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

Artillery.
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Gamemasters -> Artillery. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9821
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Not necessarily the case, since we have self propelled howitzers in rl.

But those howitzer still meet the underlying criteria that defines them as a howitzer, regardless of the chassis on which they are mounted.

A lot of the terminology used to define and classify artillery is itself centuries old, and specific to this planet. Considering that any artillery weapon in the SWU is going to have a lot of advanced technology, allowing it to operate in direct-fire (cannon/gun), low- to mid- indirect fire (howitzer) and mid-to high indirect fire (mortars), I'm hesitant to use terminology that locks a weapon into a specific description.

Quote:
Tell that to the designers of that spider legged AT-MT.

The MT-AT was designed specifically for operation in rugged mountain terrain, and introduced by an independent post-Imperial faction. Now, seeing as how the EU's later stages have basically collapsed in favor of the new canon, and since there is a definite niche in the Imperial military for a vehicle like this.

However, the Imperial military isn't going to build an entirely new experimental walker chassis for its experimental weapon system. A conservatively minded organization like the Empire is going to use an existing platform like the AT-TE or AT-AT, then, once the experimental weapon proves its reliability, future experimental designs become possible.

Short of writing up stats, I see a few possibilities...
    1). A unit based on either the cargo variant of the AT-AT from Rogue One or the AT-TE from AOTC/ROTS, with the Launcher Pod from the AT-AA replacing the upper portion of the top deck (or the dorsal gun on the AT-TE). This variant would lose most of its troop transport capacity in trade for the launcher, but would retain a squad for either spotting or local security. It would carry several probe / spotter droids (Vipers, probably, since they have both film-cred and the perfect mission fit). The end result is an independent artillery unit capable of providing its own scouting, target designation and site security.

    2). My proposed artillery variant of the AT-AA. It lacks the versatility of #1, and is designed more to fit into a combined arms unit with other, more conventional walkers like the AT-AT and AT-AT in the scout and assault roles.

    3). A "mountain howitzer" variant of the MT-AT, with the stock cargo pod replaced with an artillery pod. This design assumes an earlier introduction date for the base MT-AT than that indicated by the KJA novels, and would be more likely developed in reaction to Alliance successes in unconventional warfare against the Empire, as well as their penchant for building bases in inaccessible terrain.
Ultimately, I could see all three designs having their own place, with #1 being a test-bed platform that ultimately went into limited production.

Quote:
Body strength, sure its the same. Speed, yes it's faster, but not by much.. And cause OF it's stability (8 legs vs 4) it has better maneuvering. So how's about its maneuverability is lost when the AT'HP sets up to fire..

The problem is that an experimental octoped drive system is going to make it more vulnerable to damage due to both the greater complexity and the fact that something new and experimental won't have had a lot of time (compared to other, more conventional walkers) to work out the bugs and design flaws.

The speed puts this thing halfway between an AT-AT (60kmh) and an AT-ST (90kmh) when historic self-propelled artillery has lacked the speed to keep up with tanks and scouts.

As far as Maneuverability, most Artillery can't fire on the move, and has to halt and unlimber before it can fire. I'm willing to bet some artillery in a high-tech setting will be able to fire on the move, but I'm guessing it still decreases accuracy. Maybe a -1D for firing on the move and a +1D for a taking a round to stop and lock the legs.


Quote:
I went speeder scale as a base for most artillery shells.. Walker for Anti=vehicle, cha scale for AP shells.. I could see upping it to walker scale and dropping the base shells to say 4d+2 damage.. As to the name, heavy grav-launcher doesn't fit.. BUT i suck at coming up with sci-fi sounding names for modern tech..

It just doesn't make sense to me to put a Speeder-scale main gun on a Walker-scale vehicle. Depending on which scale system you're using, there is only either a 2D or 4D gap between Speeder- and Walker-scale.

Quote:
Its like a # of canon ships. FIre a weapon from the designated spot (like a Y-wings turret ion cannon fired from it's 2nd seat) you get the fire control.
Fire it from the cockpit, and you lose the fire control (Or it goes down)..
So by that logic, firing it with spotters gives you a FC bonus. Fire indirectly (without spotters) and you have none.

