Boresight question

[ShopKeepJon]

Just out of curiosity...

Quite a few people have commented on the fact that boresighted weapons have extra AD to make up for the fact that they have more trouble lining up targets. Can anyone tell me how much of an increase this is (10%, 50%, etc.)?

I'm especially interested in answers from the developers, the playtesters, and anyone who has done an actual analysis of weapon systems.

ShopKeepJon

 

[harikaridog]

....in original ACTA Omega Lasers were 2AD, in Sky full of Stars they were 4AD....and in 2e they are 6AD!

Same AD change for Warlock GOD.....for G'Quan sequence between editions was 2 to 3 then 4AD,
Brokados 4, 2, 2

but then again in 2e beam mechanics changed greatly.

...boresight....love it or loath it....................I really loath it!

 

[Ripple]

There is no formula as far as I can tell. As stated above, they keep changing the numbers as they go, trying to make a bad rule work.

Ripple

 

[Burger]

Like most other factors in the game, the AD were decided on by the "that seems about right" method, and playtested. If it was too weak, more ADs were added. If too good, ADs were removed. Until perfect balance was achieved.

 

[harikaridog]

Hmm....has the removal of the current boresight mechanic ever been seriously considered or is it one of those 'sacred cow' concepts that must be maintained?

 

[Hannibal]

Boresighting is one of the sillier ideas, especially on big ships. With a weapon, you either make sure there's a way to move it or the ship so you can line up the shot, whichever is easier. With smaller ships (like fighters), it is feasible to say "we'll have thrusters that allow us to move the ship." But with massive ships that are a mile in length it's absurd to think that you'd manuever the entire ships. You'd simply mount the lasers on some kind gimbal.

And let me preempt the "it was that way in the show" arguement. I don't buy it for two reasons:

1) Not all ships are 100% true to the show. The whitestar, for example, is not a Boresight weapon yet it clearly appears that way in the show:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ite_Star.jpg/250px-Babylon_5_-_White_Star.jpg

2) Just because they didn't show the guns pivoting on a gimbal doesn't mean they can't. Look at: http://archive.firstones.com/tp2b/earth_alliance/ocd_agamemnon_beauty.jpg That weapon mount looks like it conceivable could fire pivot the weapon at least 45 degrees laterally.

Even the G'quan, I argue would have its lasers mounted on a gimbal. In fact on Mongoose's own artwork they show a G'quan firing at an enemy that is, shall we say, a teensy bit off the boresight arc:
http://spaceship.brainiac.com/Mongoose/narn-fleet.jpeg

 

[harikaridog]

Thanks Hannibal,
That supports my views ........., a distinct 'red' beam fires upwards from the G'Quan in the 2nd season episode ..."And Now for a Word, and I'm sure that some of the Omegas in 'A Call to Arms' fire their lasers at an off centre angle. These emanate from the main laser mounting......I'm not talking about the 'rogue' laser that the Agamamnon fires at the Whitestar in 'Messages from Earth'

Am interested in other views on this......is Boresight something essential to the game as it stands now....and if so are the above CGI examples either 'CGI errors'....or should we ignore the 'canon' concept ''after all its only a game"?

Personally have no objections at all to Mongoose designed ships having the 'boresight' trait...but i thinks its a bit absurd to have some of the real canon ships saddled with it.

 

[Burger]

The official story is the G'Quan in question had the refit that convets Boresight to Forward arc.

 

[harikaridog]

The official story is the G'Quan in question had the refit that convets Boresight to Forward arc.

Ah...that explains it then

 

[ShopKeepJon]

Boresighting is one of the sillier ideas, especially on big ships. With a weapon, you either make sure there's a way to move it or the ship so you can line up the shot, whichever is easier. With smaller ships (like fighters), it is feasible to say "we'll have thrusters that allow us to move the ship." But with massive ships that are a mile in length it's absurd to think that you'd manuever the entire ships. You'd simply mount the lasers on some kind gimbal.

This is true if you are of the school of thought that the ships are actually as close to each other as shown on screen in the series and movies. When ships are firing away with hugely powerful weapons from a distance of a couple hundred yards, then you need turret/gimbal mounted weapons.

I personally find this hard to accept since even our modern naval vessels engage each other from vastly greater ranges.

If, on the other hand, you are of the school of thought that the ships are actually much farther apart than is shown on screen (it being more exciting to actually see all of the ships firing on each other), then your argument doesn't hold up. Even the more cumbersome ships are shown being able to turn 180 degrees in under thirty seconds. If the target is two or three hundred miles away, a spinal mounted weapon could be brought to bear in a matter of seconds (fractions of a second if the ship is pointing in approximately the correct direction).

I'm not saying that this is the case in the shows, just that it is not as ridiculous as you make it out to be.

Also note that, though there are exceptions as you've pointed out, the ships noted as being boresighted do generally fire straight ahead in the shows...

Having said all of this, I am not too happy with the feel of the boresight mechanic. That's why I originally started this thread. I'm trying to get a handle on the aspects of the game that hinge upon this mechanic.

ShopKeepJon

 

[locarno24]

None, really.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Hmm....has the removal of the current boresight mechanic ever been seriously considered or is it one of those 'sacred cow' concepts that must be maintained?

it has been considered but I doubt it'll ever change. I don't like boresight myself but like other "clunky" rules (eg crew damage) there are plenty of people who do like the rule

 

[Hannibal]

For the sake of (friendly) arguement:

If, on the other hand, you are of the school of thought that the ships are actually much farther apart than is shown on screen (it being more exciting to actually see all of the ships firing on each other), then your argument doesn't hold up. Even the more cumbersome ships are shown being able to turn 180 degrees in under thirty seconds.

