 Recoil question, vehicle mounted LMGs |
  |
 Apr 22 2007, 07:17 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 13-April 07 From: Houston, Texas Member No.: 11,448  |
Sorry if this has been asked before, did a search and came up with nothing.
In SR3, hardpoint/firmpoint mounted weapons received a bonus recoil compensation modifier, does the same rule still exist in SR4? (I would like a page number if it does) *edit* Also, if the LMGs(or other applicable weapons) have smartgun systems, can a character with a Smartlink system take advantage of that when directly controlling a drone/vehicle mounted weapon? I wanna mount LMGs on some roto-drones, a doberman, and the GMC van for a rigger I'm creating. :D |
 |
 
|
|
Apr 22 2007, 07:41 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,755 Joined: 5-September 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 9,313 |
Was wondring myself about hardpoints/firmpoints and recoil comp. No mention yet that I've seen, but been using houseruled version for now. Were also allowing smartlink for direct controled drones only. Pilot controled drones use gunnery autosoft +cleaersight and sensors. Sensor lock sucess's are huge help with drone combat.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2007, 12:37 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 633 Joined: 23-February 06 Member No.: 8,301 |
Unfortunately, I think the answer to this one is probably "Wait till Arsenal."
I don't know how clear the rules as written are on smartlinks for drones, but my group plays it that drones, whether on autopilot, being remotely controlled or being rigged, can take advantage of smartlink, so long as the right equipment is present. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2007, 05:55 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 24-March 05 From: On a ledge between Heaven and Hell Member No.: 7,226 |
Don't have the book with me so I can not look, but at least vehicle/drone mounted weapons do not suffer the *2 recoil Modifier.
I agree with prime mover's ruleing |
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2007, 05:59 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 834 Joined: 30-June 03 Member No.: 4,832 |
I play with the house rule that vehicle mounts are equal to tripods, giving 6 RC. If they aren't equal to tripods, you'd use a tripod on the car rather than a weapon mount..
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2007, 06:27 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 633 Joined: 23-February 06 Member No.: 8,301 |
Well, the real benefit of weapon mounts is not recoil compensation. You don't need that to be useful. It's that the weapon is now part of the vehicle, so it can be controlled electronically, by a rigger for example; it can take advantage of sensor locks using vehicle sensors; the vehicle's Pilot can even be commanded to fire the weapon, rather than requiring direct human control.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2007, 06:42 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,251 Joined: 11-September 04 From: GA Member No.: 6,651 |
I dont think sniping from a moving vehicle should be easy... suppressive fire should be all a speeding vehicle gets without lots of penalties. The only adjustment I'd consider making would be to say vehicular heavy weapons dont suffer double recoil penalties.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2007, 08:01 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Same here. I got to watch the "Future Weapons" episode where they were testing the SWORDS drone out to see what it could do. Watching a remotely-controlled drone put every round in a 10 round burst of 5.56 into the upper torso of a silohette target at 300 yards gave me a new respect for what drones are capable of. Sniping from a moving vehicle gets all of the penalties associated with the vehicle's movement, including range (you're moving around how fast?), cover (how many other cars are there on the road?), bad conditions (how bumpy is that road, anyway?) and all that jazz. Losing the recoil penalties isn't something I'm really worried about, since the PC can easily throw on a gas vent and a shock pad, and be rocking out with a -1 on a 6 round burst (-2 for heavy weapon). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 24 2007, 08:25 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Creating a god with his own hands Group: Members Posts: 1,405 Joined: 30-September 02 From: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 Member No.: 3,364 |
I don't know about that. M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks can hit small targets while going ~60 mph over rough terrain. that's with a 120mm smooth bore cannon. Do not tell me that by 2060, with the widespread use of weapons mounted upon moving security drones, that they could not hit something the size of a playing card while moving... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 24 2007, 10:45 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 194 Joined: 3-March 07 From: Fairfax, VA Member No.: 11,150 |
I don't even mess with recoil on vehicles. If software is running the gun, then recoil isn't an issue (includes rigging). The software includes that in its calculations. If it's a metahuman operated turret, then it's assumed to be gyrostabilized appropriately.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2007, 11:55 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
there's nothing that says you cannot modify a gun with accessories when it is vehicle mounted.
this includes bipods, tripods, gryo-stabilisers, and other such accessories. now, for some of these, i would certainly consider the accessory to be modified (in much the same way you don't just stick a normal gun into the vehicle's mount), but i see no reason to disallow the use of tripods in vehicle mounted weapons, justifying it as being a specially braced mount. additionally, there is nothing that indicates drones cannot use a smartlink. the default is that a smartlink gives a bonus to hit. because nothing changes that, it remains that a smartlink gives a bonus to hit (unless or until further information becomes available). |
|
|
|
|
Apr 25 2007, 06:58 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 13-April 07 From: Houston, Texas Member No.: 11,448 |
Thanks for your help guys!
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 25 2007, 09:21 PM
Post
#13
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,288 Joined: 4-September 06 From: The Scandinavian Federation Member No.: 9,300 |
The m1 (and most other modern tanks) have gyro stabilization. A drone shouldn't have a problem with this. It would probably need some sort of stabilization just to move at all and fire, something it certainly is able to in SR4. So yeah, i agree. Tripods and bipods on vehicle-mounted weapons is kinda stupid as the basic modern weapon mount probably offers as much recoil compensation as a tripod, as long as the vehicle is heavy enough to negate the recoil. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 25 2007, 11:29 PM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
like i said, a drone modified tripod or bipod is not an actual bipod or tripod, it's simply a specialised device that braces the gun sufficient to provide recoil compensation in the exact same manner as a bipod or tripod. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 26 2007, 12:37 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,251 Joined: 11-September 04 From: GA Member No.: 6,651 |
It makes sense all weapon mounts should have gyrostabilization but, uh, they for whatever reason don't in RAW.
Its fine to house rule it but to say it IS normal isn't in sync with RAW. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th April 2024 - 07:28 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.