I dunno... I guess I can see the appeal in that you could start making a huge variety of munitions for it, and train someone on one weapon system rather than a variety of them. Have AT rounds, explosive, maybe use it as a drone launching system, direct and indirect capabilities (especially if they managed to integrate some sort of ballistic computations... it could double as a mortar). Yeah, the piece is pretty big, but it's not like AT4s are small.
Sounds a little too forward-thinking, though.
Full Version: Panther XXL 'recoil' ?
Just this morning, I was thinking of this very issue because of this thread, and I finally realized why that was there.
Without the recoil, the panther would be a quicker fire. Let's say, for the sake of this argument, that if you install say....9 points of recoil compensation on a panther, it becomes semi auto.
Without the recoil, the panther would be a quicker fire. Let's say, for the sake of this argument, that if you install say....9 points of recoil compensation on a panther, it becomes semi auto.
i mentioned this earlier, but no one seems to have picked up on it. so i will repeat:
i will now proceed to give an example of why you might need recoil compensation on a PAC. this is presented as the rules are written... you may disagree with some of this, and you are entitled to disagree (and houserule if you are the GM), but it does work, as far as i can tell (well, at least they never really indicate if the PAC is bigger than an LMG... it is my understanding the PAC is, in fact, handheld, albeit 2 hands, and is not intended to be fired from a prone position, based on the fact that it has no bipod, or tripod, built in, so i would rule that it is about the same size as the LMG personally. YMMV).
1) start with a yamaha growler.
2) install 2 weapon mounts
3) mount a PAC with a smart firing platform into each weapon mount.
each gun can fire in the same round, because it is the smart firing platform that is doing the work, and performing the actions. because they are mounted on the same vehicle, they still cause recoil onto the other.
if you really don't like this example, then consider the possibility of two people riding the same growler. each has a PAC. each fires the PAC. does it not make sense for their recoil to affect each other? the sudden shift in balance, at least, should throw off the other rider's aim. admittedly a house rule, but it is one i think not too many people would argue with.
of course, you could also just assume it's for dual wielding dragons
i will now proceed to give an example of why you might need recoil compensation on a PAC. this is presented as the rules are written... you may disagree with some of this, and you are entitled to disagree (and houserule if you are the GM), but it does work, as far as i can tell (well, at least they never really indicate if the PAC is bigger than an LMG... it is my understanding the PAC is, in fact, handheld, albeit 2 hands, and is not intended to be fired from a prone position, based on the fact that it has no bipod, or tripod, built in, so i would rule that it is about the same size as the LMG personally. YMMV).
1) start with a yamaha growler.
2) install 2 weapon mounts
3) mount a PAC with a smart firing platform into each weapon mount.
each gun can fire in the same round, because it is the smart firing platform that is doing the work, and performing the actions. because they are mounted on the same vehicle, they still cause recoil onto the other.
if you really don't like this example, then consider the possibility of two people riding the same growler. each has a PAC. each fires the PAC. does it not make sense for their recoil to affect each other? the sudden shift in balance, at least, should throw off the other rider's aim. admittedly a house rule, but it is one i think not too many people would argue with.
of course, you could also just assume it's for dual wielding dragons
| QUOTE (Jaid) |
| if you really don't like this example, then consider the possibility of two people riding the same growler. each has a PAC. each fires the PAC. does it not make sense for their recoil to affect each other? the sudden shift in balance, at least, should throw off the other rider's aim. admittedly a house rule, but it is one i think not too many people would argue with. |
The problem with this is that you would then either need to draw line somewhere ("these weapons' recoil affects everyone on the same vehicle, these over here don't"), or rule that the recoil from a semi-automatic .22 jolts an armored vehicle enough to throw off everyone else's aim.
| QUOTE (Nim) | ||
The problem with this is that you would then either need to draw line somewhere ("these weapons' recoil affects everyone on the same vehicle, these over here don't"), or rule that the recoil from a semi-automatic .22 jolts an armored vehicle enough to throw off everyone else's aim. |
yes, that's why we have GMs instead of computers.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.