Long Range, or Indirect Fire?

[Alrik Vas]

There have been a few topics on the boards over the past month or so that discuss various details (mostly challenges we face that haven't been widely considered) of combat in Rifts. So I'd like to start a thread about how to deal with them.

First, let's talk about how you'd make a long range shot. Many laser weapons have a range of close to 4000ft, with this you can fire at a penalty nearly 5000ft away. We've discussed the difficulty of seeing your target at that range in other threads, and though some of us disagree with how it can be done, it seems possible for various highly skilled individuals. Regardless, we'll assume 3000ft range, considerably less and no increased range penalty on top of that.

What do you use to spot your target? Detect Concealment? A Perception roll? I know a lot depends on the situation, but since many of your are GM's, I assume you can actually give me an opinion...

Now, because long range shooting requires knowledge and not just skill, do we rely entirely on equipment and WP to make the shots? Say you're using solid ammunition instead of a laser? Do you need math skills?

What about directing fire that cannot see the target? Do you need navigation skills to read a map grid? How do you adjust for weather? What skill is required to fire a mortar at a target you can't see, but are given coordinates on when you are being fed an accurate location and map? It's hard without GPS, I agree, but signals from flying units can relay. Laser guiding works too.

SO...I'm not looking to tell everyone how it's done, I'm asking how it would be handled. Any answer is acceptable, from telling me I'm thinking about it to much and that you should just roll a d20 to hit, all the way to "well, first you need to remake the skill list because they don't account blah blah", that's fine.

Example:
GM: You break out of the enemy holding cell, what's your move?
PC1: Take out the guards and grab their weapons.
GM: you succeed, where now?
PC2: we need a vehicle to get away, i'll grab a truck from the other side of camp.
PC3: I'll cover you with this mortar over here, tell me where to shoot.
GM: (tells PC's how they can communicate position of enemies and fire the mortar) ??????
PC1: alright, good work, let's get out of here!
GM: 500exp, see you next week.

[flatline]

Why is it hard to hit something with a laser at 4000'? All the things that make it hard with a bullet (drop, leading the target, transit time, wind) don't effect the laser. You aim the (properly adjusted) sights at the target, pull the trigger, and you're good.

What's the problem?

[Glistam]

Why is it hard to hit something with a laser at 4000'? All the things that make it hard with a bullet (drop, leading the target, transit time, wind) don't effect the laser. You aim the (properly adjusted) sights at the target, pull the trigger, and you're good.

What's the problem?

Rifts doesn't have sights that can see that far, they are only good for up to 2,000 feet.

[flatline]

Why is it hard to hit something with a laser at 4000'? All the things that make it hard with a bullet (drop, leading the target, transit time, wind) don't effect the laser. You aim the (properly adjusted) sights at the target, pull the trigger, and you're good.

What's the problem?

Rifts doesn't have sights that can see that far, they are only good for up to 2,000 feet.

That's curious because the human eyeball with 20/20 vision can see a man sized target at 4000 feet (or further) so, in theory, iron sights are sufficient. Any kind of optical magnification would just make it easier.

[SpiritInterface]

The 4000' foot range limit is either that is the max range of the optics or the distance at which attenuation and diffusion start to disrupt the beam. So either better optics are needed or a stronger beam. I don't like the rules for shooting beyond effective range, they are too harsh.

For Indirect fire, are you talking WWII - Vietnam era fire direction or are you talking Gulf War - present? For earlier era fire control you just need to know how to read a map and orient it to the terrain and read a coordinates grid. For more modern era youcall in your GPS coordinates and you punch in the 3-4 digit code for the laser designator and then paint the target. Everything else is handled at the Fire Control Center wear things like weather and atmospherics are factored into the firing solution and the type of pattern is determined (i.e. time on target, barrage, single round terminal guided) and type of ammunition.

[Glistam]

Why is it hard to hit something with a laser at 4000'? All the things that make it hard with a bullet (drop, leading the target, transit time, wind) don't effect the laser. You aim the (properly adjusted) sights at the target, pull the trigger, and you're good.

What's the problem?

Rifts doesn't have sights that can see that far, they are only good for up to 2,000 feet.

That's curious because the human eyeball with 20/20 vision can see a man sized target at 4000 feet (or further) so, in theory, iron sights are sufficient. Any kind of optical magnification would just make it easier.

I agree in principle, but unfortunately Palladium does not, and consistently lists a range limit for all of their optical zooms rather than a simple ratio of magnification.

[Nekira Sudacne]

There is a laser pointer in Merc Ops made by wilks that "paints" a target for indirect fire, automatically trasmitting the necessary data. it only takes a weapon systems skill roll to take that and put it in.