My thinking is that, regardless of whether spotting is being used or not, the gun crew will be the ones doing the actual calculation. Any sort of target spotting would provide a bonus to FC, not count as remote firing. The only exception would be if the cannon were being remote fired from the walkers command deck instead of the firing station.

Quote:
Well, 40 shots per barrel gives it 120 shots total.. Dropping it down to 100 doesn't work as there would be an odd # of shells.. 90 just drops it to 30/barrel...

Okay, but what if one of the cannon is damaged or destroyed? That means not only do you lose the use of that cannon, you also lose whatever rounds are still left in that gun.

So what you do is feed all three cannon a few rounds at a time from a central magazine (somewhere deep inside the hull, and better protected). The main magazine has the capacity for 150 or so rounds, while each cannon has a capacity for a much smaller number (5 rounds or so), which auto-load from the central mag at a rate of 1 shot per round.

That way, if you lose a cannon, you don't lose 1/3 of your ammo capacity with it. It's also easier to explain why losing a single cannon with a 40-50 round magazine doesn't automatically destroy the walker; the kind of hit that could penetrate and destroy a central magazine would pretty much result in a Destroyed result on the damage chart, anyway.
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11025
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
But those howitzer still meet the underlying criteria that defines them as a howitzer, regardless of the chassis on which they are mounted.

A lot of the terminology used to define and classify artillery is itself centuries old, and specific to this planet. Considering that any artillery weapon in the SWU is going to have a lot of advanced technology, allowing it to operate in direct-fire (cannon/gun), low- to mid- indirect fire (howitzer) and mid-to high indirect fire (mortars), I'm hesitant to use terminology that locks a weapon into a specific description.


You do realize when i made these stats up, it was back in the mid-late 90s.. We didn't have a lot of the funky stuff we see on screen now.

CRMcNeill wrote:
The MT-AT was designed specifically for operation in rugged mountain terrain, and introduced by an independent post-Imperial faction. Now, seeing as how the EU's later stages have basically collapsed in favor of the new canon, and since there is a definite niche in the Imperial military for a vehicle like this.

However, the Imperial military isn't going to build an entirely new experimental walker chassis for its experimental weapon system. A conservatively minded organization like the Empire is going to use an existing platform like the AT-TE or AT-AT, then, once the experimental weapon proves its reliability, future experimental designs become possible.


In a way that might be true. going back to the write up, they were based on an OLD Design Paleon's grand pa had, so were pre-atoc time frame design, but never put into form. And i boobooed they are 6 legged, not 8.

CRMcNeill wrote:
The problem is that an experimental octoped drive system is going to make it more vulnerable to damage due to both the greater complexity and the fact that something new and experimental won't have had a lot of time (compared to other, more conventional walkers) to work out the bugs and design flaws.


Concern noted. How's about dropping it to say 4d+2 walker..

CRMcNeill wrote:
The speed puts this thing halfway between an AT-AT (60kmh) and an AT-ST (90kmh) when historic self-propelled artillery has lacked the speed to keep up with tanks and scouts.


Would dropping it to say 45kmh be good?

CRMcNeill wrote:
As far as Maneuverability, most Artillery can't fire on the move, and has to halt and unlimber before it can fire. I'm willing to bet some artillery in a high-tech setting will be able to fire on the move, but I'm guessing it still decreases accuracy. Maybe a -1D for firing on the move and a +1D for a taking a round to stop and lock the legs.


This doesn't fire while moving. Its maneuverability are when its mobile getting 'into firing state'. Sort of like many earth based "Truck" cranes have those outlier stabilizing legs.. The walker moves, then the thing "Sits in" locking the legs in place to fire..

CRMcNeill wrote:
It just doesn't make sense to me to put a Speeder-scale main gun on a Walker-scale vehicle. Depending on which scale system you're using, there is only either a 2D or 4D gap between Speeder- and Walker-scale.


SO upp it to walker period?

CRMcNeill wrote:
My thinking is that, regardless of whether spotting is being used or not, the gun crew will be the ones doing the actual calculation. Any sort of target spotting would provide a bonus to FC, not count as remote firing. The only exception would be if the cannon were being remote fired from the walkers command deck instead of the firing station.


Its being fired (i picture it) by those manning the guns.. So the FC is only when they get spotting data in.. BUT i can see it having a base level FC from sensors, then adding to it via spotters.

