Boresight question

[WereRogue]

I, for one, as an EA player, would be very happy to gain FA and lose a couple AD.

My problem with Boresight is that B5 is supposed to be in the technologically advanced future, and yet in modern day technology, we don't have a single ship that fires in a locked boresight position. And we fight in 2 Dimensions! When you add the 3rd in, how does it make sense to have your primary weapon locked in a straight line?

-Ken

 

[Taran]

Even modern weapons=grade lasers aren't boresighted. In fact, they're all turreted...

 

[Hannibal]

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).

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In short that's my whole point. Restricting a ship to boresight based on "what's in the show" is absurd.

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.

You're not making the beam change angles, you're making the cannon change angles. It's the same principle as putting wheels on a cannon or a pool playing changing pool cue's position: the energy is still going in a straight line, it's just the producer of said energy is itself being shifted.

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...

And to open up another line of arguement, let's say I cede your point about "ships being able to manuever in 30 seconds." If they're that manueverable then surely they should have manueveirng thrusters able to line up said axially mounted cannon which would be good enough to justify those wepaons having a front arc shot?

(as an aside, I agree that if boresight weapons became front arc, they'd have to be reduced in damage dice. It's a compromise I'd be willing to make)

 

[ShopKeepJon]

I, for one, as an EA player, would be very happy to gain FA and lose a couple AD.

My problem with Boresight is that B5 is supposed to be in the technologically advanced future, and yet in modern day technology, we don't have a single ship that fires in a locked boresight position. And we fight in 2 Dimensions! When you add the 3rd in, how does it make sense to have your primary weapon locked in a straight line?

-Ken

We also don't have any weapon systems capable of firing over huge distances and cutting heavily armored targets (literally) in half. Again, I like to think that the technology exists to create the beam but not to redirect it without burning out the system (or the ship firing it). I point out that all of the weapon systems analogous to modern day weapon systems are not boresight.

As for dropping a few AD, how about allowing B weapons to fire into the whole arc but giving any target a 5+ dodge (or a one point bonus to existing dodge) to represent the difficulty in lining up the shot? It probably lowers the firepower of the B weapon a little too much (which takes us back to the original topic of the thread), but it does feel right...

ShopKeepJon

 

[Taran]

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.

It's not even just the "latest archeological research" it some of the earliest as well. Not to mention weapon designs and intact weapons that survived outside of digs. Seems historians and archeologists went through a period of "No way are any of these stories true" and then we find out otherwise. Perfect example: Old story was that knights were nearly unstoppable juggernauts when loose among less heavily armoured opponents; the next story was that a knight was more like a turtle and unable to move easily; well, now we have even gone to the extent of using period technologies to construct a full set of armour and demonstrate that you can do cartwheels and even somersaults in full plate armour.

IOW: All except the heaviest catapults and those mounted in fixed fortifications were constructed on wheels. Oh, and the smaller ones were insanely accurate. I could hit a man-size target at 200 yards with a 20Lb rock from a smaller catapult.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In short that's my whole point. Restricting a ship to boresight based on "what's in the show" is absurd.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence except what we see in the show. We have to work with what we have...:wink:

You're not making the beam change angles, you're making the cannon change angles. It's the same principle as putting wheels on a cannon or a pool playing changing pool cue's position: the energy is still going in a straight line, it's just the producer of said energy is itself being shifted.

Unless the weapon system itself is too large to do that. We never see the whole system and, thus, have an absence of evidence.:wink:

And to open up another line of arguement, let's say I cede your point about "ships being able to manuever in 30 seconds." If they're that manueverable then surely they should have manueveirng thrusters able to line up said axially mounted cannon which would be good enough to justify those wepaons having a front arc shot?

I said I didn't like the implementation.:roll:

ShopKeepJon

 

[Hannibal]

Unfortunately, there is no evidence except what we see in the show. We have to work with what we have...

And as I've stated (and you've stated), Mongoose has cherry picked the show. So it's a bit strange to be sticklers on "what's in the show" on some cases and not others. Especially when its a mechanic that many people (both of us included) find annoying and is only there because "it's in the show."

 

[WereRogue]

We also don't have any weapon systems capable of firing over huge distances and cutting heavily armored targets (literally) in half.

Because the Paladin and the Tomahawk don't fit that description at all. . . :?

