Boresight question

[Iain McGhee]

You see some ships (notably the Omega) slicing ships horizontally with laser strikes from time to time, which would mean that they aren't restricted to directly ahead on at least some ships mounting boresight lasers but rather on a limited arc (like the cone idea posted earlier). I think the boresight arc is used to represent this already, especially if you use the "gentleman's agreement" method. Think they also class weapons that can't fire through a full 90 degree arc as boresight rather than overcomplicate things with splitting the current arcs up to 45 degrees or whatever. I like the rule the way it is, but if you really wanted to lose boresights I'd just have ships use half their boresight AD over the full arc. Similar to B5W Omegas, I think, which had the full score firing straight ahead and half that at 45 degrees to either side (been ages since I've played it let alone seen any ship stats, so don't quote me on this:wink: ).

I don't think the crew stat should be removed. Ships with larger crews than damage are often able to still execute Special Actions when crippled, which means that at least they have a chance to jump out or run rather than be destroyed. Saved plenty of ships in campaigns that way. And how would you resolve boarding actions without crew values ?

Someone above mentioned that the White Star should have a boresighted beam. True in the series, but this was asked about on the forums a while back and the answer was that it it was done this way due to the extreme maneouverability of the ship which could "fishtail" to line up the target.

 

[Greg Smith]

I can tell you that a lot of the arguements for and against boresights were brought up in playtesting.

On the show front,

The Omega fires directly forward most of the time. A couple of times we see it fire downwards but still directly forwards ('Endgame', 'Spider in the Web'). We also see it fire side-to-side once ('Moments in Transition').
Of course if you could fire boresight weapons downwards, why not just rotate your ship 90 degrees and voila, instant front arc! Of course we all know TV scifi ships don't fly sideways.

The G'Quan has massive forward-pointing laser barrels. If any ship in the B5 universe should be boresight it is this one. We see it fire directly forward in 'The Long Twilight Struggle' and 'The Fall of Centauri Prime'. The spider in the ointment is 'And Now for a Word' where we see it fire at an angle, even into the side arc.

Both the Whitestar's laser and pulsars fire dirctly forward. We do clearly see the ship maneuvering as it fires the pulsars causing a spread of pulses over an area.

The Warlock fires directly forward in the Lost Tales, the only time we see it fire its beams.

The Vorlons fire directly forward, with one exception 'Deathwalker'.

The Victory's lasers fire dirctly forward and directly aft.

The one time we see the Avioki fire, ('A Call to Arms') it is directly forward.

The Drazi only fire directly forward, seen in 'A call to Arms' and 'The Fall of Centauri Prime'.

-----
One suggestion that was made in playtesting was that certain ships or races with boresight weapons be allowed to fire in the front arc with half AD, either through a special action or special rule. This would represent boresight ships like the Omega having two beams with 45 degree port and starboard arcs and if it got two beams on target directly in front, it would be able to double the effect. For example the G'Quan in 'And Now for a Word' only fires one beam at an angle.

Another suggestion was to make all beams boresight and then find exceptions.

 

[emperorpenguin]

. And how would you resolve boarding actions without crew values ?
.

by using troops scores. Full Thrust and BFG both handle boarding actions without using crew scores.

On the subject of fire arcs, I prefer Full Thrust's 6 arcs of 60 degrees over 4 90 degree arcs. I'd reduce forward and aft to 60 degree arcs (with boresight weapons covering this angle) and widen the side arcs.

 

[harikaridog]

IOne suggestion that was made in playtesting was that certain ships or races with boresight weapons be allowed to fire in the front arc with half AD, either through a special action or special rule. This would represent boresight ships like the Omega having two beams with 45 degree port and starboard arcs and if it got two beams on target directly in front, it would be able to double the effect. For example the G'Quan in 'And Now for a Word' only fires one beam at an angle.

That seems a good rule modification, this at least allows you to fire at something...there is nothing more frustrating with a big Narn or EA ship having its trademark weapons made useless due to the initiative mechanics. (the whole initiative sink thing is very artificial.)
I suppose you could visualise it as a snapfire/opportunity shot.....and you still have the chance to deliver big hurt with a std boresight shot if the opportunity arises.

 

[WereRogue]

I like the idea of maintaining full AD if fired Boresight, and half AD if fired FA. That's a mechanic that's been introduced already and is incredibly easy to apply to the game as-is. It can even be specifically applied to more advanced races, or more advanced ships.

My main contention with using canon-in-the-show observations is the fallacy of the argument. "We only ever see the weapon fire straight forward." The problem with that is just because we never see it do a thing, doesn't mean it's incapable of doing a thing. I don't recall ever seeing a Thunderbolt on the ground, but it is capable of landing. Follow?