Other than that, I would say that it falls under weapon systems skill roll. the spotter "calls out" the co-ordinates with his roll and the guy firing rolls it to fire it properly.

[eliakon]

Why is it hard to hit something with a laser at 4000'? All the things that make it hard with a bullet (drop, leading the target, transit time, wind) don't effect the laser. You aim the (properly adjusted) sights at the target, pull the trigger, and you're good.

What's the problem?

Rifts doesn't have sights that can see that far, they are only good for up to 2,000 feet.

That's curious because the human eyeball with 20/20 vision can see a man sized target at 4000 feet (or further) so, in theory, iron sights are sufficient. Any kind of optical magnification would just make it easier.

I agree in principle, but unfortunately Palladium does not, and consistently lists a range limit for all of their optical zooms rather than a simple ratio of magnification.

Actually it says that those sights only provide a bonus at those ranges not that they cant be used beyond them.
Combined with the fact that there are multiple locations that list actual times X scopes or even just weapons that have no scope at all and its pretty clear that you can make a shot at any range you can see, you just can't use a scope's bonus if its beyond a certain range.

[Jefffar]

I generally involve a process involving the spotter making the necessary skill rolls to determine target position (Land Nav, Read Sensors or Weapon Systems) and then a necessary roll to pass that information along to the weapon operator (typically Radio Basic).

Once that is complete, the weapon operator needs to make the necessary skill rolls (Weapon Systems or a mix of Land Nav and Math skills) to lay the weapon on target and fire.

[Mack]

If it's a technologically advanced army, then most of the process can be automated.

The laser designator can automatically calculate the range and direction to the target, then digitally transmit the data to the shooter/mortar/artillery/missile launcher. Even without satellite based GPS navigation, a ground based system can easily provide enough accuracy (after all, the CS or NGR don't require global coverage). This eliminates any transcription errors by the people in the chain.

All the operator would have to do is laze the appropriate target, then radio "Send it." If the target is stationary, then he could pack up and leave before making the radio call.

[flatline]

How do you protect a ground based positioning system?

To be useful, the beacons (or whatever you want to call them) have to be constantly transmitting which makes them super easy to find and wonderful targets. They're also no good beyond radio line of sight. I could see something like that being useful and stable within your borders, but the efficacy of it would quickly degrade as you get further from your borders since you can't keep people from finding and destroying them.

[Jefffar]

How do you protect any high value stationary target?

[eliakon]

How do you protect a ground based positioning system?

To be useful, the beacons (or whatever you want to call them) have to be constantly transmitting which makes them super easy to find and wonderful targets. They're also no good beyond radio line of sight. I could see something like that being useful and stable within your borders, but the efficacy of it would quickly degrade as you get further from your borders since you can't keep people from finding and destroying them.

So how are you going to find and destroy them?
No seriously?
I mean you can invent a new homebrew weapon system that can home in on radio broadcasts (yes I know there is such stuff in real life, there are lots and lots of other things that do not exist in game either)
But it seems disingenuous to complain that a system is vulnerable to a weapon that we would have to invent. And that we would then have to assume that there were no defenses or safeguards against....

[flatline]

How do you protect a ground based positioning system?

To be useful, the beacons (or whatever you want to call them) have to be constantly transmitting which makes them super easy to find and wonderful targets. They're also no good beyond radio line of sight. I could see something like that being useful and stable within your borders, but the efficacy of it would quickly degrade as you get further from your borders since you can't keep people from finding and destroying them.

So how are you going to find and destroy them?
No seriously?
I mean you can invent a new homebrew weapon system that can home in on radio broadcasts (yes I know there is such stuff in real life, there are lots and lots of other things that do not exist in game either)
But it seems disingenuous to complain that a system is vulnerable to a weapon that we would have to invent. And that we would then have to assume that there were no defenses or safeguards against....

But the ground based positioning system is a homebrew addition to the setting in the first place, so is it not appropriate to include in the setting the appropriate homebrew response to a ground based positioning system?

Do you guys allow directional radar detection? This would be the same thing, just a different frequency. Heck, I have the equipment in my house right now (assuming the frequency is in a band that my tuner covers).

[eliakon]

How do you protect a ground based positioning system?

To be useful, the beacons (or whatever you want to call them) have to be constantly transmitting which makes them super easy to find and wonderful targets. They're also no good beyond radio line of sight. I could see something like that being useful and stable within your borders, but the efficacy of it would quickly degrade as you get further from your borders since you can't keep people from finding and destroying them.