CRMcNeill wrote:
Okay, but what if one of the cannon is damaged or destroyed? That means not only do you lose the use of that cannon, you also lose whatever rounds are still left in that gun.


The ammo's not in the guns, its in a store bay at the back of the unit, with feeder tubes to each barrel.. Hence if the rear goes boom, you can 'cook off' all the ammo..
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9821
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
You do realize when i made these stats up, it was back in the mid-late 90s.. We didn't have a lot of the funky stuff we see on screen now.

I do, but we are where we are now, and we know what we know. I also have reservations about using a real world term with specific limitations, if a better, more general term is available, and howitzer is just too specific, IMO.

Quote:
In a way that might be true. going back to the write up, they were based on an OLD Design Paleon's grand pa had, so were pre-atoc time frame design, but never put into form. And i boobooed they are 6 legged, not 8.
.
Okay, that changes some things...

For the sake of clarity, what exactly does the AT-HP look like?

Quote:
Concern noted. How's about dropping it to say 4d+2 walker.
Quote:
Would dropping it to say 45kmh be good?

Yes, to both. This maintains the vulnerability of modern artillery, in that it still requires tanks or an equivalent screening vehicle as an escort. Modern SPGs are armored enough to soak counter-battery fire, but aren't as well-armed or fast enough to stand up against a direct attack by enemy assault units. These stats represent that well.
Quote:
So up it to walker period?

Yes. This makes it a lot easier to justify heavy hitting artillery bombarded against cities or other stationary, high-soak targets.

Quote:
Its being fired (i picture it) by those manning the guns.. So the FC is only when they get spotting data in.. BUT i can see it having a base level FC from sensors, then adding to it via spotters.

That, I think will be tied into a whole different conversation about fire control, calling in fire by voice, and remote target designation. The important thing from my POV, however, is that the core rule should be based on the RAW, wherever possible, and that means the final roll that dictates the accuracy of the artillery must be that of the gunner.

Quote:


This doesn't fire while moving. Its maneuverability are when its mobile getting 'into firing state'. Sort of like many earth based "Truck" cranes have those outlier stabilizing legs.. The walker moves, then the thing "Sits in" locking the legs in place to fire.
Quote:
The ammo's not in the guns, its in a store bay at the back of the unit, with feeder tubes to each barrel.. Hence if the rear goes boom, you can 'cook off' all the ammo..

Okay, it sounds like we're talking past each other. You actually do have it set up for a central rear magazine, but rather than saying the walker carries 120 rounds total, you're saying it carries enough for each cannon to fire 40 rounds.

What I'm wondering is, do you want to limit this just to ballistic artillery fire, or do you want a multi-role weapon? For example, the German 88 Flak cannon from WWII could be used in either a direct-fire anti-armor or anti-aircraft role. What I envision for this (and my own version of the AT-AA) is a grav-rail cannon (using focused gravity instead of EM as a propulsive force) that can fire either high-velocity direct-fire anti-armor projectiles (against other ground vehicles) or proximity detonated projectiles (against aircraft), or can detune the cannon to precisely control muzzle velocity when firing ballistic artillery against ground targets. Like a German 88 with fire-support capability on top.

However, using multiple ammunition types means it would be appropriate to include a rule for the time taken to switch from one round type to another.

In addition, use of a central magazine allows for a bit more versatility when carrying specialty shells, like nukes, gas, etc. Some rounds may be handy for specific missions, but not something you want to load-out an entire walkers magazine with.

As an aside, I can also easily see an AT-AC (All-Terrain Ammunition Carrier), with the same basic stats as the AT-HP, minus the cannon, but with the ability to carry several reload packs for the AT-HP.
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11025
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:

For the sake of clarity, what exactly does the AT-HP look like?


There used to be a pic on SWAG, but i have not scoped it out over there in years...

CRMcNeill wrote:
Yes, to both. This maintains the vulnerability of modern artillery, in that it still requires tanks or an equivalent screening vehicle as an escort. Modern SPGs are armored enough to soak counter-battery fire, but aren't as well-armed or fast enough to stand up against a direct attack by enemy assault units. These stats represent that well.


Fare enough, dropping it to 4d+2 and the speed as well.

