[X] My Assistant

[Mercer]

Does having a weapon mounted in a vehicle or on a drone impart any recoil compensation, and if not, is it possible to use recoil compensators like stocks, shock pads, bipods and tripods on a vehicle mounted weapon?

[BFaolan]

According to the BBB, vehicles and drones do not suffer from recoil, period.

Arsenal (p105) changes this to vehicles and drones having a recoil compensation equal to their body.

[djinni]

According to the BBB, vehicles and drones do not suffer from recoil, period.

page please?

[BishopMcQ]

p. 162 of SR4 states that vehicle mounted weapons use all the same rules as normal ranged combat, suggesting that Recoil applies.

Firing a handheld weapon from a vehicle applies an additional -3 modifier to the test, mounted weapons avoid that penalty.

[Mercer]

I guess my confusion centers around what recoil compensators would work on drones. Even taking into account the Arsenal rule of drones giving recoil comp equal to their body, what else (besides gas vents) would be applicable?

Let's take as an example the MCT-Nissan Roto-Drone, with its BOD 3 and 1 weapon mount. We'll stick an Ingram White Knight on it, because we don't like tresspassers. The White Knight has 6 points of recoil comp, 5 from a non-upgradeable gas vent, 1 from a detachable folding stock. For my money, I'm going to assume that the weapon mount gives it the RC 3 for the vehicle's BOD, and the 5 from the gas vent, but not the 1 point from the detachable folding stock. The stock is just another way to anchor and steady the weapon, and thats what the RC BOD is for. But I don't have a book quote for any of this, I'm just sort of ballparking it.

By-the-by, given that most vehicles about the Subcompact have double digit BODs, thats some serious RC being doled out by those pintles.

[Starmage21]

I guess my confusion centers around what recoil compensators would work on drones. Even taking into account the Arsenal rule of drones giving recoil comp equal to their body, what else (besides gas vents) would be applicable?

Let's take as an example the MCT-Nissan Roto-Drone, with its BOD 3 and 1 weapon mount. We'll stick an Ingram White Knight on it, because we don't like tresspassers. The White Knight has 6 points of recoil comp, 5 from a non-upgradeable gas vent, 1 from a detachable folding stock. For my money, I'm going to assume that the weapon mount gives it the RC 3 for the vehicle's BOD, and the 5 from the gas vent, but not the 1 point from the detachable folding stock. The stock is just another way to anchor and steady the weapon, and thats what the RC BOD is for. But I don't have a book quote for any of this, I'm just sort of ballparking it.

By-the-by, given that most vehicles about the Subcompact have double digit BODs, thats some serious RC being doled out by those pintles.

Have you seen a mounted weapon fire in a real life situation? The barrel barely moves even in sustained fire. The little bit the weapon does move around, the FCS knows how to account for, and you could really put 3 or 4 bullets through the same hole in a target.

[Naysayer]

Yep, , vehicle-mounted weaponry can be scary...

[Velocity219e]

and I quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILUXYVUUZrY

Miniguns mounted in vans Vs sports cars (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)