So how are you going to find and destroy them?
No seriously?
I mean you can invent a new homebrew weapon system that can home in on radio broadcasts (yes I know there is such stuff in real life, there are lots and lots of other things that do not exist in game either)
But it seems disingenuous to complain that a system is vulnerable to a weapon that we would have to invent. And that we would then have to assume that there were no defenses or safeguards against....

But the ground based positioning system is a homebrew addition to the setting in the first place, so is it not appropriate to include in the setting the appropriate homebrew response to a ground based positioning system?

Do you guys allow directional radar detection? This would be the same thing, just a different frequency. Heck, I have the equipment in my house right now (assuming the frequency is in a band that my tuner covers).

Directional radar detection, and being able to home in on a (likely frequency jumping, burst transmitting) radio broadcast accurately enough to use it for targeting are HUGELY different.
The first is pretty easy generic WWII era tech sure. The second is something that modern first world militaries electronics warfare groups, armed with the best technology that money can build have difficulty doing.

I really don't see any reason to assume that it would be 'simple' for anyone to just find and destroy GPS ground stations because unless we fiat that it is easy it is ludicrously easy to make it almost impossible to detect, let alone trace such stations....and that's with just commercially available over the counter technology. If you get into what is available to military/government projects your talking realms of "massive apocalyptic disaster level destruction on a theater/continent wide basis to have a chance of disrupting"

[Mack]

How do you protect a ground based positioning system?

To be useful, the beacons (or whatever you want to call them) have to be constantly transmitting which makes them super easy to find and wonderful targets. They're also no good beyond radio line of sight. I could see something like that being useful and stable within your borders, but the efficacy of it would quickly degrade as you get further from your borders since you can't keep people from finding and destroying them.

With nations like the CS or NGR, it's pretty simple because every robot vehicle already has a 500 mile transmitter on it. Any given area can have a dozen or more beacons working together, which eliminates the errors from being non-line of sight. All that's needed is a straightforward software mod. Every forward operating base and company sized force could easily have several beacons, and the vast majority of forces would never venture outside of that interlinked 500 mile coverage. And I haven't even touched adding a beacon to an aircraft for a rapid response network.

Note - I'm not proposing to use every robot vehicle (though one could) just that they have a plethora of long-range transmitters at their disposal.

[flatline]

How do you protect a ground based positioning system?

To be useful, the beacons (or whatever you want to call them) have to be constantly transmitting which makes them super easy to find and wonderful targets. They're also no good beyond radio line of sight. I could see something like that being useful and stable within your borders, but the efficacy of it would quickly degrade as you get further from your borders since you can't keep people from finding and destroying them.

With nations like the CS or NGR, it's pretty simple because every robot vehicle already has a 500 mile transmitter on it. Any given area can have a dozen or more beacons working together, which eliminates the errors from being non-line of sight. All that's needed is a straightforward software mod. Every forward operating base and company sized force could easily have several beacons, and the vast majority of forces would never venture outside of that interlinked 500 mile coverage. And I haven't even touched adding a beacon to an aircraft for a rapid response network.

Note - I'm not proposing to use every robot vehicle (though one could) just that they have a plethora of long-range transmitters at their disposal.

Building a ground based positioning system where the beacons themselves are constantly moving is a much harder problem. Possibly the subject of a new thread?

[flatline]

Directional radar detection, and being able to home in on a (likely frequency jumping, burst transmitting) radio broadcast accurately enough to use it for targeting are HUGELY different.

Frequency jumping is fine since we can assume that all CS units have highly accurate and synchronized clocks.

Burst transmitting is also fine, but error in the position calculated increases as the time between bursts increases. Also, the time required for a unit to determine it's position takes longer because it needs to wait for bursts to occur from enough beacons within radio line of sight before it can calculate it's own position.

There's lots of interesting discussion possible on this topic, but perhaps it deserves it's own thread.

[Mack]

How do you protect a ground based positioning system?

To be useful, the beacons (or whatever you want to call them) have to be constantly transmitting which makes them super easy to find and wonderful targets. They're also no good beyond radio line of sight. I could see something like that being useful and stable within your borders, but the efficacy of it would quickly degrade as you get further from your borders since you can't keep people from finding and destroying them.

With nations like the CS or NGR, it's pretty simple because every robot vehicle already has a 500 mile transmitter on it. Any given area can have a dozen or more beacons working together, which eliminates the errors from being non-line of sight. All that's needed is a straightforward software mod. Every forward operating base and company sized force could easily have several beacons, and the vast majority of forces would never venture outside of that interlinked 500 mile coverage. And I haven't even touched adding a beacon to an aircraft for a rapid response network.

Note - I'm not proposing to use every robot vehicle (though one could) just that they have a plethora of long-range transmitters at their disposal.

Building a ground based positioning system where the beacons themselves are constantly moving is a much harder problem. Possibly the subject of a new thread?

