Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Direct vs Indirect fire [was: Range-finder link]
Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 1998 22:56:57 -0400

Message no. 1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I realized that I might have the wrong image in my head for how
grenade launchers in SR are fired.

In game terms, what is the difference between direct and indirect
fire, if any?

More importantly, what's the difference between the two in RL?

And while I'm asking questions, since the OICW is being equated to a
short barrel Assault Cannon by many on the list, how do you resolve
the fact that the OICW 20mm HE round seems to employ timed fuzes while
assault cannon ammo would seem to have a contact fuze, if anything?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNdzh9qPbvUVI86rNAQFjIgP7BLxRUwpHHFYJePLKPHEBaoNInvrZLDoB
jEsV/5+mkqUKeNcKUoA7N5v7M91L+lajXbY0cWaO0PkoeCGHi/+VN3dL1AwAWwDp
/OeCJNpDhHCJ7PB2FDuX4Xw2crsTX2yu9sbliSS5zXUZ3ikFV6OyZRnHjOzxMFrA
fRWDd0q8kKs=
=HpyB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Direct vs Indirect fire [was: Range-finder link]
Date:	Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:06:10 +1000

Message no. 2 > In game terms, what is the difference between direct and indirect
> fire, if any?
>
> More importantly, what's the difference between the two in RL?

In RL, a direct fire weapon can be summarised as a point-and-shoot weapon:
You point the gun at the target, you shoot. The speed of the projectile
should be fast enough that, except at very long ranges, gravity shouldn't
have much time to pull the projectile down and throw off your range.

An indirect fire weapon is one which you have to aim the weapon upwards a
bit, so that the projectile goes in a ballistic arc to the target. Note that
some indirect weapons may be able to be fired in a direct manner below a
certain range (e.g. tank guns can fire direct at close targets, or elevate
to compensate over longer ranges).

Note that even direct fire weapons are treated like this a bit. For example,
with a rifle, you will usually set the sights to a certain position based on
how far away you think the target is. This is actually compensating for the
drop the bullet will experience in the time it takes to get there.

I can't remember the game mechanics for handling indirect fire, except as it
applies to shooting at targets you can't actually see. I think FoF handled
this area, but I can't remember.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

From:	Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Direct vs Indirect fire [was: Range-finder link]
Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 1998 23:40:38 EDT

Message no. 3 In a message dated 98-08-20 23:09:10 EDT, robert.watkins@******.COM writes:

> I can't remember the game mechanics for handling indirect fire, except as it
> applies to shooting at targets you can't actually see. I think FoF handled
> this area, but I can't remember.
>

I can't speak for FoF, but in R2 I wrote some indirect fire rules (on pp.
60-61) involving runners, vehicles and drones (with the main intent and
beneficiary being drones, of course). The basic principle I used to define
indirect fire there was that for indirect fire, the entity that was aiming at
the target (the spotter) was not the same as the one that was firing the
weapon (the gunner). The spotter always had to have clear line-of-sight (LOS)
to the target, while that's not necessary (and either unavailable or worse)
for the gunner.

For example, a rigger on the scene could send a fire mission, via her remote
control network, to a drone hiding behind the next building, which would then
lob a missile at the target designated by the rigger.

In contrast, during direct fire, the spotter and the gunner are one and the
same. Since the spotter always has to have LOS with the target, that means
that LOS with the target was, in fact, a requirement.

This may not be the tactically correct definition for indirect fire, but it's
the basis for the rules I wrote.

-- Jon

From:	Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Direct vs Indirect fire [was: Range-finder link]
Date:	Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:01:41 -0400

Message no. 4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 01:06 PM 8/21/98 +1000, Robert wrote:
>In RL, a direct fire weapon can be summarised as a point-and-shoot
weapon:
>You point the gun at the target, you shoot. The speed of the
projectile
>should be fast enough that, except at very long ranges, gravity
shouldn't
>have much time to pull the projectile down and throw off your range.
>
>An indirect fire weapon is one which you have to aim the weapon
upwards a
>bit, so that the projectile goes in a ballistic arc to the target.
Note that
>some indirect weapons may be able to be fired in a direct manner
below a
>certain range (e.g. tank guns can fire direct at close targets, or
elevate
>to compensate over longer ranges).

And so, grenade launchers have traditionally been a low velocity
weapon, because at faster velocities, it's much harder to arc the
projectile to a particular distance, correct?

However, once you throw in rangefinders and variable time fuzes on the
grenades, then you don't really need low muzzle velocites and balistic
arcs to try to have the grenade at a certain distance for when it
detonates. You can have a weapon that fires the round at direct fire
velocities, and the timed grenade will airburst it once it reaches the
right distance.

I really hope this kind of weapon gets developed for Cannon Companion.
In game, the tech's been around since at least the 2050 SSC, and by
now should have matured to that level. Especially since in RL, the
tech's almost here today.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNdzxIKPbvUVI86rNAQGw2gP+I9BSGk9TuO4K8t0TxKGyWGb4lT657ZJG
i0l0lYYkcy6OLpiIHeik2HiaCJHLA4MtGwAEAj0AtVGDYqkkwebta8PscHk40vKS
avFGnZmntaPg0NzaRS1WUaeuY9udHFhfnCtFSv7QzYsjJ3W9tAqjTqMbIKpCqk4W
+YjRSxmnalM=
=1hkm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer