LRM Indirect

[YingJanshi]

Can someone explain to me why indirect fire adds a modifier for the spotters movement? It doesn't make sense to me. All the spotter is doing is basically saying is "Fire at coord. X,Y,Z. Or pressing a couple of buttons to send the info to the firer. Unless the only reason is game balance it I don't see it.

(Playing MWO brought this up. Though in that there are several issues I won't bring up here.)

[nckestrel]

Can someone explain to me why indirect fire adds a modifier for the spotters movement? It doesn't make sense to me. All the spotter is doing is basically saying is "Fire at coord. X,Y,Z. Or pressing a couple of buttons to send the info to the firer. Unless the only reason is game balance it I don't see it.

(Playing MWO brought this up. Though in that there are several issues I won't bring up here.)

Try doing math problems while playing dodgeball :).
But the primary reason, I think, is that the game is built around attacker movement makes it harder to shoot straight, and in the case of indirect fire, the spotter is the attacker.  The spotter is doing the work.

[YingJanshi]

Okay but really the computer is doing the work (yes, yes I know we're talking about BT computers here so don't knock me over the head). As the spotter you are just sending the targeting info to the LRM unit. Is there a spotter movement mod for indirect artillery fire? Because to me the principle is the same.

[Scotty]

Being a spotter in 3025 probably means the computer isn't doing the work for you, and you have to manually laze or flat out call in the target's location.

Think about how difficult a bouncing, maneuvering 'Mech makes that to do.

[YingJanshi]

Even in 3025 you still have computers doing the targeting (boy, I really wish TC had a different name. Would be a lot less confusing.) otherwise the Phantom 'Mech ability wouldn't work. (Yes, yes I know. Bear with me.) Even in 3025 you are not iron siting it. You move the crosshair yes, but the computer is doing the calculating on how to fire. Remember you just move the crosshair the computer decides how to move your limbs or torso or whatever to maximize the chances of a hit. And yes a highly mobile target will be hard to hit but that is just physics.

But anyway I wasn't just talking about 3025 but all eras.

[Charlie Tango]

So, you are:

1) Piloting your own unit
2) Firing your weapons at moving targets
3) Trying to avoid incoming fire
4) Locating a whole separated target
5) Trying to anticipate where he's going to be when the indirect shots will land, triangulating it with your movement and their movement
6) Calling out that info to the firing unit through the chaosof battle radio traffic
7) all of this in 10 seconds of time.


... And you don't think there should be a modifier?

[YingJanshi]

Maybe just a flat +1 modifier?

[MadCapellan]

If anything, I'd say it could be argued the other way around - keep the spotter movement modifer and drop the flat +1.  You honestly can't tell me that you don't think spotting while jumping and firing wouldn't be significantly harder than doing the same while standing still, can you?

[Charlie Tango]

If anything, I'd say it could be argued the other way around - keep the spotter movement modifer and drop the flat +1.  You honestly can't tell me that you don't think spotting while jumping and firing wouldn't be significantly harder than doing the same while standing still, can you?

I think the flat +1 is reasonable for just straight indirect with a non-moving spotter;  it shouldn't be as easy to do indirect fire as it is to do direct.

[YingJanshi]

Isn't spotting in AToW a simple action?

[MadCapellan]

I think the flat +1 is reasonable for just straight indirect with a non-moving spotter;  it shouldn't be as easy to do indirect fire as it is to do direct.

Oh, don't get me wrong!  I'm fine with the rule as-is.  I just could see it more validly argued that spotting from a static position wouldn't be hard enough to generate a modifier, as opposed to hurtling through the air at 60kmh!

[YingJanshi]

The irony is I started a thread about how LRM indirect is far too easy in MWO!  :D

[Col.Hengist]

What if the unit is taking " careful aim" (tacOps page 84)? it doesn't say anything about it not working for indirect.

[ehlijen]

I think the problem is that mech targetting systems are designed to track targets in relation to themselves and are not optimised for spotting.