I wouldn't use all mobile ones. They would augment the larger, fixed ones.

Suppose we're going to send a force into Valley XYZ where the fixed signal isn't as reliable, then we'd add in a handful of mobile units to that force to increase the accuracy.

[Alrik Vas]

Ok, so the majority see this as something relatively simple that's in the game already and just extrapolated from the existing technology. That's interesting. Also, yes, scopes have magnified listings generally (x10 or x20) so yeah.

Though I'm curious what we rule spotting is. If you're looking for targets within your range, do you have penalties at a certain distance? Does the scope's range vs lack of peripheral come into it?

[dragonfett]

There have been a few topics on the boards over the past month or so that discuss various details (mostly challenges we face that haven't been widely considered) of combat in Rifts. So I'd like to start a thread about how to deal with them.

First, let's talk about how you'd make a long range shot. Many laser weapons have a range of close to 4000ft, with this you can fire at a penalty nearly 5000ft away. We've discussed the difficulty of seeing your target at that range in other threads, and though some of us disagree with how it can be done, it seems possible for various highly skilled individuals. Regardless, we'll assume 3000ft range, considerably less and no increased range penalty on top of that.

What do you use to spot your target? Detect Concealment? A Perception roll? I know a lot depends on the situation, but since many of your are GM's, I assume you can actually give me an opinion...

Now, because long range shooting requires knowledge and not just skill, do we rely entirely on equipment and WP to make the shots? Say you're using solid ammunition instead of a laser? Do you need math skills?

What about directing fire that cannot see the target? Do you need navigation skills to read a map grid? How do you adjust for weather? What skill is required to fire a mortar at a target you can't see, but are given coordinates on when you are being fed an accurate location and map? It's hard without GPS, I agree, but signals from flying units can relay. Laser guiding works too.

SO...I'm not looking to tell everyone how it's done, I'm asking how it would be handled. Any answer is acceptable, from telling me I'm thinking about it to much and that you should just roll a d20 to hit, all the way to "well, first you need to remake the skill list because they don't account blah blah", that's fine.

Example:
GM: You break out of the enemy holding cell, what's your move?
PC1: Take out the guards and grab their weapons.
GM: you succeed, where now?
PC2: we need a vehicle to get away, i'll grab a truck from the other side of camp.
PC3: I'll cover you with this mortar over here, tell me where to shoot.
GM: (tells PC's how they can communicate position of enemies and fire the mortar) ??????
PC1: alright, good work, let's get out of here!
GM: 500exp, see you next week.

While a typical human with 20/20 vision is capable of seeing a man sized target at 4000', how many people are going to have said 20/20 vision, even in the CS? We have to remember that a sizable portion of the CS Army is composed of people who joined so that they could gain citizenship for themselves or for family members, so they may not have had access to the state of the art medical facilities growing up that would help make sure that they had and kept 20/20 vision (among other things).

Not to mention how steady is the shooter. If their hands shake the laser rifle by as little as one degree can be all it takes to cause them to miss a target at 4000'. Just because the shooter can still see a target at 4000' doesn't mean that they can still hit the target as easily at 4000'.

But onto the topic of indirect fire. I would have the person spotting make a roll for Land Navigation to relay the relative position and distance between the mortar and the target with a penalty tacked on for the method of determining positions. An accurate, local, computer map with laser distance readers with built in compass would possess no penalties. If the laser distance reader didn't have a compass built in, the user would incur a -5% penalty. If the map being used was inaccurate, or a large area paper map, that would incur a -10% each. If they successfully roll their skill check, then the man operating the mortar makes a Math: Advance roll to calculate angles to fire, and if they are successful in that roll, then they roll a WP: Heavy Weapons (or WP: Heavy MD Weapons) roll. If any of the skill rolls prior to firing the mortar are not successful, then they wasted a mortar round and don't hit the target (I would still have them roll for damage and determine what they did hit though).

[Alrik Vas]

I see your line of thinking, Dragonfett. Though do you think that computer assistance makes a large difference with indirect fire?

Also, with a scope the shooter would have that benefit. The difficulty of the shot at range is the relative skill of the shooter and the equipment they're using. So range penalties balanced by WP and possibly a scope can all factor in. Spotting the target at that far away is more of a difficulty, from what I'm thinking. Because of terrain, picking out a target at that distance is pretty dodgy.

[flatline]

Get yourself a rifle with a scope (toys would actually do just fine or tape a toilet paper roll to a stick...but optics are better). Pick a street sign or something man size-ish a mile away.

Lay down prone and put the rifle on something stable (bipod, sandbag, log, whatever). I think you'll find it's pretty easy to keep the sign in your sights.

