04-03-2020, 12:32 PM | #1 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
[Spaceships] Rationalizing facing and arcs of fire in tactical combat
The handling of facing and arcs of fire in spaceships has some odd features, especially in tactical combat. So I've decided to try to draft a somewhat improved set of rules. Feedback welcome.
The basic approach here is to think of ships in terms of o'clock directions, e.g. 12 o'clock is straight forward, 6 o'clock is straight backwards, etc. The even numbers will always correspond to faces of the tactical hex grid, while the odd numbers will always correspond to corners of the tactical hex grid. Hull sections are as follows: "front" is from 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock; "central" is from 2 o'clock to 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock to 10 o'clock, and "rear" is from 4 o'clock to 8 o'clock. All weapons need to be located at an o'clock position. Fixed mounts have a 60° arc of fire (e.g. from 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock) while turrets have a 180° arc of fire (e.g. from 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock). These ranges are always inclusive on both ends (e.g. a fixed mount pointing towards 3 o'clock with range 1 will be able to fire at targets in either of two hexes). Which hull section an attacker can target depends on which o'clock position it is coming from:
|
04-03-2020, 01:18 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Spaceships] Rationalizing facing and arcs of fire in tactical combat
It's rather weird to make turret arcs more restrictive than historical naval types. Centerline turrets would usually have arcs that span more than 180 degrees, and full 360 coverage was possible and is more possible in space where there's no reason to have a tall superstructure blocking part of the arc.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
04-03-2020, 01:28 PM | #3 | |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Rationalizing facing and arcs of fire in tactical combat
Quote:
|
|
04-03-2020, 05:10 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Rationalizing facing and arcs of fire in tactical combat
Quote:
https://imgur.com/a/mI8UjsJ
|
|
04-03-2020, 05:25 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Apr 2013
|
Re: [Spaceships] Rationalizing facing and arcs of fire in tactical combat
Don't forget that, unlike a water ship, a space ship can roll, letting the whole ship be, in effect, a turret. It can make sense to have one side designed to be the engaged side, with armor and direct fire weapons, and the other side soft.
|
04-03-2020, 06:22 PM | #6 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Rationalizing facing and arcs of fire in tactical combat
This is true, though GURPS Spaceships isn't really set up to model it.
|
04-04-2020, 07:46 AM | #7 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: [Spaceships] Rationalizing facing and arcs of fire in tactical combat
Yet that's exactly what it assumes - it's why centre section turrets can fire to both sides.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
04-04-2020, 08:36 AM | #8 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Rationalizing facing and arcs of fire in tactical combat
There are some problems with the default treatment, though. For one thing, large ships might realistically have trouble executing the necessary roll quickly enough. Another problem is that as written if the central hull has two fixed mounts, they can both fire in the same direction on one turn and in opposite directions on another turn.
|
04-04-2020, 09:23 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Spaceships] Rationalizing facing and arcs of fire in tactical combat
Quote:
Remember that Spaceships "turns" are not what Turns are in general Gurps. A Spaceships "turn" is always at least 20 seconds and 1 minute may be more common.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
04-04-2020, 12:29 PM | #10 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Rationalizing facing and arcs of fire in tactical combat
I'm not sure which of the two sentences you're referring to. The first sentence is referring to the problem where, say, a ship has turrets on the top and the bottom, and in principle it could use both on a ship initially "below" it by rolling 90°, but the roll isn't necessarily going to be instantaneous. In the second sentence I specified fixed mounts, which logically should be on one side of the ship or the other but by RAW that doesn't need to be specified.
|
|
|