CIWS stats, ones that'd actually make sense, anyway Options

[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?

[CanRay]

Sure: PHALANX ROTARY CANNON, MilSpecTech, Page 21.

Other than that, not a bloody clue.

[Fatum]

Sure: PHALANX ROTARY CANNON, MilSpecTech, Page 21.

I don't yet own MilSpecTech, how did they handle it? No need to post actual stats, of course, just the idea behind the thing.
Or did they just stat it up as a cannon, and left it at that?

[CanRay]

Full-Auto Gatling Cannon only. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) . There's no rules in MilSpecTech, only vehicles (And drones), vehicle weapons, and stats for both. Of course, that's exactly what it was advertised as, so that makes it better than what I've heard from War!.

Which I can't complain about as I haven't seen it yet and thus...

[Fatum]

Full-Auto Gatling Cannon only. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) . There's no rules in MilSpecTech, only vehicles (And drones), vehicle weapons, and stats for both. Of course, that's exactly what it was advertised as, so that makes it better than what I've heard from War!.

Which I can't complain about as I haven't seen it yet and thus...

Well yeah, that's some statting I'd say.
In what comes to War!, let's just say that cruise missiles with their convoluted evasion programs and ranges is dozens of thousands of kilometers are said to be standard light-armored high-handling drones with built-in Clearsight and Targeting 4.

[CanRay]

Makes sense. With Drone-Based Anti-Missile Technology and Advanced Autotargeting systems... I bet they're expensive buggers, however.

But the same can be said of cruise missiles today. They're US$569,000 or so (According to http://www.Navy.mil/ ), and if they're being used in Afghanistan or Iraq, I highly doubt they're taking out something their money's worth. At least Shadowrun Cruise Drones would be taking out something coming close to what they're worth. (Then there's the cost of life issue going on, but I won't get into that.).

Of course, a friend of mine was in a tank that fired off a shell that was probably worth far more than the clay wall it blew up (And the POS that was hiding behind it with a Nine-Volt to set off the IED that detonated under his tank. Do not pass Go, do not collect any Virgins.).

[Fatum]

Not really, minding that a missile worth 2 million nuyen can easily be shot down with a heavy machine gun worth 6 thousand. It doesn't even have Defense autosoft.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Not really, minding that a missile worth 2 million nuyen can easily be shot down with a heavy machine gun worth 6 thousand. It doesn't even have Defense autosoft.

Indeed... Suppressive Fire (from the Phalanx), on a target that is moving and cannot really dodge... Usually means one dead target... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Draco18s]

There's no real way to stat a gun that fires thousands of rounds a minute.
I would treat it as suppressive fire that Just Uses More Dakka Bullets.

[CanRay]

Suppressive Fire over an insane area, eh?

I want to mount one on my MPUV now...

[WearzManySkins]

Think of CIWS as a RADAR/Sensor Guided Fire Hose. It also tracks the target and tracks the stream of bullets,,when the two match CIWS is happy.
During development they Mounted CIWS on a barge and fired 155mm and 8 inch shells over it...A school they had those shells...CIWS using DU rounds chewed off the from of each projectile and also the rear end.

Also CIWS during my days had no IFF, if it was armed, loaded, and active, if you flew too close..BOOM. Pilots were truly hesitant to get with in the engagement envelope or what they thought the engagement envelope was.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

With SR4A rules I do not believe you can come close to simulating the effects of a CIWS taking down a missile or airframe. The Sensor and Gunnery rules are too FUBAR, made by devs that had no clue on RL weapons and firing of same.

[CanRay]

Many people have no clue on RL weapons or firing of same, period. I'm better than most, and only fired off a rifle and shotgun a handful of times. (Which is strange even for a Canadian, at least one from Northern Ontario.).

[WearzManySkins]

I miss the days when writers/devs wrote things for Shadowrun that they had some what of a clue like Paul Hume and the Shaman/Magical Rules since he was/is a practitioner.

[Yerameyahu]

It's a mistake to 'simulate' the CIWS using the firearms rules. Instead, just say they make a roll in order to intercept, succeed or fail. (As others have suggested). Isn't this how the RAW Missile Defense mod works anyway?

Remember that this 'cheap gun' that's destroying ¥2mil missiles is *defending* ¥2bil vehicles.

[CanRay]

"Cheap" in cost, but still in use because, well, sometimes you just need to fill the sky full of explosive lead to make something work.

Bolt-Action Rifles are still used by the military after all...

[Yerameyahu]

Yeah. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Well, someone implied earlier that it's 'bad' for expensive missiles to be killed by this cheap gun, when that's basically the whole story of technological warfare.