-Ken

 

[Da Boss]

IOne suggestion that was made in playtesting was that certain ships or races with boresight weapons be allowed to fire in the front arc with half AD, either through a special action or special rule. This would represent boresight ships like the Omega having two beams with 45 degree port and starboard arcs and if it got two beams on target directly in front, it would be able to double the effect. For example the G'Quan in 'And Now for a Word' only fires one beam at an angle.

That seems a good rule modification, this at least allows you to fire at something...there is nothing more frustrating with a big Narn or EA ship having its trademark weapons made useless due to the initiative mechanics. (the whole initiative sink thing is very artificial.)
I suppose you could visualise it as a snapfire/opportunity shot.....and you still have the chance to deliver big hurt with a std boresight shot if the opportunity arises.

Yeah I like this rule as well

 

[Justicar]

Off topic, but CBT's Gauss rifle was originally (20 years ago) a railgun. I understand they later changed it to a coilgun when the real world terminology of what's what became more solid. None of which changes my point that these weapons are not in use by any power today other than in laboratories.

 

[locarno24]

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 know the feeling.
I agree that boresight is annoying and would be happy to see it go - even if it means a drop in gunpower on some vessels.

Both the Whitestar's laser and pulsars fire dirctly forward.

And yet it has a forward arc as it was felt to be 'too restrictive' otherwise.

The Victory's lasers fire dirctly forward and directly aft.

Again - forward arc, though.

The Omega fires directly forward most of the time.

But it appears to come from a turret mount on the side of the 'hammerhead' when it does so.

The G'Quan has massive forward-pointing laser barrels. If any ship in the B5 universe should be boresight it is this one. We see it fire directly forward in 'The Long Twilight Struggle' and 'The Fall of Centauri Prime'. The spider in the ointment is 'And Now for a Word' where we see it fire at an angle, even into the side arc.

See the cover of mongoose's own (1st edition) narn fleet box....

The fact that something is firing forwards doesn't necessarily mean absolutely totally straight-line only forwards. The only man who can tell you that is the cgi designer.

Forward arc seems fine to me. A more restrictive forward arc (say 45') might also work but would be annoying to keep track of - 90' chunks are easier to see.

Boresight mounts are fair enough where a weapon clearly can't track without it - a Homeworld ion cannon frigate's gun takes up the majority of the hull - but I can't think of many cases in B5 where this is the case.

Getting rid of boresight would be nice, as would making sure that the player who wins initiative is allowed to move last (so if he has only one more ship to move he waits until the end of the movement phase, regardless of the number of enemy ships still to move).

Crew scores....I don't mind so much having two damage tracks. The fact that crippled and skeleton crew have different effects, and different criticals damage the two at different rates, make it okay. I'm not a devoted fan but it's not a big deal.

 

[Greg Smith]

The Omega fires directly forward most of the time.

But it appears to come from a turret mount on the side of the 'hammerhead' when it does so.

The Vorchan has what appears to be a turret, but it only ever fires forwards.

Forward arc seems fine to me. A more restrictive forward arc (say 45') might also work but would be annoying to keep track of - 90' chunks are easier to see.

I think you've hit the nail on the head - it is done for simplicity. Although simplicity in designating arcs, doesn't equate to simplicity in game play, unfortunately.

Boresight mounts are fair enough where a weapon clearly can't track without it - a Homeworld ion cannon frigate's gun takes up the majority of the hull - but I can't think of many cases in B5 where this is the case.

I would bring up the G'Quan's laser barrels again.

-------------

My main contention with using canon-in-the-show observations is the fallacy of the argument. "We only ever see the weapon fire straight forward." The problem with that is just because we never see it do a thing, doesn't mean it's incapable of doing a thing. I don't recall ever seeing a Thunderbolt on the ground, but it is capable of landing. Follow?

You are right. However when interpolating from a TV show, there has to be certain assumptions, and one of those is that what we see on screen is the normal way of doing things unless something (plot, dialogue etc) tells us otherwise. A TV show does not give us an exhaustive list of what is normal and what is possible. To assume that anything is possible means that you take the property away from being based on the show and something limited only by your own beliefs.

Now you are assuming a Thunderbolt is capable of landing, is it neccesarily the case? We only ever see them launched in space, maybe they can only land where specialised recovery equipment is available. As a corollary, we never see a G'Quan land. Now the with the Thunderbolt it is probably a reasonable assumption it can land and with the G'Quan it is a reasonable assumption it can't.

My point is that when converting a TV show to a game you have to make assumptions, but those assumptions have to be based on what is on screen.

 

[Hannibal]

My point is that when converting a TV show to a game you have to make assumptions, but those assumptions have to be based on what is on screen.

True, but I'll restate that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The classic anthropology example is that if you chose a random coffee shop and observed the inhabitants. You wouldn't see anyone having sex (probably!) and could conclude that humans are asexual creatures. Yet that couldn't be furthest from the truth.

That handy little phrase gives Mongoose a lot of leeway that they selectively use. The whitestar is a good example of them using it for the purose of improved game play. The consensus among their customers is that the Boresight detracts from the game and adds little if anything. A responsive company should say "well let's remove it, we can simply say things are turret mounted."

 

[WereRogue]

Now you are assuming a Thunderbolt is capable of landing, is it neccesarily the case? We only ever see them launched in space, maybe they can only land where specialised recovery equipment is available. As a corollary, we never see a G'Quan land. Now the with the Thunderbolt it is probably a reasonable assumption it can land and with the G'Quan it is a reasonable assumption it can't.

However, Mongoose's own EA sourcebook (IIRC) for the B5 RPG lists that the Thunderbolt is capable of landing. So if they've extrapolated one piece of information based on something that wasn't depicted in the show, why can they not do it for others??

All that aside, I still think boresight is a ridiculous limitation for most high technology starfaring races outside of the occassional "the whole ship is the gun barrel" entries.

And I still maintain that the Full AD Boresight, Half AD FA addendum would be an awesome way to correct the problem.

-Ken

 

[Da Boss]

The source books are not always considered realiable - eg IIRC Darkness and Light discusses Vorlon ships including a carrier and previous wars that involved both them and the Shadows fighting each other............

 

[Greg Smith]

The consensus among their customers is that the Boresight detracts from the game and adds little if anything. A responsive company should say "well let's remove it, we can simply say things are turret mounted."

To me it adds Babylon 5 'feel'. Not that it couldn't do with a little alteration to improve play, but there needs to be some from of restriction on certain ships' fire arcs.

 

[Greg Smith]

However, Mongoose's own EA sourcebook (IIRC) for the B5 RPG lists that the Thunderbolt is capable of landing.

Actually it is a pretty logical conclusion to come to.

So if they've extrapolated one piece of information based on something that wasn't depicted in the show, why can they not do it for others??

Because not every conclusion is as logical as the Thunderbolt one, some are too far fetched either for real world comparison, or show consistency. Extrapolating that an atmospheric fighter can land is a reasonable assumption. Can the Whitestar land? - it is atmospheric, the same as the Thunderbolt. Can the Vorchan?

Actually ACTA says atmospheric ships can land, but somehow I doubt the Vorchan can. An example of an extrapolation that goes too far.

All that aside, I still think boresight is a ridiculous limitation for most high technology starfaring races outside of the occassional "the whole ship is the gun barrel" entries.

Which we kind of see with the G'Quan.

And I still maintain that the Full AD Boresight, Half AD FA addendum would be an awesome way to correct the problem.

I agree completely.

 

[SylvrDragon]

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/ea/alexfirefront1.jpg

I'll let you decide if that's boresighted or not.

 

[harikaridog]

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/ea/alexfirefront1.jpg

I'll let you decide if that's boresighted or not.

Well I guess that shows and Omega class destroyer firing a big laser somewhere into the forward arc......probably cos the target happens to be straight in front of it

 

[Hannibal]

To me it adds Babylon 5 'feel'. Not that it couldn't do with a little alteration to improve play, but there needs to be some from of restriction on certain ships' fire arcs.

You know, I'm with you there. I like the fact that most B5 ships have front mounted guns. Personally, I was a bit disappointed when the 2nd ED EA list went more side-mounted-age-of-sail broadside ships. (I hate the way the Nova turned out. Look at the pics, that thing should have its guns be turrets. Should have three sets of guns at three sets of ranges, all on turrets.)

That being said, I think boresight is way to restrictive. I actually really like the idea that boresighted ships get 1/2 AD for frotn arc. That would be a decent compromise between game play and canon.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

To me it adds Babylon 5 'feel'. Not that it couldn't do with a little alteration to improve play, but there needs to be some from of restriction on certain ships' fire arcs.

Whereas it is true that you can't prove a negative (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc.), we are trying to play a game that "feels" like Babylon 5 space battles. The theoretical capabilities of a ship don't really matter as much as what we have actually seen on screen.

Getting rid of boresight would take away a lot of that feel for me. I don't like the actual mechanic, but I don't want to get rid of boresight itself.

I think that we should move away from the arguments about what is reasonable technologically and move toward what would help get the "feel" of the game right.

To put my money where my mouth is (so to speak)...
At first, I liked the 1/2 AD if F arc but not dead ahead, but now I'm not so sure. In the shows, the boresight style weapons seem to be more all or nothing than that. You either lined it up, or you didn't.

Now I'm thinking that a roll of 3+ to fire if not dead ahead might serve the feel better.

ShopKeepJon

 

[harikaridog]

.sorry accidental post

 

[harikaridog]

Sorry can't even post correctly ........ Doh!