Community

There are a number of weapon systems on fighter-scale craft with multiple possible operators, so I have no problem with the idea of a 0-emplacement point mod (probably 1,000 credits cost) that allows the organic to retain control of 'pilot' weapons while an astromech flies. He would STILL lose the +2 attack bonus, since he was no longer the pilot while using the weapons.

For some inexplicable reason, there are a LARGE number of fighters that have a "you can put an additional person in here acting in any role... except gunner" craft, which, frankly, is a big load of BS. I'm not sure if the game designers did it for some kind of assumed game balance or what, but it's absurd and pointless. Virtually EVERY real world fighter with a crew of 2 has a dedicated Weapons Officer and dedicated Pilot.

Great THEORY, but that's wrong. Look at the ARC-170. The forwarde guns are gunner controlled. Also, that whole weapon connected to heading thing is the REASON for the +2 that pilots get to their to-hit. You can still act as gunner on forward facing guns even without being pilot. Nothing stoppping it, whatsoever.

Moreover, Saga doesn't even concern itself with firing arcs, so how can forward-only weapons have ANY negative impact from who uses them?

Where the starship combat system more... robust... and included firing arcs, there might be a fair arguement, but even then it seems a bit weak.

In the Real World? I don't know who controls the guns on modern fighters that have a Weapons Officer. I'm also not sure what degree of aiming can be done on forward guns without realigning the craft. I'll see what some searching can dig up.

Jul 21, 2011 -- 10:29AM, StevenO wrote:

When it comes to modern fighters most of them are single seaters with the two seaters often used for training purposes.

The F/A-18F being an example of a modern fighter with 2 seats. It is not mostly used for training, there are entire squadrons of them used in combat.

Jul 24, 2011 -- 10:32AM, StevenO wrote:

"Often used" is a far cry from "mostly used" so don't confuse the two.  I'm also looking at it in overall number of models .  I guess in all honesty few "modern" fighters are actually used for raw training in part because of cost and because of the availability of simulators.

Sorry, my bad. I think that you would have to log quite a few hours in the simulator before you get to try the real thing.

Jul 24, 2011 -- 10:32AM, StevenO wrote:

I'll also say that the F/A-18F is a lot more than just a "fighter" in the Star Wars sense of the word.  Looking at the range of roles that aircraft fills the guy in back is a lot more than some gunner and in SWSE terms probably fills the rolls of system operator and engineer in addition to copilot more than it would fill a role as gunner.  Even looking at that can the guy in back fire the fighter's cannon with any kind of accuracy if not also filling the role of pilot?

Well, a lot of ships in Star Wars can fill multiple roles, just as the real world equivalent. Take an Y-wing for example, I'm pretty sure the gunner can do more then fire the ion-cannons. Y-wings are used to jam communications sometimes, something handled by the systems operator in most cases, this is most likely handled by the gunner/system-operator on a Y-wing.
As to the question if the co-pilot of the F/A-18F and other modern aircraft can fire the cannons while not controlling the plane, this is something you would have to ask someone who actually flies one of those planes... As far as I know, most modern armament like that do have active targeting, so the guns actually moves slightly from side to side, up and down to help aim the gun. That would make it possible to hit someone in front of you even while not "driving". If is done or not, or if the co-pilot is locked out from the guns, I have no idea.

Jul 26, 2011 -- 7:28AM, DarthPancake wrote:

Jul 24, 2011 -- 10:32AM, StevenO wrote:

Even looking at that can the guy in back fire the fighter's cannon with any kind of accuracy if not also filling the role of pilot?

I think this is the key point here.  The second pilot does not control the fighter's cannon, because as you said, it is inseparably tied to the movement of the craft.  Imagine this scene: pilot banks the fighter and lines up the target, and then shouts to his copilot "Fire.  Okay you missed, wait for a second ... wait for a sec--okay, fire!  dang missed again."  Since the pilot is the one moving the craft and literally is hands-on regarding its path, speed, and angle, he is in the better position to use the forward fixed cannon.

Now, I'm trying to remember the interworkings between the pilot and weapons engineer (I don't think that is the correct term) on the apache.  I know the weapons guy controls the missiles/rockets, but I'm trying to remember if he also controls the cannon.  The cannon swivels about following one of the pilot's eyes, but I can't remember which one of them it is.

The Apache is actually quite a bit different from a fighter.  The Apache has one gun in a turrent underneath the ship.  If I were to write out the gunship's stats that would be a gunner fired weapon; I may allow the pilot to serve as gunner but he would NOT get the +2 bonus in that situation.

I would guess that a modern fighter's cannon does have some tracking/aiming assistance built in instead of being fixed but I'd guess that it's variation is less that 5 degrees in any direction.  It may be enough to help counter some things but it would still be a very narrow cone to shoot in and not something that could be handled well with out full vehicle control.