Cables are flexible, power supplies can be stored elsewhere, and in almost every application I've seen for laser and beam technology, the required components are far less cumbersome than traditional ammunition based weapons. Hell, if they can make the 3 18" guns on a battleship rotate 180 degrees at the same time . . . . And you can even engage a seperate target with each shell!

Range and stopping power have nothing to do with weapon versatility.

-Ken

 

[Taran]

I don't know what your point is with the Tomahawk. It's a missile, after all.

As for the Paladin, it may not be able to adjust much, but the turret is Not fixed. Nor is the bore of the canon locked at a single elevation.


So, I really don't know where you're trying to go with this...

 

[WereRogue]

SKJ made the statement that we don't have weapons capable of delivering massive amounts of firepower over a large distance as a comment as to why we don't have boresight weapons in the modern age, but they have them in the technological superior third age of mankind.

I was merely providing evidence that we do have weapon systems capable of delivering massive amounts of firepower over vast distances that are not boresight.

-Ken

 

[harikaridog]

I just love the forums and how we get so many interesting varied and educated viewpoints.....however getting back to the nitty gritty I am getting an impression that boresight amongst several other 'sacred cow' rules could do with a major overhaul.

A few ideas have already been mooted by a few contributors, It would be nice to see those ideas developed in posts....would be fun to do some playtesting on these ideas.

let the creative juices flow...and lets see what develops :lol:

 

[ShopKeepJon]

I just love the forums and how we get so many interesting varied and educated viewpoints.....however getting back to the nitty gritty I am getting an impression that boresight amongst several other 'sacred cow' rules could do with a major overhaul.

A few ideas have already been mooted by a few contributors, It would be nice to see those ideas developed in posts....would be fun to do some playtesting on these ideas.

let the creative juices flow...and lets see what develops :lol:

As for dropping a few AD, how about allowing B weapons to fire into the whole arc but giving any target a 5+ dodge (or a one point bonus to existing dodge) to represent the difficulty in lining up the shot? It probably lowers the firepower of the B weapon a little too much (which takes us back to the original topic of the thread), but it does feel right...

I like the idea of boresighted weapons just being hard to line up rather than only "dead ahead".

Before going any further, however, note that all of the Boresighted weapons (except for some of the Drazi and Drazi derivative Pakmara) are Beam weapons. Messing with Boresight also means messing with Beam weapon strenghts. :shock:

This could get (rules wise) very messy very quickly.

ShopKeepJon

 

[Taran]

I see that now.

How about the Vulcan Cannon?
Or the main gun of the M1 Abrams?
Or the main batteries of our Battleship?
Or, we actually have what the CBT universe calls Gauss Rifles (I can't think of the RL name for the weapon system) mounted on Destroyers.

 

[Tank_Santa]

So now that I have read everything what is the problem with boresight weapons? I don't have trouble lineing them up at range, they only become difficult once the battle closes range. Thats why most ships have a plethora of smaller guns lineing their sides once the battle has got too close.

Maybe your tactics and thinking need to change before the rules do?

As for the mechanics of it...

Don't forget to space is 3d so boresight may have 180' up and down but no side to side. Besides you can measure at any time useing the tape measure or whatever to line you up with the target for that weapon.

As for cannon or as seen on screen, I find those sources tend to contradict themselves more then any other. Things are done to look awesome not to make sense. So in one episode this does this and the next episode this does this is a circle jerk argument that was not planned for by the CGI guys...

Start thinking of how to work with it rather then why it shouldn't be.

If you want these sort of tiny little issues with every ship the old Babylon 5 Wars is full of it. Guns with 15' degree arcs and power that needs to be distributed from your reactor to make guns fire, EW points to target and defend your ship etc...

If you start to mess with too much, you lose the simple quick paced game play that makes ACTA a more enjoyable system.

All of this is IMO of course...

On the other hand if you have players that agree and everyone is cool with it let the house rules fly, but beware of the balance issues this may cause...

 

[Frankvas]

I don't mind bore sight weapons so much, They add some flavor to the ships. As I see them, these weapons are so large that they had the ship build around them, thus the ship acts as a turret, after all, the ship is mobile right?

Frank V.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

I see that now.

How about the Vulcan Cannon?
Or the main gun of the M1 Abrams?
Or the main batteries of our Battleship?
Or, we actually have what the CBT universe calls Gauss Rifles (I can't think of the RL name for the weapon system) mounted on Destroyers.

Nope, none of them fit the criteria that I set.

