[High-Tech, Ultra-Tech] Targeting systems questions

[vierasmarius]

I find the +3 for rangefinders to be problematic in general. I'd much rather have additional penalties for projectile weapons at long range (especially for those firing in a high ballistic arc, like artillery or grenades). A rangefinder would help mitigate the extra penalty. For line-of-sight weapons like lasers, these penalties wouldn't apply so a rangefinder would be of no help (for hitting the target at least; they may serve other functions, such as to focus the beam at the correct distance).

[Anthony]

I had some thoughts about rangefinding a while ago. In the end, the GURPS rules for range don't scale quite right (it assumes a target 2x as big, moving at 2x the speed, at 2x the distance, is no change in difficulty; that's only true as long as time of flight is negligible) and for projectile weapons the main thing rangefinders do is compensate for time of flight.

[MatthewVilter]

I am going to go buy that issue of Pyramid now.

Originally Posted by apoc527

The rangefinding bonus is something that's up in the air for me. I am currently not enthralled with it, and just ignore it, but I think what I would eventually like to do is have it reduce range penalties beyond a certain point (like "if total range penalties are greater than or equal to -10, the rangefinding bonus applies and reduces this penalty by 3").

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I find the +3 for rangefinders to be problematic in general. I'd much rather have additional penalties for projectile weapons at long range (especially for those firing in a high ballistic arc, like artillery or grenades). A rangefinder would help mitigate the extra penalty. For line-of-sight weapons like lasers, these penalties wouldn't apply so a rangefinder would be of no help (for hitting the target at least; they may serve other functions, such as to focus the beam at the correct distance).

lwcamp has a nice way of handling this here.

It covers some of what Anthony talks about in his writeup.

Originally Posted by apoc527

There are currently no clear rules on dumbfiring those types of weapons--however, I'd just treat them as normal ranged attacks with the listed Acc (usually not high).

This kind of starts to digs into my problem with the rules for Homing Weapons in general. Let me see if I can explain...

With High-Tech weapons (where I take Acc to account for the sophistication of the tracking system) it makes no sense to fail your lock on roll (which I can only assume means that the weapon is not locked on), fire it anyway, and then have it home in on the target...

And dumbfireing most (any?) of these should be out of the question.

OTOH in Ultra-Tech the sophistication of the tracking system is clearly represented by the type of seeker head used. The Acc of the weapon used to fire the Homing Projectile seem like it should be more or less irelavant.

Unless, that is, you take a dumbfire shot. In that case you should be back to more or less where you were before you loaded homing ammo in the first place: Rolling against Guns skill with your Acc bonus if you Aimed.

I guess that is how most people would handled dumbfireing Ultra-Tech Homing Projectiles... But I am still at a loss for what the 'fail lock on -> fire anyway -> Homing Projectile rolls against its skill of 14 to hit' sequence of events is supposed to represent... Are Ultra-Tech Homing Projectiles supposed to turn civilians and children and monkeys and R.O.B. into Jack Reacher?

And again: I can see an Anti-Materiel Rifle being more likely to hit then a Magnum Pistol even with a Homing Projectile but why is that the advantage that you lose if you fail to lock on?

Originally Posted by apoc527

What kind of game are you running where this will come up? THS? Something Mass Effect-y?

At some point I really do want to run ThS... I have ambitions of hosting a PbP X-COM-a-like... What actually got me to do this writeup of my concerns is that I will be playing in a space opera PbP soon and rather than dump a bunch of questions about the RAW and my concerns about them on my GM I thought it would be nicer to get the former answered by you people and discuss the latter in a more generic way here. That way I can be satisfied with my own set of house rules derived from the discussion here without holding my GM to anything but still have an easy way to communicate my confusion/concern about Ultra-Tech combat relatively easily.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'm fairly sure that means you can ignore any penalties for not having a rangefinder, allows Precision Aiming without equipment or spotter, and maybe halves the range penalty for Forward Observer. It isn't "+3 to hit with ranged weapons all the time" for 1 point.?

Yeah. I take it that the intent was in regard to the uses of rangefinders at the time that PU2:Perks came out. Ie Precision Aiming and Forward Observer (High-Tech has Computer Sights that use rangefinders to get +3 but AFAICT that is the only time that worked until we got the infamous box on Tactical Shooting p. 27).

Originally Posted by Anthony

I had some thoughts about rangefinding a while ago. In the end, the GURPS rules for range don't scale quite right (it assumes a target 2x as big, moving at 2x the speed, at 2x the distance, is no change in difficulty; that's only true as long as time of flight is negligible) and for projectile weapons the main thing rangefinders do is compensate for time of flight.

This is awesome!

