Big guns and targeting (sort of a math question)

[Toadmaster]

Ok, something I have been playing around with is the idea that large guns (like vehicle weapons) are difficult to aim at close range, so I was looking at a -OCV (typically -1 to -4) but then the same amount added on the other end in RMOD (so if it should have an RMod of +3 but it has an OCV of -2 I would give a total Rmod of +5), so this way within a few meters the gun is so unweildy that it is somewhat to very inaccurate, but as range increases that -OCV is offset by the RMOd (still has a -2 OCV or whatever but the Range penalty and Rmod make up for it), so what you would get is a penalty to roll, followed by an area with no penalty and then finally range begins to take its toll. Does this make sense or am I missing something.

[Fox1]

Re: Big guns and targeting (sort of a math question)

 

The old HERO book Golden Age of Champions used a different method, which was basically an offensive version of the concentration limit. I forget the name they tagged on it, but it was intended to reflect slow transverse and elevation- but increased weapon stability.

 

In 5th edition terms it would halve your base OCV and provide increased RMods. Combined with the size modifiers of suitable targets (other vehicles, hexes, etc.), it provided a rather solid simulation of the effect for such a simple approach.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Big guns and targeting (sort of a math question)

 

I would create a Minimum Range Limitation for the weapon, you just can't get it to fire that close with any accuracy. And a note that standing in front of the barrel still hurts.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Big guns and targeting (sort of a math question)

 

I would probably put a Limitation on some or all PSLs bought for the weapon (just call it Always On since that isn't really useful for them normally and probably has about the right value). What this would do is impose a Range Penalty in reverse if you are inside the range where the limited PSLs reduce the Range Penalty to -0. I would eliminate the penalty if the attacker uses the Set maneuver, and fix it at half its original value if the attacker is Set but the target moved during his/her last Phase.

 

For example, say an emplaced weapon has +4 vs. range. With my Limitation, it would suffer a -0 as normal between 9" and 16". From 5-8" it would suffer a -2, and from 0-4" a -4. If the attacker Sets, this drops to -0 for a stationary target and -1 (9-16") or -2 (0-4") for a moving target.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Big guns and targeting (sort of a math question)

 

I asked much the same question in my minigun thread. Doesn't FREd have an official mechanic to deal with how easy/ difficult it is to aim a ranged weapon at targets who are adjacent or at close range?

 

I suppose I'll have to hit the books if no one has it at the top of their head.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Big guns and targeting (sort of a math question)

 

I asked much the same question in my minigun thread. Doesn't FREd have an official mechanic to deal with how easy/ difficult it is to aim a ranged weapon at targets who are adjacent or at close range?

 

I suppose I'll have to hit the books if no one has it at the top of their head.

Hmm. I don't think so. Not in the main book anyhow.

[Old Man]

Re: Big guns and targeting (sort of a math question)

 

Maybe just make the weapon -X OCV straight out.

 

Then add +R PSLs and +OCV Only at Ranges longer than X" (Targetting Systems, OIF)