Artillery

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

As I do not have any Third Edition material, is it a problem?

It's not a problem if you have never had issues with the way 4e does it. Abstracting everything that happens in the process of putting the round on target into two rolls works fine for most people. It's generally only those with an interest in the subject who like to complicate the rules.

[Ragitsu]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It's not a problem if you have never had issues with the way 4e does it. Abstracting everything that happens in the process of putting the round on target into two rolls works fine for most people. It's generally only those with an interest in the subject who like to complicate the rules.

Ah. I only mention this because the possibility of PCs using mortars and artillery emplacements in my campaign is a very real one.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by 8th Orbital Army

I'm honestly interested in finding out how many people's characters have called in artillery strikes in an actual role-playing session, and whether they felt that the rules were sufficiently detailed or not.

The problem isn't when the PCs call for fire; the rules in High-Tech are excellent for that. The problem is when they are the firing unit. For example what if the PCs are the crew of a naval vessel providing shore bombardment (or an orbital platform providing orbital bombardment)?

• What skills do they need?
• Who makes the Artillery roll?
• Is it fun to have all the PCs efforts compressed into a single mass skill?
• Do the gunners actually need both Gunner and Artillery if they need to use both direct and indirect fire with the same weapon system?
• Do the loaders get to make ST-based rolls for direct fire or just indirect fire?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The problem isn't when the PCs call for fire, but when they are the firing unit. For example what if the PCs are the crew of a naval vessel providing shore bombardment (or an orbital platform providing orbital bombardment)?

• What skills do they need?
• Who makes the Artillery roll?
• Is it fun to have all the PCs efforts compressed into a single mass skill?
• Do the gunners actually need both Gunner and Artillery if they need to use both direct and indirect fire with the same weapon system?
• Do the loaders get to make ST-based rolls for direct fire or just indirect fire?

I can't help with some of those issues, but common sense would indicate that with any weapn that is manually loaded, the ST-based roll could be applied to speed up loading for both direct and indirect fire.

And according to Spaceships they need both Gunner and Artillery if they mean to use both direct and indirect fire with their main guns.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

And according to Spaceships they need both Gunner and Artillery if they mean to use both direct and indirect fire with their main guns.

This seems extra wonky to me. Let's consider the M224 60mm Mortar. It is designed to easily be both a direct fire and indirect fire weapon. In GURPS then a gunner needs both Guns/TL8 (Grenade Launcher) and Artillery/TL8(Cannons). With a -2 familiarity penalty from Guns he can also use the M203 grenade launcher and a -2 penalty from Artillery he can fire a 409mm naval cannon. However in RL firing the mortar in direct fire is almost exactly the same as indirect fire, the main difference is that you aim at the target, not an aiming stake and there is no FDC or FO. It's not much like firing an M203, and it is nothing like firing a 409mm Naval Gun (I imagine, I've never done it, but I'm pretty sure it's not a muzzleloader:) ). If an Artilleryman (that lacks Guns/TL8 (Grenade Launchers)) were to fire it in GURPS he'd be able to use it in direct fire at -2 to skill but would have to default to DX for Guns. It seems odd that he loses the default for a change in way the weapon is deployed that isn't especially significant.

IMO, I think that Artillery should be the skill of Fire Direction only, the gunners and loaders should use Guns.

[The Wrathchild]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The problem isn't when the PCs call for fire; the rules in High-Tech are excellent for that. The problem is when they are the firing unit. For example what if the PCs are the crew of a naval vessel providing shore bombardment (or an orbital platform providing orbital bombardment)?

• What skills do they need?
• Who makes the Artillery roll?
• Is it fun to have all the PCs efforts compressed into a single mass skill?
• Do the gunners actually need both Gunner and Artillery if they need to use both direct and indirect fire with the same weapon system?
• Do the loaders get to make ST-based rolls for direct fire or just indirect fire?

Artillery skill:

This is the ability to use a heavy
weapon, such as a trebuchet or a howitzer,
for indirect fire – that is, to put
fire onto a target area via a high ballistic
arc or similar path.

No expert at all here, but if eg. the description in Wikipedia is even relatively correct, it seems to me that it is the person(s) who performs the role that the FDC does - the actual calculations that sets up the shot - that rolls the Artillery roll.

The loader-firer crew seems to me to have the Professional: Gun Crewskill (or something to that effect) which lets them perform the tasks ordered by the FDC and realyed to/through the crew leader. This would probably only come into effect if ou wanted to press the stats of the weapon, most likely the firing rate.

(Wasn't there a movie once not too long ago, where the plot hinged on faultily communicated firing instructions from the FDC to the crew? No ... it was a JAG episode, I believe.)

I see no problem in "activating" the crew, though, making rolls to keep/increase fire rates and performing correctly - I have just youtubed a little and it makes it very clear that you can **** up as crew. Badly, too (one chinese video showed a soldier standing behind the breech of small gun, then it fired before he was away. He was knocked right out of the frame. Ouch. Internal injuries there for sure.).

And actually, it seems that the FDC itself (can) have several performers, too, each dealing with different parts of FO information.

It should be perfectly feasible to increase the resolution here.

[Ragitsu]

So, if a group of PCs (four or less) come across an artillery cannon on a battlefield that has one shell loaded, and a monster is making it's way across the terrain, are they SOL if they try to lower the barrel to fire at it? Can they pull off the attack on their own?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

So, if a group of PCs (four or less) come across an artillery cannon on a battlefield that has one shell loaded, and a monster is making it's way across the terrain, are they SOL if they try to lower the barrel to fire at it? Can they pull off the attack on their own?

That's Gunner, which is a DX Easy skill.

They are SOL if someone says "Hey, I bet there's a monster somewhere over that hill. Let's try to hit it!" but you'd rather expect that.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by The Wrathchild

No expert at all here, but if eg. the description in Wikipedia is even relatively correct, it seems to me that it is the person(s) who performs the role that the FDC does - the actual calculations that sets up the shot - that rolls the Artillery roll.

I thought this might be the case (and as I mention above, should be the case). The familiarity penalties would make a good deal more sense then, for instance. However why then do the loaders of a piece get to roll ST-based Artillery?

Also how does Artillery skill work without an FO (say for TL1-5 pieces)?

[copeab]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

[*]Is it fun to have all the PCs efforts compressed into a single mass skill?

Let's say the gun crew is five men. A single roll is more likely to succeed than a group of five roll which all have to succeed. A critical failure is also five times more likely. Hardly seems worth it to me.

If you want the abilities of each crewman to "matter" then make one roll against their average skill. Players can take turns making this roll if desired.