Now support the rifle with your arm. Still not too bad, but more difficult.

Now stand up and train your sights on the sign. A little more difficult, but still do-able.

Now start walking and keep your sights on the sign.

All of these things are do-able, but get harder and harder as you remove stabilizing elements from the equation. But the thing is, using a laser makes this orders of magnitude easier since you don't have to worry about gravity and wind deflecting your bullet, the target moving before the bullet arrives, or recoil of your own weapon ruining your aim. Lasers are WAY easier to hit things with at distance than a projectile weapon. It's always bothered me that this isn't reflected in the rules.

[SpiritInterface]

How do you protect a ground based positioning system?

To be useful, the beacons (or whatever you want to call them) have to be constantly transmitting which makes them super easy to find and wonderful targets. They're also no good beyond radio line of sight. I could see something like that being useful and stable within your borders, but the efficacy of it would quickly degrade as you get further from your borders since you can't keep people from finding and destroying them.

It is called the LORAN system, and the best way to protect it is by making it an interrogator system instead of a constant broadcast and have multiple redundancy. Set it up that when someone wants to know their position their device sends out a pulse and a number of ground stations respond (never the same ones twice in a row) telling the device how far it is away relative to it's position and the device then triangulates where it is.

[dragonfett]

Get yourself a rifle with a scope (toys would actually do just fine or tape a toilet paper roll to a stick...but optics are better). Pick a street sign or something man size-ish a mile away.

Lay down prone and put the rifle on something stable (bipod, sandbag, log, whatever). I think you'll find it's pretty easy to keep the sign in your sights.

Now support the rifle with your arm. Still not too bad, but more difficult.

Now stand up and train your sights on the sign. A little more difficult, but still do-able.

Now start walking and keep your sights on the sign.

All of these things are do-able, but get harder and harder as you remove stabilizing elements from the equation. But the thing is, using a laser makes this orders of magnitude easier since you don't have to worry about gravity and wind deflecting your bullet, the target moving before the bullet arrives, or recoil of your own weapon ruining your aim. Lasers are WAY easier to hit things with at distance than a projectile weapon. It's always bothered me that this isn't reflected in the rules.

THANK YOU!!! I was racking my brain trying to figure out how to explain it.

[SpiritInterface]

Get yourself a rifle with a scope (toys would actually do just fine or tape a toilet paper roll to a stick...but optics are better). Pick a street sign or something man size-ish a mile away.

Lay down prone and put the rifle on something stable (bipod, sandbag, log, whatever). I think you'll find it's pretty easy to keep the sign in your sights.

Now support the rifle with your arm. Still not too bad, but more difficult.

Now stand up and train your sights on the sign. A little more difficult, but still do-able.

Now start walking and keep your sights on the sign.

All of these things are do-able, but get harder and harder as you remove stabilizing elements from the equation. But the thing is, using a laser makes this orders of magnitude easier since you don't have to worry about gravity and wind deflecting your bullet, the target moving before the bullet arrives, or recoil of your own weapon ruining your aim. Lasers are WAY easier to hit things with at distance than a projectile weapon. It's always bothered me that this isn't reflected in the rules.

THANK YOU!!! I was racking my brain trying to figure out how to explain it.

Don't forget that the effect of lasers are for all intent and purpose instantaneous. At a mile it can take more than a second for the projectile fired from a rifle to make it to the target. Lasers also don't arc or drop.

[CyCo]

With the ground based positioning system, at least with the major players (CS, NGR, etc), surely each of their cities & towns would be transmitting their 'location'. Then of course, their major military installations, and their FOBs. Each of these would be transmitting their own 'code', something like the lighthouse system does. Then you have a 'GBPS' in your vehicle or even hand held. It's programmed with the various codes for the area you reside. It knows the distance by the time it takes to receive the code. It then triangulates from at least 3 locations, preferably more. There would probably be civilian versions of the 'GBPS' as well, just not as accurate.

I know you didn't really need me to work that out, I just got sidetracked by the idea. lol

But as I said, major military instillation & FOBS, not to forget the cities & towns. There's no need to track them, anyone with a little 'common' knowledge would know where the transmissions come from. "Oh, the closest GBPS? That would be the CS Ironheart FOB. It's just a couple miles down that road". A secret instillation isn't going to be transmitting a code, or at least, not an easily detectable one. Even if you do, it's a hardened installation. Good luck.

[eliakon]

This seemed like a good time to point out a couple bits of optics...
RUE page 264 has the Telexcopic Scope: 10x magnification typical range is 2000-6000'
RUE page 265 has the cross hair sight: +1 aimed shot, no range
But the crème de la crème is page 270 the JA-11 "...has a built in laser targeting system and comes standard with a telescopic (2 mile/3.2km) and infrared scope." Two mile infrared telescopic sight? Yes please.

