What Weapons Can Use Telescopic Sights IYTU?
- Thread starter opensent
- Start date
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
Any ranged projectile/beam/pulse-firing weapon (with a range greater than ~6 meters) can use, and benefit from, improved sights of whatever type your T.L. allows.
After all, even a straight-line, virtually-instantaneous, no gravity-droop/wind-drift weapon like a laser rifle will benefit from the shooter being able to more clearly see his target, and precisely define where the impact point will be. For Laser weapons, not needing to calculate "lead", I would reduce it to a +3, rather than the +4 of book 1.
Actually, instead of a +4 at long/very long and none at medium for both telescopic and electronic* sights, I give the modifiers as:
on rifle/carbine
Telescopic sights: +2 long, +3 very long
Electronic* sights: +3 long, +4 very long
on pistol/SMG^
Telescopic sights: +1 medium, +2 long
Electronic* sights: +2 medium, +3 long
bows/crossbows
Telescopic sights: +1 medium/long
Electronic* sights: +2 medium/long
* allows normal vision at night... within the FOV (field of view) of the sights. Also displays range info in the sight, as it incorporates a laser rangefinder, which may be disabled, but this drops the modifiers by 1. On Laser weapons the rangefinder has no effect on accuracy, so the laser rangefinder is always treated as disabled for modifiers, but it can still be used to gather range information.
^ even though an SMG is more of an area weapon, the sights can still help place the center of the shot group more accurately... but dispersion is too large at very long range for much improvement, so the modifier there is only +1/+2.
As any physical shock/vibration transmitted through the frame of the weapon can be eliminated with the proper isolation mounts for the sight, the only exception would be for a weapon that creates a severe atmospheric shock/vibration. Those high-shock weapons would rapidly render the sights inaccurate or inoperative, unless used in a very thin, trace, or vacuum atmosphere.
Of course, that is my interpretation... as you asked.
Others might rule differently.
After all, even a straight-line, virtually-instantaneous, no gravity-droop/wind-drift weapon like a laser rifle will benefit from the shooter being able to more clearly see his target, and precisely define where the impact point will be. For Laser weapons, not needing to calculate "lead", I would reduce it to a +3, rather than the +4 of book 1.
Actually, instead of a +4 at long/very long and none at medium for both telescopic and electronic* sights, I give the modifiers as:
on rifle/carbine
Telescopic sights: +2 long, +3 very long
Electronic* sights: +3 long, +4 very long
on pistol/SMG^
Telescopic sights: +1 medium, +2 long
Electronic* sights: +2 medium, +3 long
bows/crossbows
Telescopic sights: +1 medium/long
Electronic* sights: +2 medium/long
* allows normal vision at night... within the FOV (field of view) of the sights. Also displays range info in the sight, as it incorporates a laser rangefinder, which may be disabled, but this drops the modifiers by 1. On Laser weapons the rangefinder has no effect on accuracy, so the laser rangefinder is always treated as disabled for modifiers, but it can still be used to gather range information.
^ even though an SMG is more of an area weapon, the sights can still help place the center of the shot group more accurately... but dispersion is too large at very long range for much improvement, so the modifier there is only +1/+2.
As any physical shock/vibration transmitted through the frame of the weapon can be eliminated with the proper isolation mounts for the sight, the only exception would be for a weapon that creates a severe atmospheric shock/vibration. Those high-shock weapons would rapidly render the sights inaccurate or inoperative, unless used in a very thin, trace, or vacuum atmosphere.
Of course, that is my interpretation... as you asked.
Others might rule differently.
Last edited:
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
I'd agree with this, though maybe a red dot laser sight could assist accuracy even below 6m?
Hmm. Regardless of 'isolation mounts' I think the only thing a SMG sight would get you is a black eye! :rofl:
I'd restrict them to weapons capable of non-autofire and have the DMs only applicable to non-autofire. But I'm not ex-military and I'd be interested to be proven wrong.
I go with something like BlackBat's tables, although I haven't worked out the game mechanics. However, at higher TLs, you will get electronic sights that can be tied into either goggles (HUD) or cybereyes (smartlink from Shadowrun), which is of course not doable with telescopic sights.
Also, by TL8 for telescopic and TL10 for electronic (which are introduced at TL8 IMTU) sights, the risk of breaking is reduced/eliminated.
Also, by TL8 for telescopic and TL10 for electronic (which are introduced at TL8 IMTU) sights, the risk of breaking is reduced/eliminated.
IMTU
I like to classify sights as Low Power (+1) and High Power (+2). However, the +1/+2 is not a Hit modifier but rather a range modifier.
For example, a Low Power Sight changes a ‘long range’ shot into a ‘medium range’ shot for selecting weapon range modifiers, but it also makes ‘close’ shots impossible. A High Power Sight changes a ‘long range’ shot into a ‘short range’ shot for selecting weapon range modifiers, but it also makes ‘close’ and ‘short’ shots impossible.