As a side note:

Originally Posted by Anthony

...for εr=50m and r = 500m we're up to 150mm or about 6", which won't let you shoot someone in the eye but for a center of mass shot still hits somewhere decently important, unless you're shooting at a prone target (which is an excellent reason to drop prone when exchanging shots at long ranges...).

In ARMA (a computer game where one of the advertised features is accurate ballistic modeling) I have actually experienced this! If I want to take down a couple of sentries with my silenced DMR I need to either know the range quite well or hit them both before one of them drops prone.

Same with leading running targets being more of a PitA then bullet drop and using test firing (I take it that the latter reflects the PC in that game having something like Traser Eyes although I am looking at impact points not flight path so it is less useful within a turn...maybe just a Per check?).

[apoc527]

(Side note: Ahhh...GURPS forums. I've been posting on a playtest forum for an upcoming RPG that uses a newfangled "abstract" system, and well, it causes me nearly physical pain...GURPS, I will never leave you for long!)

Matthew, I think that maybe we should simply say "if you fail to lock-on, your homing projectile doesn't launch." This is binary and means that you MUST lock-on. You know what? I just had a brainstorm. What if Acc of these weapons was added to your LOCK-ON roll and represented the ease with which you could obtain lock-on, with older, lower TL models having lower Acc compared to higher ones, and then leave the actual skill of the projectile totally independent of the Acc of the launcher?

I kind of like that idea!

The problem is that UT and HT (unsurprisingly) have clearly used different rules for this. In HT, weapons like the Javelin have a high Acc, probably meant to be added to 10 as per Basic Set, so you can have a nice attack roll. I'd probably argue that you CAN'T fire at all unless you make the Aim roll, meaning that all Homing projectiles always get their Acc added to 10 for their skill.

Anyway, it's not a huge deal, but we could unify HT and UT fairly easily if we really cared.

[MatthewVilter]

Originally Posted by apoc527

(Side note: Ahhh...GURPS forums. I've been posting on a playtest forum for an upcoming RPG that uses a newfangled "abstract" system, and well, it causes me nearly physical pain...GURPS, I will never leave you for long!)

I know the feeling...

Originally Posted by apoc527

Matthew, I think that maybe we should simply say "if you fail to lock-on, your homing projectile doesn't launch." This is binary and means that you MUST lock-on. You know what? I just had a brainstorm. What if Acc of these weapons was added to your LOCK-ON roll and represented the ease with which you could obtain lock-on, with older, lower TL models having lower Acc compared to higher ones, and then leave the actual skill of the projectile totally independent of the Acc of the launcher?

I kind of like that idea!

The problem is that UT and HT (unsurprisingly) have clearly used different rules for this. In HT, weapons like the Javelin have a high Acc, probably meant to be added to 10 as per Basic Set, so you can have a nice attack roll. I'd probably argue that you CAN'T fire at all unless you make the Aim roll, meaning that all Homing projectiles always get their Acc added to 10 for their skill.

Anyway, it's not a huge deal, but we could unify HT and UT fairly easily if we really cared.

Yeah, I like the idea of needing a lock to fire (or at least for the shot to home).

And yeah, I think it is reasonable (RAW even) to interpret the Acc of High-Tech homing weapons as their seeker heads' skills-10.

As far as using a weapon's Acc as a bonus to the lock on roll I think that would make the roll way too easy. Unless you start adding range penalties to lock on rolls. At that point we would probably want another stat for the targeting system anyway. From what I have read in that other thread that quickly becomes a nightmare of modifiers. IDK actually, it might not be that bad if you know what you are getting into...

I am still sort of at a loss for what to do about the Acc of Ultra-Tech weapons' interaction with homing projectiles. I guess if I go for full rules for targeting sensors and vision/range penalties and all that it will be a moot point.

Also, I think what I said under "Homing bullets and grenades:" still applies.

Maybe you can roll to hit at +4 for just trying to get the bullets into the general area of the target and each one that makes it rolls vs its homing skill? That's a lot of rolls... And, I think, might be one of those things that stretch the Rcl system a bit...

[apoc527]

Originally Posted by MatthewVilter

I know the feeling...



Yeah, I like the idea of needing a lock to fire (or at least for the shot to home).

It's not the clearest it could be, but I think there's solid support that this IS RAW with respect to Homing weapons.

Originally Posted by B413

Aim: Your weapon must "lock on" to the target before you can fire.

Even though a later statement makes it sound otherwise, I think this is clear enough.

And yeah, I think it is reasonable (RAW even) to interpret the Acc of High-Tech homing weapons as their seeker heads' skills-10.

As far as using a weapon's Acc as a bonus to the lock on roll I think that would make the roll way too easy. Unless you start adding range penalties to lock on rolls. At that point we would probably want another stat for the targeting system anyway. From what I have read in that other thread that quickly becomes a nightmare of modifiers. IDK actually, it might not be that bad if you know what you are getting into...