[Alrik Vas]

Damn, I'm gonna get like 10 for all my long range rifles.

[dragonfett]

This seemed like a good time to point out a couple bits of optics...
RUE page 264 has the Telexcopic Scope: 10x magnification typical range is 2000-6000'
RUE page 265 has the cross hair sight: +1 aimed shot, no range
But the crème de la crème is page 270 the JA-11 "...has a built in laser targeting system and comes standard with a telescopic (2 mile/3.2km) and infrared scope." Two mile infrared telescopic sight? Yes please.

I don't think that the IR part has a range of two miles, just the telescopic portion of the scope has a two mile range and it just so happens to have a infrared scoped integrated into it.

[eliakon]

This seemed like a good time to point out a couple bits of optics...
RUE page 264 has the Telexcopic Scope: 10x magnification typical range is 2000-6000'
RUE page 265 has the cross hair sight: +1 aimed shot, no range
But the crème de la crème is page 270 the JA-11 "...has a built in laser targeting system and comes standard with a telescopic (2 mile/3.2km) and infrared scope." Two mile infrared telescopic sight? Yes please.

I don't think that the IR part has a range of two miles, just the telescopic portion of the scope has a two mile range and it just so happens to have a infrared scoped integrated into it.

That would still beg the question of what the 'range' of the IR scope is. Which is always questionable when you get into it really. I mean what is the range of an eye? From the sounds of it the scope can magnify objects two miles away sufficiently for use, and it can do so in visual light or infrared. It won't be some super aiming system...but its a lot better than nothing and certainly shows that the common claim that there is nothing for optics past a few thousand feet as false.

[dragonfett]

This seemed like a good time to point out a couple bits of optics...
RUE page 264 has the Telexcopic Scope: 10x magnification typical range is 2000-6000'
RUE page 265 has the cross hair sight: +1 aimed shot, no range
But the crème de la crème is page 270 the JA-11 "...has a built in laser targeting system and comes standard with a telescopic (2 mile/3.2km) and infrared scope." Two mile infrared telescopic sight? Yes please.

I don't think that the IR part has a range of two miles, just the telescopic portion of the scope has a two mile range and it just so happens to have a infrared scoped integrated into it.

That would still beg the question of what the 'range' of the IR scope is. Which is always questionable when you get into it really. I mean what is the range of an eye? From the sounds of it the scope can magnify objects two miles away sufficiently for use, and it can do so in visual light or infrared. It won't be some super aiming system...but its a lot better than nothing and certainly shows that the common claim that there is nothing for optics past a few thousand feet as false.

I would say that the range of the IR is the same as that of a normal IR scope.

[flatline]

Claiming any sort of scope, be it optical, IR, whatever, has a range is pretty stupid. I understand that its meant to imply some sort of sensitivity metric, but as written it's just plain dumb.

Applying a range to an optical scope would mean you couldn't see the moon through it which we know is nonsensical. Similarly, pointing an IR scope at the sun...

[eliakon]

Claiming any sort of scope, be it optical, IR, whatever, has a range is pretty stupid. I understand that its meant to imply some sort of sensitivity metric, but as written it's just plain dumb.

Applying a range to an optical scope would mean you couldn't see the moon through it which we know is nonsensical. Similarly, pointing an IR scope at the sun...

While I agree in general, it is possible to make a general 'you can enlarge a man sized target enough to usefully aim at them from x distance' to be fair.
since with no scope at all you are not going to be able to do much aiming/targeting at a person that is two miles away.

Also systems that are not pure optic (like infrared ones) do have ranges as they can only enhance and zoom in what they are seeing so far.....which is yet another reason to believe that this scope is an IR scope.

[Alrik Vas]

Wouldn't an object's amount of light reflected have something to do with whether it can be seen at range? Just because something is there doesn't mean we can see it.

[flatline]

Wouldn't an object's amount of light reflected have something to do with whether it can be seen at range? Just because something is there doesn't mean we can see it.

There needs to be sufficient contrast between what you're trying to see and its surroundings.

[Alrik Vas]

Tie that together for me, are you agreeing or saying, "well there are factors, but you pointed out the wrong ones, X is really what the issue is"...?

[eliakon]

How about "Optics in the real world is pretty complex and involves lots of factors that makes it really hard to simplify into one sentence. This of course is why games tend to make lots of abstractions and simplifications."

[flatline]

Tie that together for me, are you agreeing or saying, "well there are factors, but you pointed out the wrong ones, X is really what the issue is"...?

I'm agreeing with you.

