[WellsIDidIt]

It doesn't have to be belt fed. It's possible to make box magazines at that high of capacity just as easily. They have remote turrets now that can make use of 5,000 round box magazines for AR-15 style weapon. No conversion is necessary, it just hooks into the magazine well just like a normal magazine. It uses a series of chutes that allow each well (500 round wells) to feed relatively free of jamming issues. That design also allows multiple ammo types to be kept on hand.

But yes, it makes sense for SR tech to be worse than modern day tech. SR mounts cannot be just straps for the weapon to slide into. It has to be integral to the body of the vehicle. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for the vehicles body to act as recoil comp. A gun just blazing away strapped to the outside would bounce around like crazy. Generally, if you're mounting a weapon like this into a turret or on a fixed vehicle mount, it's going to involve stripping off the stock and handrails for the mount and doing basic modifications to make the weapon stable in the mount. Higher ammo capacity is just another extension to that.

Keep in mind that in the case of an internal magazine fed weapon, most turret modification for high capacity is more like a box magazine than a belt. It cuts off the normal magazine supply and pressures the rounds so that when the action goes back, a new round is forced in. All that it is needed after that, for bolt-action or pump weapons, is a piston that electronically drives the action. This is so simple that most kids create something similar with childhood toys. Seriously, if you've ever created anything that goes back and forth, that's the complexity of it. It's not uncommon for turrets to have a similar system even on automatic weapons to aid in an attempt to remotely clear jams. It's amazing how often just working the action a few times will clear things.

The only real loading type that would require belt feed is the cylinder, which is possible with 150 year old tech.

But then again, yes, common sense tells us that it's funky for SR to be better than modern day tech.

[Csjarrat]

It doesn't have to be belt fed. It's possible to make box magazines at that high of capacity just as easily. They have remote turrets now that can make use of 5,000 round box magazines for AR-15 style weapon. No conversion is necessary, it just hooks into the magazine well just like a normal magazine. It uses a series of chutes that allow each well (500 round wells) to feed relatively free of jamming issues. That design also allows multiple ammo types to be kept on hand.

But yes, it makes sense for SR tech to be worse than modern day tech. SR mounts cannot be just straps for the weapon to slide into. It has to be integral to the body of the vehicle. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for the vehicles body to act as recoil comp. A gun just blazing away strapped to the outside would bounce around like crazy. Generally, if you're mounting a weapon like this into a turret or on a fixed vehicle mount, it's going to involve stripping off the stock and handrails for the mount and doing basic modifications to make the weapon stable in the mount. Higher ammo capacity is just another extension to that.

Keep in mind that in the case of an internal magazine fed weapon, most turret modification for high capacity is more like a box magazine than a belt. It cuts off the normal magazine supply and pressures the rounds so that when the action goes back, a new round is forced in. All that it is needed after that, for bolt-action or pump weapons, is a piston that electronically drives the action. This is so simple that most kids create something similar with childhood toys. Seriously, if you've ever created anything that goes back and forth, that's the complexity of it. It's not uncommon for turrets to have a similar system even on automatic weapons to aid in an attempt to remotely clear jams. It's amazing how often just working the action a few times will clear things.

The only real loading type that would require belt feed is the cylinder, which is possible with 150 year old tech.

But then again, yes, common sense tells us that it's funky for SR to be better than modern day tech.

not all of us are experienced military engineers so keep your sneers to yourself thanks.

[WellsIDidIt]

Not a military engineer, I just take the time to look into things before I claim how they should work.

[Namikaze]

Knowing how these things work in real life isn't the same as knowing how they balance and work in a game, though.  Sometimes you take the reality bit a little too far, Wells.

[WellsIDidIt]

If it can work realistically without upsetting balance, then there isn't a balance issue. Balance isn't hard to determine.

[Namikaze]

That's fine.  Make a suggestion.  Don't lay on the patronizing, vaguely-insulting techno-babble.

[martinchaen]

Care to show any shred of proof for a 5000 round magazine for an assault rifle type weapon turret, WellsIDidIt? A short google search reveals no such thing, except for airsoft guns, and in my years in the military I never saw or heard anything remotely (hah!) like what you're describing.

Personally, I think game balance and realism have to contend on this one, with game balance winning out.

The fact that there is a difference between belted and not, as well as the absence of any mention of it in the rules, indicates to me that the weapon clip size (if it has a clip) of a mounted weapon is not modified. However, it does seems prudent that a drone has the capability to reload itself, so it doesn't have to come back to it's handler every time it runs out of ammo.