[Makki]

make a VHV (very high velocity) weapon. high base damage and double or triple for suppressive fire. adjust the numbers so a missile won't survive

[Yerameyahu]

Mm, I wasn't quite right above. The Missile Defense System in Arsenal doesn't auto-kill anything, but it *does* avoid the firearms rules. Instead, it applies big Defense bonuses to the defending vehicle (which might work out to be the same as destroying the missile, I dunno). Presumably, the fluff is that a missile 'dodged' in this manner is actually destroyed? Does anyone know specifically? The text actually says (logically) that it 'knocks down' rockets and missiles, but the crunch doesn't mention that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Mm, I wasn't quite right above. The Missile Defense System in Arsenal doesn't auto-kill anything, but it *does* avoid the firearms rules. Instead, it applies big Defense bonuses to the defending vehicle (which might work out to be the same as destroying the missile, I dunno). Presumably, the fluff is that a missile 'dodged' in this manner is actually destroyed? Does anyone know specifically? The text actually says (logically) that it 'knocks down' rockets and missiles, but the crunch doesn't mention that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It is a bit fluffified, but essentially correct... the MDS eliminates the threat by allowing the target to effectively dodge it... Misses are as good as destroyed for all intents and purposes... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[CanRay]

Yeah. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Well, someone implied earlier that it's 'bad' for expensive missiles to be killed by this cheap gun, when that's basically the whole story of technological warfare.

Technology can be trumped by Anti-Technology which can be trumped by Technology.

It's all in what you have, and how you use it. A tin can and a hand grenade can be a very lethal combination.

On the flipside, using an IED against a up-armoured Leopard-II will just make for a pissed off tank crew.

[Fatum]

There's no real way to stat a gun that fires thousands of rounds a minute.
I would treat it as suppressive fire that Just Uses More Dakka Bullets.

Seems so :\
Suppressive fire against a vehicle?

I want to mount one on my MPUV now...

It's a ship-sized weapon, I doubt it'd fit.

It's a mistake to 'simulate' the CIWS using the firearms rules. Instead, just say they make a roll in order to intercept, succeed or fail. (As others have suggested). Isn't this how the RAW Missile Defense mod works anyway?

Missile Defense mod adds dice to defense pool, yeah. How would a defense pool look for naval vessels, though? It's not like you could dodge with an aircraft carrier.
Besides, Missile Defense is said to fire off 10 bullets per turn. So it's good for small vessels, maybe patrol boat-sized, to defend against missile launcher rounds with their turret machine guns. Now, for an aircraft carrier defending against cruise missiles? Uhhh.
We could just say that CIWS adds +4 dice, like lasers, of course, and use that as a reasonable compromise...
In what comes to simulating CIWS with firearm rules being a mistake - what can I possibly do when it can be used as a direct-fire cannon realistically?

Remember that this 'cheap gun' that's destroying ¥2mil missiles is *defending* ¥2bil vehicles.

When I mention a cheap gun shooting down missiles worth 2 million, I mean your usual garden-variety heavy machine gun. Not a Phalanx, just a Ultimax HMG-2. It will do so in one turn, too, with a single burst. BAM.

Yeah. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Well, someone implied earlier that it's 'bad' for expensive missiles to be killed by this cheap gun, when that's basically the whole story of technological warfare.

And yes, it is bad. I'm saying it outright: if you are statting up something that costs 2 million damn nuyen and is supposed to be a hyper-sound cruise missile, make sure it can not be shot down with a man-portable non-specialized firearm.
That's what my constraint C is all about.

make a VHV (very high velocity) weapon. high base damage and double or triple for suppressive fire. adjust the numbers so a missile won't survive

Essentially, that is option (1) from my post, just toned down. And yeah, apparently that and using slightly tweaked Missile Defense System rules like I said up there in this post is the best that can be done, as far as I see so far.

Thank you everyone for your suggestions.

[CanRay]

It's a ship-sized weapon, I doubt it'd fit.

Missile Defense mod adds dice to defense pool, yeah. How would a defense pool look for naval vessels, though? It's not like you could dodge with an aircraft carrier.

I need to want a Light Tank then, or something even heavier. Or a lower-caliber CIWS.

As for dodging Aircraft Carriers, well... Just don't play "Chicken" with one.

[Fatum]

Just buy a yacht.

[CanRay]

Actually, SR4A has a nice "Police Boat" that I could convert into a nice House Boat with one of these for "Home Protection".

"Sir, do you realize you have a Anti-Missile Weapon System on your property?" "I have a permit for that." "Oh, OK then, have a good day, Citizen."

[Yerameyahu]

I don't think there's room in the Seacop for a 'house', and the corvette boat is too expensive. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)