Okay, a realism question for our military buffs.

Does it make sense that the tripod operates different from a vehicle mount for the purpose of halving recoil (versus a flat +6 rc)? Shouldn't they each have the same value?

Realistically? No, a tripod has a lot less mass than a vehicle to absorb the recoil. It is a real help, but there is still recoil.

Right. A tripod that is not fixed to something very solid and heavy doesn't grant the same RC as a vehicle mount (as most vehicles are several tons in weight, they grant great stability/RC). But, once the vehicle is moving you will suffer the movement mods. Trying to fire a .50 cal from an APC that is going over rough terrain is, well, rough. Bouncy, bouncy.

Tripods are normally sandbagged into position, they get get VERY stable when you dig them in. The primary purpose of a tripod (for MGs, which is the only place I've seen them) is to allow the gunner to deliver sustained fire on critical targets without delay to aim, or without having to see the target. You have the elevation and traverse clicks to the critical targets written on a range card, and the gun is left laid on the FPL when not otherwise used.

But machineguns are not supposed to be mounted rock solid, machine gun bursts are not supposed to make 3 inch groups at 600 yards, they are supposed to produce a beaten zone.

In terms of recoil absorption, both decent vehicle mounts and properly positioned tripods should ignore recoil.

If you want to add some realism, non-stabilized vehicle mounts are extremely difficult to shoot on the move, particularly at any real range.

There were a few early AMRs that used tripods, and, technically, many cannon and artillery pieces use a tripod.

You could possibly add an optional rule where the user can spend several simple actions sandbagging the tripod to increase the RC by 1 per simple action (up to +6), or three complex actions staking the legs of the tripod down to halve recoil.

Huh. With all the advanced gear running around in SR, I wonder why 'pods are so low-tech. What would something like this cost?

Grippod - a bipod or tripod which rests on pads that combine gecko grip feet, a magnetic system, and the talon-like spikes found in the grip foot cybernetic enhancement. Requires some sort of check to set up correctly, but then gives awesome recoil compensation. Gyro stabilization optional, but recommended.

The "grippod" would likely cost around 3-4k while the base tripod costs a tenth of that.

Use sandbags, and put a boot on one of the legs for an additional +1 RC.

So, same as a gyro stabilization harness. That's fair, given that the grippod is less mobile but much more easily deployed.


How's that going to work if I'm on a catwalk, or standing on a bunch of pipes high up in some industrial location? Or hanging from the side of a building? Or on the roof of a vehicle?

Nothing against sandbags, but they don't seem ideal for small-team infiltration work, unless you can just whip them out from your Bag of Holding.

Sorry but, what the hell is a small - team infiltration crew doing with an HMG and a tripod? You know how heavy those things are?

6 RC is already a ton.

You're seriously trying to use a tripod hanging frome the side of a building and fire a MG?!?

True, there is a big difference between a tripod slapped down quick and one properly set up and ranged.The second is much more stable. And I love the gecko feet baseplate idea.

there is always the smart weapons platform, a tripod/drone. Maybe it can be argued that it can take drone mods?

Hmm. Going on the example of the drone firearm mod, I'd think that's a 'no' for most (structural) things.

That's the other thing I'm trying to figure out.

If I have an LMG on a tripod, it will fire better than a vehicle mount for the first 9 shots (9-6=3 vs. 9/2=4). For bursts of 10-whatever (10 normally being the max), the vehicle is better. That means, by the rules, using an LMG or smaller weapon, a tripod is almost always better than physically welding the thing to a truck for reducing recoil.

If I have an MMG or larger, the tripod is superior up to the 8th shot - then it becomes unusuable, because every additional shot is +2. At 10 shots, you're looking at a +8 modifier from recoil. Compare this to the vehicle mount, when recoil is still halved. At 10 shots, you're suffering only a +5 modifier.

I'm trying to figure out why a tripod is really better than a vehicle in most every way, but can't adequately deal with heavy weapons.

To me? They're rather heavy.
To my troll sammy? Fucking lightweight.


Well, with a gyro stabilizer you could already do most of this hanging from the side of a building. Why must a tripod be worse than a harness? Seems to me that latching onto the building is going to be more stable than being mounted on the climber.

You double the uncompensated recoil of LMGs as well in SR4.



Because the 300 tripod is a bit easier to acquire than the 3,000 gyrostabilizer.

Who was talking about a 300 ¥ tripod?

Then what harness are you talking about?

What harness? The 3k¥ gyrostabilizer, just like you had correctly assumed.

We were on the same page about the harness, but not about the tripod.

No, I don't think we are. You are saying that a 300¥ accessory should give all the same benefits a 3,000¥ accessory does.

He is talking about a super-uber-hiper-mega-kamehameha-tripod that works just like a gun on a vehicle port.

Keep in mind the other thing with recoil and tripods:

A tripod lets the gun move around freely (so you can aim!) and really all its doing is taking the weight of the gun out of your arms.

Because the gun can swivel recoil still has an impact, less so, but still a factor.

A gunmount on a vehicle is slightly different in that it is assuming that either a) its mounted on a drone and self aiming, in which case the gun is locked into position when firing by motor servos (which take a HUGE amount of force to overcome) or b) you're firing VERY large caliber weapons and the recoil shock would typically be enough to knock you on your ass, but because it's bolted to the truck, you're not feeling it (and the loss in aim is generally minor due to the direction of the forces involved on that pivot mount).

If that is the case, then yes we are on the same page. However he hasn't referred to his SUHMK tripod since he first described it and gave it a name.

Wait... What? Where are you getting the half recoil for vehicle mounts?

In my game, I am using the BOD of the drone/vehicle as additional RC for the weapon. This keeps the silliness of putting large/high rate-of-fire weapons on small drones down, as suggested by Arsenal p.105.

It's a SR2/3 legacy rule.

Yes, I prefer the BOD rule: 1/2 can be less useful than a flat RC (as mentioned above), and it's exactly right that it makes tiny drones versus big trucks make sense.

I don't see any problem whatsoever w/ the tripod rules.. Even the smart firing platform which technically is a drone, has no movement capability whatsoever, so nothing wrong with it trading it's ability to move to be an ultra-stable firing platform. Given the tech in SR... they have gecko-tips or foot anchors or whatever built in...


Also, look up something on "traverse and elevation mechanism" (T&E). It's the key to to the long-range stability and fine aiming. In a tripod, the gun, isn't aimed, it's locked into position... A pintle mount on a vehicle is a bit different as the ability to quickly move the gun is a lot more important. Also the vehicle isn't generally imobilized and planted in position while firing.

I have never heard of this crazy rule, but by Jove, it might just work. That's a neat suggestion, thanks!

Arsenal pg. 105