CRMcNeill wrote:
Yes. This makes it a lot easier to justify heavy hitting artillery bombarded against cities or other stationary, high-soak targets.


Copy that.

CRMcNeill wrote:
What I'm wondering is, do you want to limit this just to ballistic artillery fire, or do you want a multi-role weapon? For example, the German 88 Flak cannon from WWII could be used in either a direct-fire anti-armor or anti-aircraft role. What I envision for this (and my own version of the AT-AA) is a grav-rail cannon (using focused gravity instead of EM as a propulsive force) that can fire either high-velocity direct-fire anti-armor projectiles (against other ground vehicles) or proximity detonated projectiles (against aircraft), or can detune the cannon to precisely control muzzle velocity when firing ballistic artillery against ground targets. Like a German 88 with fire-support capability on top.


Basic artillery for now, not multi-role.. BUT that could be a future modification..

CRMcNeill wrote:
As an aside, I can also easily see an AT-AC (All-Terrain Ammunition Carrier), with the same basic stats as the AT-HP, minus the cannon, but with the ability to carry several reload packs for the AT-HP.


There already is one. IT's called the Ticker and looks like a lobster..

Code:
Craft: Tickker
Type: Mobile munitions unit
Scale: Walker
Skill: Walker Operation: MMU
Crew: 3; Gunners: 4
Passengers: None
Cover: Full
Size: 80M long, 35m wide, 15m high
Cargo Capacity: 15 kg, + Ammo
Move: 29; 88kmh
Maneuverability: 1D
Body Strength: 4d+2
Shields: 1d+1
Weapons:
4 Medium blaster cannons (same stats as for the At-HP's).

Carries a total of 300 rounds, and can transfer 6 shells per round.
Looks like a crab, in where it has "claws" (which are the ammo transfer conduits).

_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9821
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
There used to be a pic on SWAG, but i have not scoped it out over there in years...

Well, an image would be helpful for visualizing what you've got in mind.

Mine are going to be based on my version of the AT-AA from a while back.

There will be two versions from each size (18 or 22.3 meter):
    1). the 18 meter Anti-aircraft version from the link (with the ability to fire missiles and torpedoes from my Advanced Starfighter Combat rules)

    2). A 22.3 meter artillery variant using the grave cannons as described from above.

    3). A 22.3 meter ordnance transport variant that resupplies by dropping loaded ammo boxes in front of one of the shooter variants, which pick it up using ventral grapples to load the crates, then eject them after the ordnance is sorted.

    4). An 18 meter C&C variant used as a battery control station, handling coordination and sensor input.

_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9821
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, g, I found stats for the AT-HP listed on the Holocron, and it provided some new information your post left out. To clarify, are you picturing this having three separate single-barrel turrets, or a single turret with three barrels?
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11025
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, ohio.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
So, g, I found stats for the AT-HP listed on the Holocron, and it provided some new information your post left out. To clarify, are you picturing this having three separate single-barrel turrets, or a single turret with three barrels?

Single turret with the 3 barrels. much like the main gun of a WW2 era battleship.
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9821
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depending on which Scale system you're using, I would suggest adding a barrel and making it one quad-barrel multi-howitzer. It would simplify things from a crew and coordination standpoint, and pick up a +2D Coordination bonus from Fire-Linking them all together.
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9821
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've figured out a way to apply the blast radius rule to Smoke and Flare rounds. Per the RAW, Thick Smoke and Complete Darkness provide +4D Difficulty to Perception and To Hit rolls. So treat the 4D as the Base Damage, either as adding to the Difficulty to Perception/Hit (in the case of Smoke) or as a Penalty Reduction (in the case of Flares in Complete Darkness). Treat both as having an Area Effect, so that the 4D modifier is reduced by 1D for every 2 points by which it misses.

EDIT: Of course, with 4D being such a low number, it might be appropriate to extend the Base Modifier out even further, such as -3 or -4 = -1D.
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9821
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

g, did we ever settle the targeting rules for indirect fire? I know we've talked about it, but with the blast radius question still up in the air, I always felt there were too many variables to design an accurate modifier system. Now that that's nailed down, I'd like to revisit targeting.
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11025
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, ohio.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd have to go back and re-read my rules on it.
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Gamemasters All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17
Page 17 of 17

 
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