You are probably right. I hadn't considered that Lock On rolls are not penalized by much. In that case, ignore my suggestion. OTOH, I think there IS room for a bonus to "lock on" rolls, depending on how intuitive and easy the system is to operate. However, I also note that some weapons come with telescopic sights, making me think that this Lock On Aim roll IS penalized by range. Clarifying all this could be a great post on Gaming Ballistic or a Pyramid article.

I am still sort of at a loss for what to do about the Acc of Ultra-Tech weapons' interaction with homing projectiles. I guess if I go for full rules for targeting sensors and vision/range penalties and all that it will be a moot point.

Yea. I kind of like the idea now of using the Acc from UT weapons as a bonus for the Lock On roll (which I would say IS penalized by range and size, though perhaps I'd divide that by 2...and Doug knows why) and I'd also allow these weapons to use standard telescopic sights to reduce that range penalty.

Also, I think what I said under "Homing bullets and grenades:" still applies.

Maybe you can roll to hit at +4 for just trying to get the bullets into the general area of the target and each one that makes it rolls vs its homing skill? That's a lot of rolls... And, I think, might be one of those things that stretch the Rcl system a bit...

Yea, I agree, a lot of rolls, and it might stretch the Rcl system a lot. Tough to say.

[MatthewVilter]

Originally Posted by apoc527

It's not the clearest it could be, but I think there's solid support that this IS RAW with respect to Homing weapons.

Originally Posted by B413

Aim: Your weapon must "lock on" to the target before you can fire.

Originally Posted by apoc527

Even though a later statement makes it sound otherwise, I think this is clear enough.

Ah! Good eye! Well that does leave things kind of muddled...

Originally Posted by apoc527

...

Clarifying all this could be a great post on Gaming Ballistic or a Pyramid article.

Definitely! I may write something up myself although I don't know what I would do with it except post it here...

Originally Posted by apoc527

Yea. I kind of like the idea now of using the Acc from UT weapons as a bonus for the Lock On roll (which I would say IS penalized by range and size, though perhaps I'd divide that by 2...and Doug knows why) and I'd also allow these weapons to use standard telescopic sights to reduce that range penalty.

Yeah... It, at least, makes sense to me that it would be easier to lock on with, say, a Gyroc Carbine then a Holdout Gyroc. Much more sense then that difference in Acc scores applying to the projectile's roll to hit anyway.

I am not convinced that the same applies to, say, an Anti-Materiel Rifle vs a Tactical Missile Launcher...

Originally Posted by apoc527

Yea, I agree, a lot of rolls, and it might stretch the Rcl system a lot. Tough to say.

Yeah, probably best to come up with more specific rules that call for less rolls and work within the Rcl rules instead of stacking awkwardly on top of them...

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by apoc527

Yea. I kind of like the idea now of using the Acc from UT weapons as a bonus for the Lock On roll (which I would say IS penalized by range and size, though perhaps I'd divide that by 2...and Doug knows why) and I'd also allow these weapons to use standard telescopic sights to reduce that range penalty.

Just where are we on the RAW-vs-Alternate spectrum? RAW Homing weapons take no range penalties for lock-on.

[MatthewVilter]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Just where are we on the RAW-vs-Alternate spectrum? RAW Homing weapons take no range penalties for lock-on.

I think we are talking about the feasibility of a house rule where vision penalties do apply to lock on rolls.

As far as that Kromm quote goes; I am not sure what to make of it as he notes that "You specifically ignore range and speed." on the projectile's roll to hit when Basic explicitly lists speed as one of the penalties that does apply...

[vierasmarius]

I'm still quite fond of the Sensor / Homing weapon rules presented in VE2. There, sensors don't automatically spot things within their range, but instead get a Scanner Rating based on their sensitivity. Rolls (usually Electronics Operations specialties) to detect and identify objects with a sensor take the standard range and size modifiers, plus a variety of modifiers based on the type of sensor (passive sonar can more easily detect noisy propulsion systems, IR has a bonus against hot targets like jet exhaust pipes, various stealth systems give penalties to different sensors, etc). Once detection has been established, it can be "improved" on subsequent turns to get more detailed information, and contact can be "handed off" to other sensors more easily.

Homing weapon lock-ons are handled in a similar fashion, depending on the type of sensor they're equipped with. Once a lock is established, launching the missile is a simple Gunner +4 roll (to hit the right button, basically; I'd probably drop that roll unless the operating is untrained). My one sticking point with the 3rd edition rules is that, once a lock is established, the missile will hit automatically unless the target uses an appropriate countermeasure or successfully Dodges. I'd prefer if there was an actual attack roll at the end of the missile flight, using the skill of the missile guidance, with the possibility of advanced missiles making a "Deceptive" attack to penalize the target's Dodge roll.