Stats for GAU-8 Avenger?

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think I've seen any well defined rules proposals other than cheating the d6.

Not sure it's actually better than Spraying Fire. Actually, it's likely worse than (if slightly easier than) Spraying Fire plus Hitting the 'Wrong' Target.

That implies that the conditions on 470 and 467 are intended to be different. Do you seriously believe that?

(Also, "left the controls" is not an actual quote. What it says is "taken out of action (killed, fell off, abandoned the controls, etc.)")

Do you actually think that if someone activates the autopilot and then leaves the controls that the plane will immediately risk crashing? That's basically what you're suggesting here, because the A10 essentially engages an autopilot during a strafing run.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

That would work well for targeting single targets, but would not help with hitting several targets in a single run (in fact high cyclic ROF doesn't allow suppressive fire IIRC).

Or are you suggesting a free choice between the two to model concentrating on one target or firing in a way to hit several.

I was thinking of the OP, putting multiple rounds in a single target. I hadn't turned my mind to the question of other autofire alternatives. But I'm wondering -- do you mean suppression fire or spraying fire? There are both types.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Langy

Do you actually think that if someone activates the autopilot and then leaves the controls that the plane will immediately risk crashing? That's basically what you're suggesting here, because the A10 essentially engages an autopilot during a strafing run.

I think the rules as written are probably bad in several different ways.

That isn't going to make me endorse nonsense like throwing modifiers at the 'go out of control' roll. That's not solving problems in any meaningful way.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I think the rules as written are probably bad in several different ways.

That isn't going to make me endorse nonsense like throwing modifiers at the 'go out of control' roll. That's not solving problems in any meaningful way.

That specifically may not work, but simply not considering the vehicle to be 'out of control' would.

[ColBosch]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Ranged attacks, I gather, have had rather significant changes.

Enough that the old rules I quoted wouldn't work? You don't need to know 3e rules to figure out if what I posted fits with Fourth Edition. There's still Gunner skill, Piloting skill, burst fire rules, and Target Speed/Range Modifiers, right? If not, are there equivalents that can be slotted in? I'm trying to find a solution here, not just harp on "rules are wrong."

[Joseph Paul]

I am thinking that if the controls for the guns/bombs/missiles and the vehicle are in your hand at the same time that you don't have to worry about going out of control. Seems pretty simple.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Could crib from Spaceships and say that, while the pilot has to take a Move or Move and Attack, he can multitask at -2 per extra task, letting him get the effects of other maneuvers as well (For example, being able to Aim in exchange for -2 to pilot rolls while doing so).

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You misunderstand. If you take any Maneuver other than Move or Move and Attack you do not count as controlling the vehicle, as written. There's no skill roll to avoid that because, by definition, there's no one to make the roll.

It's a 1d roll under the vehicle's stability, with 6 as automatic loss of control.

Confusingly, that rule from B470 is sort of countered by the statements on B467 which say the vehicle continues in the same direction.

Note however, that this subject is touched on B396 which says of Loss of Control

"You ... lose control if you are
knocked out, or take any combat
maneuver but Move or Move and
Attack, while moving at high speed."


Of air movement it says:

"If you lose
control in the air or water, you don’t
trip; instead, you must move your current
velocity straight ahead and then
decelerate by your maximum safe
deceleration. You can do nothing else –
this effectively ends your turn!"


Regarding land movement, it offers this brutally phrased gem:

"Exception: If you are moving on
three or more wheels, you’re more stable.
The GM may rule that you merely
decelerate your maximum safe deceleration
each turn instead of tripping,
unless your loss of control was the
result was a critical"


Trying to work between High Speed Movement and Combat and the 80-some page removed Vehicle Movement and Combat sections is one of the worst parts of GURPS. It's even more annoying than having melee combat spread over two books.


B467 says:

"To control his vehicle, the operator must
take a Move or Move and Attack
maneuver on his turn ... If the operator takes any other maneuver,
or is stunned or otherwise incapacitated,
his vehicle plows ahead
with the same speed and course it had
on the previous turn."

That appears to give the same result as B395 for air, water or vehicles with 3 or more wheels, but it doesn't say that you've actually lost control.

Meanwhile, B470 says

"There are usually dire consequences
when a vehicle’s operator is
taken out of action (killed, fell off,
abandoned the controls, etc.). A one or
two-wheeled vehicle, or a mecha
walking on two or three legs, rolls over
as if it had lost control. Other types of
vehicle just charge ahead until they hit
something"

So far this seems consistent with B395 in result and B467 in form and result. It seems like a rather boring and imperfect approach, i.e. no matter how spectacularly you loose control, your result is go straight and slow down, but at least it's capable of being followed. However but then B470 continues:

" ... – but roll 1d each turn. On
a 6, or any roll greater than the vehicle’s
SR, the vehicle goes out of control."

And it's there that we run into the logic problem. According to B396, you've ALREADY lost control the moment there was a maneuver other than Move or Move and Attack. This additional roll seems both moot and redundant. It is also NOT a failed control roll and so would not appear to invoke the outcomes detailed on B469.

[ColBosch]

Could be worse; 3e rules for vehicle-mounted weapons are technically spread over three or four books (depending if the item in question is in one of the Vehicles Expansions).

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think I've seen any well defined rules proposals other than cheating the d6.

Well you didn't read my posts than, because I've also suggested:

1). ignore it entirely because the A10 pilot actually remains in control of the plane while firing the gun.

2). if you really want to simulate a spilt in concentration the pilot takes a -2 on one or either roll (piloting if required or shooting) pilots choice.

Actually a nice idea is the pilot has to take a total of -2 but can spread it out between rolls as he likes.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Not sure it's actually better than Spraying Fire. Actually, it's likely worse than (if slightly easier than) Spraying Fire plus Hitting the 'Wrong' Target.

Could work I guess, the extra recoil mods on the subsequent targets might make it less effective though, eitherway it shows targeting an area and trying to hit everything in it.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That implies that the conditions on 470 and 467 are intended to be different. Do you seriously believe that?

How is that relevant to what I wrote and what we're discussing in anyway?

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

(Also, "left the controls" is not an actual quote. What it says is "taken out of action (killed, fell off, abandoned the controls, etc.)"

er ok, that implies "left the controls", and "taken out of action (killed, fell off, abandoned the controls, etc.)" are intended to be different, do you seriously believe that?

More importantly does it bare even the vaguest resemblance to what is going on when a A10 pilot depresses his trigger, and thus as a rule have any relevance to what we're discussing?

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I think the rules as written are probably bad in several different ways.

That isn't going to make me endorse nonsense like throwing modifiers at the 'go out of control' roll. That's not solving problems in any meaningful way.

or you could just ignore it, its you who brought that rule up, you who seem to intend applying here and asking how I'd deal with that rule. As I said earlier I'd either mod it to the point of irrelevance (barring extreme circumstances) or just ignore it full stop since IMO it isn't appropriate here.

If you don't like my suggestion for modding that specific rule in this specific situation fine, but instead of getting pissy about it you might want to consider that the rule you cited is so orthogonal to this situation there is really little that can be down with it to make it fit.

Originally Posted by Langy

That specifically may not work, but simply not considering the vehicle to be 'out of control' would.

quite