CIWS stats, ones that'd actually make sense, anyway Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Outline Switch to: Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Fatum]

So. I am writing up stuff for our alt.War project, and while currently I am neck-deep in fluff, I'm still thinking over the stats for the things I'm going to include into that sexy sexy Game Information chapter.
Now, since I've been writing about the Navy today, I'm thinking over the stats for ships, ship-based weaponry, systems, upgrades, and that.

Cut to the chase: CIWS is one of the most common ship weaponry systems, providing defense against aircraft, missiles, and most importantly, cruise missiles. These are 20 to 30 mm guns with rates of fire in thousands of rounds per minute, and effective ranges of a couple of kilometers or two. Minding how many of those a typical cruiser is carrying, statting them seems like a reasonable idea.

Let's lay down the principles I am using for statting things up:
A) The results should be usable in actual games
B) No entirely new mechanics should be involved
C) The results should be consistent with existing official stats for components, weapons and vehicles
D) The results should represent the abilities of a CIWS system with relative realism - while it's a good SAM system, it can not single-handedly protect a vessel from a modern cruise missile

Now, let's see. There are several possible approaches to the problem that I can think of.
1) Say that a full burst for such a weapon is some 600 shells, a long burst is 300, and a short is 150 (or something of that magnitude).
If we use the standard Shadowrun rules of [1 additional projectile = +1 DV or -1 die from dodge pool], then we instantly violate constraints A, C and D: such a weapon would shoot down cruise missiles from War! instantly, and having it fire on runners (suppose the runners are smuggling on a LAV or a naval vessel) means certain death. If we don't use the standard rules, we violate constraint B.
2) [suggested by HeckfyEx] Make CIWS akin to THOR weapons - an AoE attack with anything in its scattering center of effect destroyed, and everything around that having a chance to just barely survive a blast with reasonably high DV assigned.
Still, pretty much the same problems with constraints A, C and D: guaranteed destruction of every cruise missile already statted, and also guaranteed destruction of every runner vessel some random russkie frigate spots on its radar.
3) [suggested by HeckfyEx] Make CIWS firing on approaching cruise missiles an extended test: if the shooter acquires enough hits, the cruise missile counts as destroyed.
The way I see that, if we try to represent different types of CIWS and cruise missiles with stats affecting that extended test, we violate constraint B. If we just suggest using the same rules for all CIWS systems and cruise missiles, we violate constraint D, and in effect just suggest GMs to wind it (violating A).
4) Make CIWS a narrative tool - whether they hit cruise missiles or not, whether they destruct a runner vessel or not is determined by GM based on the rolls he asks for and his mood.
While this is the approach I so far like the most, it obviously violates constraints A and C, since it lacks, you know, actual mechanics.

I've looked into the way War! handles that, and it just lists "missile defense system" for large naval vessels, and leaves it at that. I hardly find that sufficient, minding that, at the very least, CIWS is a potent tool of destruction when used against any other targets, too.

So, any ideas how to handle all that mess in a consistent manner?