If you can't see your target for reasons other than distance, then a telescopic sight isn't going to help.

[Alrik Vas]

okay...but what I mean is, the moon is easily visible from the distance it is at because it reflects so much light from the sun, yes? When it isn't doing so it can be difficult to see at night.

Stars are very bright, their light reaches across, well, light years because it's very strong, isn't it?

So something that's a mile away that doesn't catch much light won't be picked up by our eyes, but with a telescopic sight, the object can be made to appear much closer, allowing us to see it. I mean, we can see something that looks like a blur at range, but with binoculars we can see the details. That's all just light reflection I thought.

[eliakon]

okay...but what I mean is, the moon is easily visible from the distance it is at because it reflects so much light from the sun, yes? When it isn't doing so it can be difficult to see at night.

Stars are very bright, their light reaches across, well, light years because it's very strong, isn't it?

So something that's a mile away that doesn't catch much light won't be picked up by our eyes, but with a telescopic sight, the object can be made to appear much closer, allowing us to see it. I mean, we can see something that looks like a blur at range, but with binoculars we can see the details. That's all just light reflection I thought.

It involves the amount of light being emitted/reflected, and the frequencies of light involved (for things like focal length, and aperture size and absorption and stuff.) Mechanically lenses need to be adjusted for offsets
I am not an expert on it by any means, but I knew people that did tele-optics for a living and they could talk about it for hours. I just needed to know how to diagnose and repair a thermal telescope, not all the details of the mechanics that allowed it all to work, or the theoretical underpinnings of the physics that those mechanics rested on. While I could mount one, and zero it using the computerized tools provided I could not tell you how those tools worked exactly for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescopic_sight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optoelectronics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision_device

[flatline]

okay...but what I mean is, the moon is easily visible from the distance it is at because it reflects so much light from the sun, yes? When it isn't doing so it can be difficult to see at night.

Stars are very bright, their light reaches across, well, light years because it's very strong, isn't it?

So something that's a mile away that doesn't catch much light won't be picked up by our eyes, but with a telescopic sight, the object can be made to appear much closer, allowing us to see it. I mean, we can see something that looks like a blur at range, but with binoculars we can see the details. That's all just light reflection I thought.

Sure, that's part of it. Just not all of it.

Consider a white wall on a bright day. If you put a black sheet of paper on the wall and a white sheet of paper on the wall, the white paper will reflect more light than the black, yet the black will be easier to see because it has greater contrast compared to the white wall behind it.

Stars are easy to see because they are light points against a dark background. Again, contrast.

That's all I was saying.

[dragonfett]

Wouldn't an IR scope need sufficient energy reflected back to it to provide an image, like anything beyond x feet don't return a strong enough of a signal to process?

[Jefffar]

If you are talking Infrared rather than Thermal Imager - yes. However seeing as such systems have in the past been used as part of weapon sights for tanks, a powerful enough illumination source could reach out quite a distance.

For example, this system claims to be effective to 5 km and features an IR Laser for illumination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSR4TwNgRi8

[SpiritInterface]

okay...but what I mean is, the moon is easily visible from the distance it is at because it reflects so much light from the sun, yes? When it isn't doing so it can be difficult to see at night.

Stars are very bright, their light reaches across, well, light years because it's very strong, isn't it?

So something that's a mile away that doesn't catch much light won't be picked up by our eyes, but with a telescopic sight, the object can be made to appear much closer, allowing us to see it. I mean, we can see something that looks like a blur at range, but with binoculars we can see the details. That's all just light reflection I thought.

Sure, that's part of it. Just not all of it.

Consider a white wall on a bright day. If you put a black sheet of paper on the wall and a white sheet of paper on the wall, the white paper will reflect more light than the black, yet the black will be easier to see because it has greater contrast compared to the white wall behind it.

Stars are easy to see because they are light points against a dark background. Again, contrast.

That's all I was saying.

If you are talking Infrared rather than Thermal Imager - yes. However seeing as such systems have in the past been used as part of weapon sights for tanks, a powerful enough illumination source could reach out quite a distance.

For example, this system claims to be effective to 5 km and features an IR Laser for illumination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSR4TwNgRi8

I think he is talking about LIDAR system that uses ultraviolet, visible, or near infrared light instead of radio waves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar

[eliakon]

If you are talking Infrared rather than Thermal Imager - yes. However seeing as such systems have in the past been used as part of weapon sights for tanks, a powerful enough illumination source could reach out quite a distance.

For example, this system claims to be effective to 5 km and features an IR Laser for illumination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSR4TwNgRi8

Which interestingly is a Real World System saying it has a range (3.1 miles instead of the 2 miles that I started this all off with but still).....
suggesting that perhaps 'weapons scopes having effective ranges' is a thing......