We also don't have any weapon systems capable of firing over huge distances and cutting heavily armored targets (literally) in half.

I should have been more clear as to what I meant by "huge distances". Of the suggestions made so far, only the Tomahawk really fits the bill on range and they all rely on explosive power rather than a precise, directed force that can "literally cut something in half".

What I was envisioning was

As I see them, these weapons are so large that they had the ship build around them, thus the ship acts as a turret, after all, the ship is mobile right?

As far as the "the cgi isn't consistent" argument goes... of course it isn't, not even close. But, if we're going to play a game based on a television series, we have to cherry pick the parts that we feel are most appropriate (as was previously discussed) or we might as well be playing A Call to Macross.

None of this really matters to me. The only games that I am likely to play will be in my store (hence the "ShopKeepJon") and we play by the rules as written since it makes it easier to teach the rules and to play in other venues when the opportunity arises. And (this is the important bit) I have a lot of fun doing so.

I just don't like the "Captain, I know that we've been trying to line up a shot on that capital ship out there for the last several minutes, but this tiny agile ship over here looks much easier to hit." "Good point Lieutenant! Aim our massively powerful main weapon at that pathetically insignificant fast and agile patrol boat that just moved!" feeling that the current rules engender.

I thought it would be fun to play around with other options. Who knows, maybe we will stumble upon the perfect game rule, Mongoose will be so overawed by our genius that the rules will be changed immediately, and a new (probably EA :? ) ship class will be named in our honor. :lol:

At least I can have fun with the purely hypothetical discussion!

ShopKeepJon

 

[Ripple]

Have to agree with why the rule is an issue.

Not the mechanical problems (and Drazi have no side guns, so the issue is not that they are good at long ranges, try fighting with those ships). But the perception issues, two or three small patrol boats off to the side making a battleship immune to the bore sight of the omega directly in front of it.

Still like the idea of reserving a turn for use after all other movement to line up on a predesignated target. "Lt. stay on target, don't let her slip away." You have to designate your target before movement, so simulates the ship trying to match maneuvers.

Ripple

 

[Justicar]

Or, we actually have what the CBT universe calls Gauss Rifles (I can't think of the RL name for the weapon system) mounted on Destroyers.

Point of clarification here. The weapon you're thinking of is more commonly called a railgun and we most certainly do NOT have them mounted on Destroyers or anywhere else outside of a lab. And neither does anyone else. The US Navy only recently took possession of a prototype 32MJ railgun, and it still has a long ways to go before being ready (most of all because the rails are only good for a few firings before the intense heat destroys them, which is why they're also looking at coilguns, which are also magnetic, as a possible alternative).

The US Air Force is now taking possession of a Boeing-developed laser to place in the nose of an AC-130 Hercules. It's on a gimball.

So while it's nice to say that the fixed version is developed first and then gets more efficient with additional development, that's really not the case with optics weaponry that's been in use for 300 years by the time B5 takes place. As has been noted, power cables are flexible, and that's all we care about here.

That said, spinal-mount weapons are a staple of sci-fi warships and have been for decades. I'd hate to see them tossed just because they're technologically idiotic.

Not sure how to fix the actual mechanic, though. How about giving them a 10 degree cone to fire through? Still requires you to line them up, but gives a little room for error. And possibly change them from hitting on 4+ to 5+? Or gimballing them for a 45 degree arc and *definitely* changing them to 5+ (or possibly even 6+)?

Personally I like the 10 degree cone and hits on 5+. It gives a little room for error so you can at least take the shot, but sacrifices its accuracy (and aiming the gun is the real problem here) a touch for that increased flexibility.

 

[harikaridog]

This is probably way too wild a suggestion...but what about changing the move fire mechanics. What if a ship fired immediately it completed its movement, this would at least allow you to leave boresight rules as they were, but at least give them a more realistic range of targets.
If you did not want to make this a generic rule...well perhaps it could become a 'special order'.........just a brainstorm thought

 

[nekomata fuyu]

A point of correction: The CBT Gauss Rifle really is a Gauss Rifle (sometimes also called a Coil Gun). These are not the same as Railguns.

As for the idea of the boresight weapons having a small (10deg) arc, this is how I see them as being anyway in a significant number of cases. If it was a computer game, it would be easy enough for such small arcs to be measured, but in the tabletop game it's simplified to a straight line just because of the problems of measuring such small angles in a gaming environment.