These two sentences undermine your own arguement. You're stating that on the one hand, the show is inaccurate in the engagement distances of ships but on the other hand it's accurate in the time it takes for ships to manuever. It is entirely plausible that the manuevering time is compressed for cinematic benefit, just as are the ranges. Either the show is accurate and canon or it's not. No cherry picking. ;-)

If the target is two or three hundred miles away, a spinal mounted weapon could be brought to bear in a matter of seconds (fractions of a second if the ship is pointing in approximately the correct direction).

For the sake of arguement, let's say ships are fighting each other from miles away. At that distance, minor angles become major misses. I'm not a math person, but if an enemy is 1 degree below the omega at 100 miles away, the laser is going to miss by a huge amount. (somebody can figure this out if they want)

From an energy POV, which is easier: moving the entire ship or moving one laser cannon? Why would you expend that much energy to manuever a 45 million ton ship.

Secondly, even if we ignore the previous point, what happens when you face multiple enemies? In order to line up the boresight beam, manuevering the ship will bring your other weapons out of line with the enemies.

Simply put, it is much smarter and more energy efficient to mount just about every weapon so that it can pivot.

 

[Taran]

My biggest problem with the whole Boresight system, and even the whole part about the Forward Arc being the primary firing arc for these vessels is that even the Lumbering ships are designed such that they MUST cross their own T to get a shot off.

This is just lunacy when you factor in the idea of lasers that can cut all the way through antire vessel.
With these weapons, giving the enemy the ability to throw 1 weapon at you that can core you in 1 shot is begging to die. At least if they hit you in the flank, they only blow a crosswise hole in your hull rather than turn you into a soda straw...


That aside, given that these vessels probably ARE firing at hug ranges, the boresight should still be replaced by the Forward Arc to simulate that. Since we're not playing exactly to scale, after all...

 

[EDFDarkAngel1]

If they removed boresight, the EA would either need their weapons dialed significantly, or they will overpower everyone.

In science fiction, a ship that requires a significant portion of its power to fire a weapon is typically fixed mounted to a ship's hull. Less moving parts = less chance of breaking.

Consider the catapult of the Dark Ages, it was a fixed weapon because of so much power required for the fulcrum and pivot, as well as the upward force of launching a projectile. As weapons grew more advanced, it was almost always a fixed mount weapon first, then turrets were added to make it able to fire in multiple arcs.

Agreed on the point of fighters, it is easier for them to maneuver the craft rather than moving the turrets.

Dark Angel

 

[Target]

Hmm....has the removal of the current boresight mechanic ever been seriously considered or is it one of those 'sacred cow' concepts that must be maintained?

it has been considered but I doubt it'll ever change. I don't like boresight myself but like other "clunky" rules (eg crew damage) there are plenty of people who do like the rule

Agree lets get rid of crew scores.

 

[Karhedron]

Consider the catapult of the Dark Ages, it was a fixed weapon because of so much power required for the fulcrum and pivot, as well as the upward force of launching a projectile. As weapons grew more advanced, it was almost always a fixed mount weapon first, then turrets were added to make it able to fire in multiple arcs.

Actually the latest archaelogical research suggests that catapults were usually mounted on wheels by the middle ages. The classic "trebuchet" was almost certainly built this way.

The reason is that if the chassis can roll, it allows the counter-weight to drop in vertical line rather than in an arc. This means it falls faster and transfers more kinetic energy to the projectile. In fact it more than offsets the slight loss in energy as the catapult itself rolls backwards.

Even just working by trail and error, medieval craftsmen discovered things that are still suprising us today.

 

[Hannibal]

Agree lets get rid of crew scores.

Here here. Rather pointless stat in my opinion.

 

[angelus2000]

Agreed on the point of fighters, it is easier for them to maneuver the craft rather than moving the turrets.

Just another counterpoint. The whole reason why modern day fighters don't mount turrets is due to weight and drag/aerodynamic reason. With helmet mounted optics, chin turrets would be absolutely lethal, even at the very high speeds fighters are capable of. "Space:Above and Beyond" (might have been a good show if they had decided the stars we jet jockeys or groundpounders) had fighters mounted with both chin turret and and overhead turret.

For pratical game reason, doesn't really make a huge diff, fighters are already considered to be T anyway. At most it might justify a slighly higher dogfight score.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

These two sentences undermine your own arguement. You're stating that on the one hand, the show is inaccurate in the engagement distances of ships but on the other hand it's accurate in the time it takes for ships to manuever. It is entirely plausible that the manuevering time is compressed for cinematic benefit, just as are the ranges. Either the show is accurate and canon or it's not. No cherry picking. ;-)

Sadly, we have no choice but to cherry pick. You did in your argument, I did in mine, and Mongoose did when designing the game... I wasn't trying to say that my explanation was right, just not ridiculous...

For arguments sake, I point out that, of the younger races, only the Minbari seem able to direct their beam weapons off the centerline of their vessels (with a few exceptions, cgi being what it is). It seems that creating a beam of such power and firing it at changing angles is beyond the technological capabilities of the other young races. If this is the case, they would be forced to line up their shots as we see them doing on screen. They would probably much rather have a weapon that fires as you describe, but they can't make it work that way.

I like to think of boresighted weapons working this way since it keeps my head from hurting when I think about it... :wink:

As for mechanics in the game, since we do see most of the beam weapons firing straight ahead on screen, I like seeing it represented in the game. I just don't like the implementation used to represent it... :?

ShopKeepJon