[Jerell]

Get yourself a rifle with a scope (toys would actually do just fine or tape a toilet paper roll to a stick...but optics are better). Pick a street sign or something man size-ish a mile away.

Lay down prone and put the rifle on something stable (bipod, sandbag, log, whatever). I think you'll find it's pretty easy to keep the sign in your sights.

Now support the rifle with your arm. Still not too bad, but more difficult.

Now stand up and train your sights on the sign. A little more difficult, but still do-able.

Now start walking and keep your sights on the sign.

All of these things are do-able, but get harder and harder as you remove stabilizing elements from the equation. But the thing is, using a laser makes this orders of magnitude easier since you don't have to worry about gravity and wind deflecting your bullet, the target moving before the bullet arrives, or recoil of your own weapon ruining your aim. Lasers are WAY easier to hit things with at distance than a projectile weapon. It's always bothered me that this isn't reflected in the rules.

Quite right. Myself, I can hit pop up targets with an M16 in prone supported out to 300m fairly well, and more reliably with something like a red dot close combat optic (which I highly recommend). If you're zeroed and practiced with something like a ACOG, more power to you. Lasers should be much easier to hit with, with speed of light within a mile range, I wouldn't think you would have to lead much if anything. I did always wonder if lasers would be worse in the rain though? Still I have great doubts of good accuracy at range past 200m while moving/walking, unless you're doing a slow glide on completely flat terrain. Kneeling, or a quick pause and crouch gives you a lot more stability, standing not so much. Close in, say around the 30m-50m mark stable firing position's no where near as big a deal.

At the range is one thing, for combat situations I would also add,

Now try to do that when someone is shooting at you.

Now try when your buddy is laying down, screaming about his arm being off.

Now try with IDF falling around you and the ground rocking with explosions.

Now try when you're in a rage or with your adrenaline pumping so hard you've lost most of your fine motor skills.

There are so many things that can degrade probability of a clean hit in combat situations, but yeah, if you're prone supported and got the drop on someone within a mile with a laser rifle, and clear line of sight that should be devastating. Makes me think a laser resistant shield like some of the robotech southern cross armors had could come in handy, at least until you can get to decent cover. I'd love to trade in my M16 or M9 for a laser rifle, it just seems like it would be so much easier to hit. Just keep that lens clean eh?

[Alrik Vas]

Palladium has some stuff for that, like wild penalties while taking fire.

[Gamer]

If you are talking Infrared rather than Thermal Imager - yes. However seeing as such systems have in the past been used as part of weapon sights for tanks, a powerful enough illumination source could reach out quite a distance.

For example, this system claims to be effective to 5 km and features an IR Laser for illumination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSR4TwNgRi8

5 miles that's it?

The military was using IZLIDs with further range in Afghan the entire time there.
here is a pdf you guys might like to peruse.

[cosmicfish]

Optics can get tricky for a lot of reasons. I am not personally an imaging guy so I won't get into the resolution power of scopes, but I will dive into the laser issue!

The only real reason lasers would have ranges anywhere near where Palladium has them is if they were designed to match the pictures. Attenuation should not be an issue if there is even decent visibility, turbulence should not be a problem outside of transonic regimes and other ridiculously swirly (technical term) conditions, but good old beam divergence really bites you in the ass. A collimated beam (the simplest case) has a full-width divergence equal to lambda / w, where "w" is the beam waist, or radius at the aperture. If we assume a barely-visible 700nm (red) and a 1cm wide aperture (w = 0.005m) then we get a full-width divergence angle of 70 urad. At 1000m, this means that your 1cm wide spot is now 14cm (~6") across and your power density has dropped by a factor of 196.

This is bad design.

If you went with an atmospheric friendly 1.55um IR laser and a still easily-manageable 5cm (~2") aperture you get out to ~11km before your density has dropped by the same factor. Chunk that aperture up to 10cm (~4") for a sniper and you get out to ~45km. Pop it up to 30cm (~12") for a vehicular mount and you get to ~405km.

And note that this is completely ignoring ANY kind of focusing of the beam.

So yeah, the problem with laser weapons in Palladium is really just that they shouldn't look like conventional rifles, they should look like telescopes. Fix the art and laser weapons start having huge range advantages over conventional weapons.

I think he is talking about LIDAR system that uses ultraviolet, visible, or near infrared light instead of radio waves.

LIDAR is a little trickier depending on what you want to look at - your range is a product of a huge number of issues, including but not limited to power, aperture, contrast, reflectivity/cross section, and resolution. 5km is incredibly short for some kinds of LIDAR, pretty long for others.