ok, so i'm confused by the rules for mounting weapons on vehicles.

what are the differences between a Gun Port and a Normal Mount (Flexable, Armored Manual)? both seem to allow the passenger to fire thier weapon out of a vehicle, taking advantage of the vehicle's armor; the Gun Port just seems to be cheaper and more slot-efficient.

Vehicular weapons state that they can only normally be installed into fixed or heavy turret mounts, but do they require a Reenforced Mount? it makes sense that they *do*, but there's nothing in the rulebooks that says that they do.

the rules make a big deal about the LMG class weapons as being the watershed between the smaller and larger weapon mounts. HMGs and Assault Cannons are obviously larger than an LMG, but what about grenade launchers? LAWs? i would think that if a man-portable gatling gun can fit on a weapon mount, then a 40mm grenade launcher can, too.

A Gun Port is a hole. A Mount is some kind of 'mount' (what the hell other word is there? ) upon which you sit or affix a weapon.

ok, right. but what effects does that have on gameplay?

Typically a mount has some kind of recoil compensation because of the weapon being braced. A gun port is just a hole that someone can stick a gun through, with no mount or bracing or whatever.

Gun port: Only provides 4 points of recoil comp. Limited by the number of passenger seats.
Mount: Negates Recoil penalties. Can also get Gyro Link to negate the effects of extreme vehicle manuvers, and have added Ammo Bins for those times when the fit really hits the shan.



And, going back to an earlier question:

Given that weapons get classed as Vehicle Weapons because of "size, bulky support equipment, or massive recoil," (Arsenal, p.123), I'd say it's safe to say most of them would be considered "larger than LMG sized" (Arsenal, p.147).

thats what i figured (because it makes sense), its just very unclear by the way the talk about what mounts are required in some sections of the book.

Bah! Details!

How exactly does a Gun Port provide 4 points os RC?

Number of ways. By providing something to brace the weapon against, by restricting the motion of the weapon and if its a really posh gun-port, by having a way to attach the gun to the port physically (some form of small pintle mount or such)

Ok, but four points?


Ok, but four points?


Wouldn't that, in effect, make it an actual mount?

I guess the (fluff) modifier is that a gun port gives you RC but restricts what areas you can engage (I'd also say it'd probably gives a negative perception modifier, since you're looking out of a slit and all).

But yeah, four points? I'd settle for it negating some or all of the "firing from vehicle" modifier.

A posh gun port? Can I Pimp My Gun Port?

Well

If a gun is locked in place, it suffers no recoil (a mount), a gun that has maybe 2 inches of play to either side should have a semi-decent bit of recoil comp.

4 recoil comp on its own is nice, but it really won't help you much if you bust out a big gun and go full auto without some other recoil comp. It just represents that the gun can only pull you off target by an inch or two at most before you hit a solid edge. Then the majority of movement is up/down, and even then thats restricted too, just not as much

"It provides 4 points of recoil compensation." p.137, Arsenal

As always, feel free to adjust to taste.

Really though, I think it's reasonable that it's halfway between a bipod and a tripod as far as recoil comp goes. Especially when compared to an actual mount which provides infinity points of recoil compensation.

Yes, I understand that Arsenal provides set stats. And yes, I do understand that I am free to change or house rule things I dont like (but not in SRM games). I am merely questioning those numbers from a logic point-of-view. I don't think a hole in the wall of a car should automatically provide better recoil compensation than the best Gas-Venting system in the world (other that the super-uber, weird White Knight variant).

Gun Port: a hole in the vehicle wall through which you point your own weapon, which you normally carry around with you. This would be akin to "riding shotgun" on a warthog in Halo 3 and firing your assault rifle at the enemy.

Weapon Mount: a weapon is mounted permanently on the vehicle, and you do not generally carry it around with you. This would be akin to the rear-mounted weapon that is permanently affixed to the warthog in Halo 3; you get on the back of the vehicle and become a gunner.

Oh, I'd say it's fair for a vehicle enhancement to be superior to a man-portable option. Especially since they stack.

Vehicle enhancement makes me giggle. It's a hole ... cut in the side of a vehicle ... that you stick your gun through.

No, that's an armor puncture from an artillery round. A gun port is specifically designed to assist the passenger in operating a firearm while offering the vehicle's full protection. To go back to a post you previously omnislashed:


I'd say that those two effects should TOGETHER provide four points of RC.

couldn't you just...y'know...roll down the window?

And miss out on the EPIC AWSOMENESS of getting 4 points of recoil comp from a hole in the side of your vehicle? While being protected by the vehicle's armor?

The best suggestion I can think of is that it actually does have some kind of support or brace that users can take advantage of - some kind of strap arrangement perhaps? As has been suggested, it just being a hole in the side of the vehicle doesn't really justify 4 points of RC.

Returning to actual weapon mounts (in drones too this time) I had a thought earlier. The rules in Arsenal state that a weapon mount automatically negates all recoil, but at GM discretion recoil can be inflicted on smaller drones. How about just making a blanket rule that all vehicles and drones have Body*2 RC? It just seems neater that way to me, but that may be the OCD talking.

ok, so any thoughts on weapon sizes? do grenade launchers require a reenforced mount?

That just complicates things, I think.

Drones/vehicles have zero recoil because they are rigid and a weapon is bolted to them; not like flesh, which moves around a lot.

As far as I can see, the reason a smaller drone (i'm thinking only a microdrone or minidrone would suffer recoil) would actually suffer recoil would be because it's so small that the force of the gunfire moves the whole darn drone backward, or causes it to tip backwards as the muzzle rises. Small drones like that would likely suffer full recoil, not have an RC of body*2

larger drones would have vastly more than body*2, and therefore simply negate recoil completely.

The four points of RC for gun ports make no sense to me. If anything, they should just let you fire without exposing yourself - well, except in the case of edge use or an extraordinary shot.