When you spot, your compy tells you where the target is in relation to yourself. If you move, it doesn't take that into account because 'yourself' is a relative position. Now if you send that raw data to another mech, you'll need to include your positional data in relation to that mech so the firing mech can calculate an absolute position for the enemy to then calculate a relative position for the indirect fire from. And then you account for target movement.

Depending on which steps of those your fire control system has inbuilt routines for and how efficient they are, it is entirely reasonable that if you use two points to target an enemy from, you take an attacker movement penalty for each moving one.

Even in a C3 system, that step isn't really integrated. You need LOS from both points to gain the benefit, which means you can't fire indirectly. However if you tag the target, you can do it without a spotter, because you made the enemy broadcast his absolute position.

(Also, why does the spellchecker on this site not include the word 'mech'?  ;D )

[bakija]

Can someone explain to me why indirect fire adds a modifier for the spotters movement? It doesn't make sense to me. All the spotter is doing is basically saying is "Fire at coord. X,Y,Z. Or pressing a couple of buttons to send the info to the firer. Unless the only reason is game balance it I don't see it.

'Cause indirect LRM fire can be really powerful as game play goes , and giving it more penalties to balance it out makes perfect sense. And game balance is really the only justification that matters in a game.

[MadCapellan]

'Cause indirect LRM fire can be really powerful as game play goes , and giving it more penalties to balance it out makes perfect sense.

Agreed.  You are ignoring all the normal terrain modifiers for shooting and potentially being able to shoot at targets you wouldn't even be able to see under normal circumstances.  That's a pretty major benefit.

[evilauthor]

I think the problem is that mech targetting systems are designed to track targets in relation to themselves and are not optimised for spotting.

When you spot, your compy tells you where the target is in relation to yourself. If you move, it doesn't take that into account because 'yourself' is a relative position. Now if you send that raw data to another mech, you'll need to include your positional data in relation to that mech so the firing mech can calculate an absolute position for the enemy to then calculate a relative position for the indirect fire from. And then you account for target movement.

Or as in real life, the spotter has to calculate the target's position (or the position where they think the target is going to be when the rounds start landing) from his own position and ranging info and relay that estimate to the shooter.

C3 does this automatically, but doesn't AFAIK actually predict where a target is going thus still requiring TN rolls.

Depending on which steps of those your fire control system has inbuilt routines for and how efficient they are, it is entirely reasonable that if you use two points to target an enemy from, you take an attacker movement penalty for each moving one.

Even in a C3 system, that step isn't really integrated. You need LOS from both points to gain the benefit, which means you can't fire indirectly. However if you tag the target, you can do it without a spotter, because you made the enemy broadcast his absolute position.

BTW, don't standard rules say that a spotter can't do ANYTHING ELSE (like moving and shooting) in the same turn that they're spotting?

(Also, why does the spellchecker on this site not include the word 'mech'?  ;D )

I thought the spell checker came with your browser, not the web site.

[DarkISI]

BTW, don't standard rules say that a spotter can't do ANYTHING ELSE (like moving and shooting) in the same turn that they're spotting?

Nope. TW added an additional +1 modifier to the spotting unit and the one firing indirect LRMs, should the spotter decide to fire his own weapons.
Before TW you would be correct.

[House Davie Merc]

There is one way for an indirect spotter to move and not have it's movement
add a modifier to the indirect fire's to-hit numbers .

USE INFANTRY AS SPOTTERS !

Some infantry types have better movement then others .

In 3025 era games I like to use Jump Laser Rifle infantry because they are cheap
and can jump 3 hexes to make them harder to hit then most other infantry .

[ehlijen]

Or as in real life, the spotter has to calculate the target's position (or the position where they think the target is going to be when the rounds start landing) from his own position and ranging info and relay that estimate to the shooter.
BTW, don't standard rules say that a spotter can't do ANYTHING ELSE (like moving and shooting) in the same turn that they're spotting?

I thought the spell checker came with your browser, not the web site.

As said, they can, but at additional penalties. Which is another reason to spot with infantry as you don't care as much if you lose out on their attack.

As for the spellchecker, the button is built into this website, as far as I can tell (I don't get it on any other forums). Meh, doesn't matter much anyway.