I suppose that a ‘Very High Power’ (+3) sight would be possible, but it has never come up in a game.
Any weapon could benefit from a sight – it changes the shooter’s view of the target not the accuracy of the ‘weapon’ itself. Darwinism should take care of someone who wants a SMG with a high power scope soon enough.
I like to classify sights as Low Power (+1) and High Power (+2). However, the +1/+2 is not a Hit modifier but rather a range modifier.
For example, a Low Power Sight changes a ‘long range’ shot into a ‘medium range’ shot for selecting weapon range modifiers, but it also makes ‘close’ shots impossible. A High Power Sight changes a ‘long range’ shot into a ‘short range’ shot for selecting weapon range modifiers, but it also makes ‘close’ and ‘short’ shots impossible.
I suppose that a ‘Very High Power’ (+3) sight would be possible, but it has never come up in a game.
Any weapon could benefit from a sight – it changes the shooter’s view of the target not the accuracy of the ‘weapon’ itself. Darwinism should take care of someone who wants a SMG with a high power scope soon enough.
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
atpollard, I like your application best. I also think that is how it is described in the books. Could be misremembering though.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
All I have seen in CT is the "+4 at long/very long range" hit modifier for either type of sight, which is in book 1.
I do like atpollard's range shifting, I might well incorporate it. Except that the drop-off in projectile velocity at range (which modifies penetration) would not change... hmmmm.
After all, all I had done before this thread came up was to reduce the telescopic sight to a +2 at long/very long range.
The modifiers I posted above were an off-the-cuff set done while I was typing my response... so they can be adjusted without heartache.
I do like atpollard's range shifting, I might well incorporate it. Except that the drop-off in projectile velocity at range (which modifies penetration) would not change... hmmmm.
After all, all I had done before this thread came up was to reduce the telescopic sight to a +2 at long/very long range.
The modifiers I posted above were an off-the-cuff set done while I was typing my response... so they can be adjusted without heartache.
I'm not sure the drop-off in projectile velocity is all that important until it approaches the transsonic barrier when shock waves make the bullet flight too erratic to aim with any accuracy. But I could be wrong.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
I suspect that BlackBat is thinking if your rule allows sights to modify the range, then the penetrations would modify with range too, but equally I suspect that you only modify the range on the hit roll, not the separate penetration roll? Or maybe I've lost the plot entirely?
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
Actually, in CT the "to hit" roll includes both making contact with the target and penetrating his armor.
Therefore, the range "to hit modifier" was calculated (when the rules were written) to include the effects of range on both penetration and accuracy.
Thus, just changing the range skews the overall result.
And yes, atpollard, penetration does drop off with range long before projectile speed drops to subsonic.
I am also on some real-life warships discussion boards, and from the discussions there on penetration of armor by naval shells, including ones using armor-shell calculation programs, even with only a 25% reduction in range, there is a greater than 25% improvement in penetration (given an identical angle of impact).
And there will not be an identical angle of impact, as the shorter range will allow the projectile to have a flatter flight path, which means most rounds will impact at an angle closer to 90°... and a change from a 90° impact angle to a 80° impact angle can create a 5% or so increase in the effectiveness of the armor.
Maybe that is going into too much detail for this game, but my formal firearms training and additional acquired learning does sometimes make me prone to over-complicate things... and CT is supposed to be a basic, simple game... not an exact simulation of real-world physics.
That is why I am debating this question... go with the really simple "range-shift" idea, or the nearly as simple "modifier by range" one.
>wanders off stroking beard and muttering to self<
Therefore, the range "to hit modifier" was calculated (when the rules were written) to include the effects of range on both penetration and accuracy.
Thus, just changing the range skews the overall result.
And yes, atpollard, penetration does drop off with range long before projectile speed drops to subsonic.
I am also on some real-life warships discussion boards, and from the discussions there on penetration of armor by naval shells, including ones using armor-shell calculation programs, even with only a 25% reduction in range, there is a greater than 25% improvement in penetration (given an identical angle of impact).
And there will not be an identical angle of impact, as the shorter range will allow the projectile to have a flatter flight path, which means most rounds will impact at an angle closer to 90°... and a change from a 90° impact angle to a 80° impact angle can create a 5% or so increase in the effectiveness of the armor.
Maybe that is going into too much detail for this game, but my formal firearms training and additional acquired learning does sometimes make me prone to over-complicate things... and CT is supposed to be a basic, simple game... not an exact simulation of real-world physics.
That is why I am debating this question... go with the really simple "range-shift" idea, or the nearly as simple "modifier by range" one.
>wanders off stroking beard and muttering to self<
