using weapons as they were not intended
- Thread starter lochmoigh
- Start date
Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
there's nothing in the advanced rulebooks that overrides the card stats - any weapon that can only fire at an airborne target has no out from that. Note that not all AAA weapons have that limitation though - a Tunguska's cannon can fire at land targets, while the SAMs can't.
The Old Soldier
Mongoose
Have not seen too many. Just your basic cockups. MEA firing RPGs from Pickup trucks. Light vehicles ramming Armor. APS systems that are more like a Shield from StarTrek. Just to name a few.....
Better stop before someone might think I'm down on the game.... own on the game.... :lol:
FYI (love the basic system)
Not fond of the way it was handled. :?
Better stop before someone might think I'm down on the game.... own on the game.... :lol:
FYI (love the basic system)
Not fond of the way it was handled. :?To the Mongoose staff:
Any thoughts of incorporating "field mods" on weapon systems? I can't see the MEA only using SAMS to shoot air targets if a MBT is staring them down, the sams might not do anuthing but it makes the gunner feel better.
I really enjoy the system as well. Just want to see a little relaxation in weapon sys. Thinking about it the only airplane that I could see in this scope is a A-10 and only for the brief time it would take to strafe the area so realism is not really a consideration. Just a thought or two, mainly one.
Any thoughts of incorporating "field mods" on weapon systems? I can't see the MEA only using SAMS to shoot air targets if a MBT is staring them down, the sams might not do anuthing but it makes the gunner feel better.
I really enjoy the system as well. Just want to see a little relaxation in weapon sys. Thinking about it the only airplane that I could see in this scope is a A-10 and only for the brief time it would take to strafe the area so realism is not really a consideration. Just a thought or two, mainly one.
britneyfan97
Mongoose
Releasing a SAM with no locked target, if even possible, is just like letting off a big bottle rocket... They don't fly where you want them to.
In fact most AA missiles don't fly in a straight line, they arc.
In fact most AA missiles don't fly in a straight line, they arc.
I like the weapons handling in BF:E. It is easy and clear. No way to "fire" a SAM at a tank. . . a SAM is no WW2 8,8cm flak.
The best thing is the handling of fire zones. Much better than SSTv1.
I would like to see more differences in tank add-ons, like point defense, active armour and ECM. IVIS should also be integrated, to boost tanks, like free actions or enhanced tank reactions, like firing the main gun.
Roads should grant an extra move action while on the road.
Rotary wings need some kind of pop-up cover rule, to give helicopters more defensive qualities.
The best thing is the handling of fire zones. Much better than SSTv1.
I would like to see more differences in tank add-ons, like point defense, active armour and ECM. IVIS should also be integrated, to boost tanks, like free actions or enhanced tank reactions, like firing the main gun.
Roads should grant an extra move action while on the road.
Rotary wings need some kind of pop-up cover rule, to give helicopters more defensive qualities.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Well I know from real lifr conversations that depending on the guidance mechanism, soldiers will shoot anything they have at a target, I do know of optically/radar guided AA missiles being fired at tanks, so long as they can get a lock.
LBH
LBH
dsfrankevo
Mongoose
Richgo22 said:
What if it is on the top of a really really big hill??
Soviet Naval aviation doctrine was to fire AAM's at ships, realising that the proximity fuzed and shrapnel warheads would shred all the delicate sensors on ships masts.
I also think that considering historically how hard it is to get some SAM systems to lock on to targets they are SUPPOSED to be shooting at, that there is no reason to suppose that more modern ones would be any more likely to want to fire at targets they aren't supposed to be shooting at.
Finally, I don't think that a SAM would have much effect on on an MBT. A quick google shows that the QW2 has a 1.5 Kg fragmenting warhead, wheras an humble RPG7 has up to a 4.5 kg shaped charge warhead....
G.
I also think that considering historically how hard it is to get some SAM systems to lock on to targets they are SUPPOSED to be shooting at, that there is no reason to suppose that more modern ones would be any more likely to want to fire at targets they aren't supposed to be shooting at.
Finally, I don't think that a SAM would have much effect on on an MBT. A quick google shows that the QW2 has a 1.5 Kg fragmenting warhead, wheras an humble RPG7 has up to a 4.5 kg shaped charge warhead....
G.
Most vehicles will generate enough heat to interest an IR MANPADS, or at least the less discriminating ones. The Iranians used Sidewinders against surface targets during the Iran Iraq war, and the various wars in the Balkans and Chechnya often spawned the most amazing improvised weapons, often based on using air to air and ground to air ordnance against ground targets. Other interesting examples include RPGs used against air targets (which we all know and love), ant ship missiles such as the Styx used as impromptu land attack missiles and, as mentioned above, naval SAMS used in surface to surface modes (although dual use was in most cases a deliberate feature rather than use through desparation - UK and US SAMS as well as FSU in particular).
(not that I'm saying such things should automatically be included in the rules, but they may make for interesting scenario specific elements)
britneyfan97
Mongoose
I do recall an old acquaintance who was ADA stated that he had participated in the Stinger trials for use with the MANPADs (95,6?). Three things of note.
Heat sources didn't need to be much. Hobby shops provided most of their practice targets (the flying model aircraft with the little gas engines).
Firing at an aircraft hull that was on the ground, the missile did miss at one point, but looped over and hit the aircraft from above!
Laser guided versions are available, and quite accurate.
I just don't picture them packing enough of a punch to really hurt a tank. Another light vehicle or an APC might be a different story.... D10-1 maybe?
Heat sources didn't need to be much. Hobby shops provided most of their practice targets (the flying model aircraft with the little gas engines).
Firing at an aircraft hull that was on the ground, the missile did miss at one point, but looped over and hit the aircraft from above!
Laser guided versions are available, and quite accurate.
I just don't picture them packing enough of a punch to really hurt a tank. Another light vehicle or an APC might be a different story.... D10-1 maybe?
Well, aside from the warhead being smaller, they are also designed to work in a different way. Most aircraft aren't armored and tend to be filled with explosive or delicate bits, so you wnat to maximise chances of hitting something that will break or explode, hence fragmenting warheads.
If you fire a fragmenting warhead at a tank, or even a decent AFV, all you will get will be an interesting pitter-patter on the hull.
I'd maybe even make them equivalent to a grenade at D6+1, but maybe with a larget burst radius, say 3 inches.
G.
If you fire a fragmenting warhead at a tank, or even a decent AFV, all you will get will be an interesting pitter-patter on the hull.
I'd maybe even make them equivalent to a grenade at D6+1, but maybe with a larget burst radius, say 3 inches.
G.
