breaking down? Is it really simpler than scale?

[CRMcNeill]

I think the key question is less the scale of the combatants than it is where the combat is occuring. Ground? Indoors? Outdoors? Atmosphere? Space? Answer that and you have a benchmark to work from.
_________________
"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

[Naaman]

When I was deployed, I was a machine gunner on a HMMWV. My primary gun was the .50 cal machine gun (a primarily anti-aircraft round fired from a "speeder scale" gun), but I also roade with a light and medium machine gun at times, both of which would be personal scale.

Due to the ergonmics of each gun, engagements at close ranges were more or less difficult. The solution for someone getting "under the gun" was to simply switch weapons to the pistol or rifle or shotgun (I had all three within arms reach).

In the case of capitol ships, Id say there might be smaller scale guns to protect the bigger ones, or else they would have to rely on friendly fighters to keep enemy fighters at bay.

In any case, its my opinion that the scale modifiers are adequate to account for these scenarios, especially if we have bonuses to hit at medium and long ranges for the bigger guns, with penalties at close ranges.

Also, speaking from experience, the fire control systems (in my case, the turret and mounting hardware) could impose a penalty instead of a bonus in the ranges where the system becomes a hinderance to target acquisition.

[CRMcNeill]

What terminology does the military use to distinguish between close combat with personal weapons and the longer ranged weapons? I'd almost consider an E-Web or similar weapon as light artillery.
_________________
"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

[Naaman]

I would equate the EWHB to a .50 cal, which is a "crew served" weapon. That means that it takes two (or more) people to operate it at peak efficiency. If the weapon is mounted to a fixed location such as a turret or a weapon emplacement, a single person can operate it just fine, though.

Generally speaking, anythhing that fires ball ammunition (that is "bullets") is considered "small arms." The .50, however, somewhat defies this classification because it is deadly at ranges far beyond what people can even see, and can take down aircraft and other vehicles quite effectively.

Other than small arms, you have indirect fire (artillery). Tanks can generally engage point targets or lob their shots like artillary does, but this is beyond my knowledge/training of land warfare. I know mext to nothing about aerial combat or maritime warfare, other than whatever might happen to overlap.

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]

In fact, it might be worth shifting the ranges on sniper rifles up to vehicle scale, as they are used to hit targets at ranges in excess of what can be seen with the naked eye. Basically, the Character / Small Arms range bracket would be the ranges at which things can be detected and engaged without some form of assistance (like a scope).
_________________
"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

[Naaman]

With respect to the .50 cal being artillery, I know the US Navy uses a set up whereby 4 guns are linked together on a rotating platform. I believe it is primarily uses for air defenße, though I suspect it could just as easily be used ship to ship.

The US Army military police also have a set up that links a .50 cal with a Mk19 (fully auto grenade launcher). The weapon can be fired as linked providex the target is at least 300m out or they can be fired individually.

Im not sure if field rtillery units use heavy machine guns for close range defense, but I do know that tanks and heavy wheeled vehicles (such as the stryker) have provisions for machine guns to be mounted for close range defense.

Generally speaking, I would consider artillery to be at least walker scale and often starfighter scale. And while starfightee scale pushes the limits of what the E-Web can do, I guess it helps to remember that the game rules werent designed with real-world counterparts in mind.

[CRMcNeill]

[Naaman]

Ah! Yousa point is well seen.

For what its worth, the 82nd Airborne Infantry are known to air drop with .50 cals. Granted: it does take a little bit to set up (I forget what the army's standard is, but I want to say that the expectation to dismount a weapon from a hmmwv and set it up on a tripod is somewhere in the low two-minute range for two people, while a third person provides security; again, memory is foggy, but I believe my crew were able to do it in under a minute).

That being said, it would be much easier to sling a couple of AT-4s on some soldiers for taking down heavy targets while relying on 240Bs for anti-personnel work. The Rangers (Americas top light infantry unit) for example, dont even use .50 cals for their day-to-day work, though Im sure they have access to whatever they want.

There are also under-slung grenade launchers commonly available. There are traditionally 2 per squad, but we MPs carried 4.

An assault unit would generally need some means of breaching (AT-4 could do this) as well as plenty of firepower to dominate battle from long to close range. Also keep in mind that an assault unit could be mounted, in which case a .50 cal is far preferable to a 240, while a Mk19 is somewhat of a nich weapon (collateral damage could be a liability), but can be good for popping vehicles emplacements with HEDP rounds.

All in all, ground fighting units generally have access to a wide variety of options for taking out various types of individual targets, while true artillery is used to lay waste to entire areas, fotified or not. Of course, like you said, this can be scaled down: even the light infantry have mortars which can hit targets that arent within line of sight (Rangers, and regular infantry including Marines, if Im not mistaken, have motarmen as a special classification within the MOS). For what its worth, a standard mortar is more or less identical to a frag grenade in terms of lethality.

[CRMcNeill]

[RyanDarkstar]

Wouldn't the MobileMortar-3 be a good fit for the Heavy Weapons Repulsorlift Squads?
_________________
Currently playing D&D 5E and painting an unholy amount of miniatures.