I'll also run this by our group, so thanks for bringing this up. My ruling suggestion would be:
1. Weapons installed in a mount do not have any of their stats changed at all, but the mount holds up to 250 rounds/500 rounds/BOD rockets or missiles that can be used for reloading with an appropriate action as per the Reloading Weapons table on page 163
2. Weapons installed in a heavy mount that have belt feed capabilities in their stats can use the full 500 round belt, without any need for reloading

I think the above provides several benefits in terms of game balance:
1. Machine guns are the best option for suppressive fire platforms (as they rightly should be)
2. Non-heavy weapons in heavy weapon mounts have more ammunition available to them, allowing for extended operations (and a possible ammo store for character use as well if the drek really hits the fan...)
3. Provides tactical choice for end users, further augmented by options probably coming in Run & Gun

Makes sense to me, so that's what I'll go with.

[WellsIDidIt]

Both Military Technology and Popular Science had articles on it back when Samsung Techwin first announced that it was developing the SGR-A1. Given the Popular Science article was more about the technology of the robot rather than the weapon system, but both made mentions of it. The original conception of the SGR-A1 and even the Super aEgis II used a high capacity box magazine weapon rather than a belt fed weapon as it helped filter out other issues in the design before adding the issues of a belt to the design.

Due to the weight of the high capacity magazines, they were deemed pretty much unusable by anything but a stationary line of fire turret (5,000 5.56mm rounds is hovering at the 75 kg. mark before adding in the 9 kg. weight of the magazine).

Neither design that implemented the drum was ever fielded. Belt fed weapons are much easier to use for militaries, as they allow for quicker reloading and are more manageable. Then again, combat drones are near as prevalent in real life as they are in SR either.

Honestly, if you can envision a metal box holding a group of magazines (or clips if you prefer that term), with a selector at the top that switches to the next magazine each time one runs dry, you're there.

Looking at your rule suggestion, you're pretty much doing the same thing, except you're making it take an action to switch chutes (or magazines if that picture is easier) rather than letting the device do it automatically.

While manually reloading by the drone, magazine by magazine, may be a feasible design for something like the PROTECTOR super light drones, where the gun is pretty much installed in a harness without removing any hardware, I would hazard a guess that most drone guns would remove enough hardware to reload, and remove spent cartridges in branch cases, while firing.

Add in that in the past, it has worked in this way where the mounts ammunition can be freely used by the weapon (Rigger 3 and Arsenal ammunition bins), and that the tech would actually take up more room by reloading inside the mount as opposed to a forced loading system, I'm pretty sure it's intentional for the weapon to be able to feed from it's 250 round supply without issue.

[martinchaen]

Right... little bit of a difference between a rotodrone carrying an Ares Alpha and an Aegis turrent, wouldn't you say?

[WellsIDidIt]

Principle is the same, only a smaller scale being used. Remember the rotodrone is getting 250 (or 500) rounds in that set up (5% or 10% of what's possible today), putting the weight issue out of the picture (3.75/7.5 kg assuming it's not using caseless).

Design wise the setup should be pretty similar from a robotics standpoint and from a combat standpoint. After all, it's the design of future robotic sentries, and that what drones are an expansion of.

[martinchaen]

Indeed, but the "reloading" would still need to take place; represented in this case by, you guessed it, an appropriate action as per the reloading mechanism of the original weapon!

Tadaa

Call it an automatic action or a voluntary, intentional action by the drone pilot, but mechanically the "reload" still has to happen. That takes a little bit of time; since a drone has Pilot Rating x 2 + 4d6 initiative (averaging 6 + 14 = 22 for a Pilot 3 drone) it's very likely that it will get 2 or 3 Action Phases, which means that a simple action represents a time span of 3 seconds / 2 action phases / 2 simple actions = 0.75 seconds or 3 seconds / 3 action phases / 2 simple actions = 0.5 seconds. Sounds reasonable to me...

[WellsIDidIt]

The current design can swap chutes mid-firing without missing a round. So, no, it doesn't really need enough time to signify an action. Especially when you consider that an action turns that "while still firing" into a 1.5 second gap using your example (mounted weapons are a complex action to fire).

[martinchaen]

Game balance, my friend. Gotta give heavy weapons some for of advantage over assault rifles, at least until Run & Gun comes out with methods of converting weapons to belt feed.

[WellsIDidIt]

Heavy weapons are already balanced friend. They don't need anything more from weapon mounts of all places.

[martinchaen]

I disagree with that statement, based on how many characters I've seen created on this forum carrying Ares Alpha or similar weapons, compared to how many I've seen using LMGs.

And with that, I've said what I need. Carry on.