Forums of the Megaverse®

Pilot: RPV -- RPV is short for Remotely Piloted Vehicle. This skill allows characters to pilot vehicles like the Predator, Fire Scout, or Shadow. Since control of the vehicle is from a remote location rather than inside the body of the vehicle, it's a little different piloting experience. You can't rely on direct feedback from the control surfaces and you don't have the same sensory input. But then again, you don't die when the vehicle is destroyed. Base Skill: 40% + 3% per level of experience.

So....does this account for all unmanned vehicles? With this skill can one operate remote air, land and waterborne (surface and sub-surface) vehicles? I think if you make it all encompassing, that might be a little much considering the substantial difference between flying an aircraft and driving a submarine. Additionally, I think I would add the prerequisite of the base Pilot skill before being able to move to unmanned. Sure any knucklehead can fly a remote control plane down at the park, but this is a lot more then that. We are talking about safe take-off and landing procedures, aerodynamics in adverse weather conditions and weapons targeting. That's a lot more to take in then your average hobbyist.

Desert Rat wrote:So....does this account for all unmanned vehicles? With this skill can one operate remote air, land and waterborne (surface and sub-surface) vehicles? I think if you make it all encompassing, that might be a little much considering the substantial difference between flying an aircraft and driving a submarine.

Until you commented, it was going to be an all-in-one skill. Maybe I'll split it into Air, Land , Water, and Submarine versions.

Desert Rat wrote:Additionally, I think I would add the prerequisite of the base Pilot skill before being able to move to unmanned. Sure any knucklehead can fly a remote control plane down at the park, but this is a lot more then that. We are talking about safe take-off and landing procedures, aerodynamics in adverse weather conditions and weapons targeting. That's a lot more to take in then your average hobbyist.

Ooooorrr, maybe change it to a combination/add-on skill like Offensive Driving that works with Piloting skills you already have.

Last I knew, to be a UAV operator doesn't require one to actually be able to fly manned aircraft.

Sgt Anjay wrote:Last I knew, to be a UAV operator doesn't require one to actually be able to fly manned aircraft.

That all depends upon which UAV's you are referring to. Flying a RQ-11 (Raven) is a one week course in Nevada, but the concept is that they are launched by you throwing the thing by hand into the air and landed by crashing the RQ-11 into the ground. The capabilities of the RQ-11 is limited to RISTA activities and is completely capably of auto-pilot flight through GPS waypoints. There is not much skill required to operate one of these little UAV's. Now if you are to the MQ-1 (Predator) and/or the MQ-9 (Reaper) it is only been within the last year that the USAF has considered opening the career field to non-flight status Officers. Although, given that it is still a relatively new concept, I would imagine a finalized decision has yet to be made on whether or not that was a good idea.

I guess I should add the disclaimer that the above statement is limited and bias specifically towards the United States military and does not take into consideration the activities of other nations. That being said, the United States government is the single largest user of UAV's in the world.

Our Military uses the term ROV=Remotely Operated Vehicles.

So then I suppose the question is, is the skill meant to only replicate Air Force UAV pilots, or any UAV operator?

In the Army, UAV operators were mostly enlisted military intelligence assets, and not pilots. However, they are now in the Aviation branch and they don't just have the Raven, there's the Shadow, they're getting the Warrior, and...there's one more they use or used, I think? Anyway, its still enlisted non-pilots doing the flying.

For me it is not a matter of which branch of the military, but what is the expectation of the skill set. Up until the Warrior is fielded, the primary difference will be that one is an expensive remote control model airplane with an advanced optics system whereby the skill level of take off and landing is relatively limited, i.e. the Raven is thrown by hand and crash landed and the Shadow is launched off the back of a trailer. The USAF models (Predator/Reaper) are weapons platform which is operated in a manner similar to how a regular pilot would fly a manned aircraft, i.e. a Predator goes through the complete take off and landing procedures, fly's in adverse weather, etc... So if I have a PC who takes the skill, the expectation in the players mind is that he is going to be able to fly a Predator.

I have been in the Army long enough to see the handwriting on the wall. If MI "pilots" are being laterally transferred over to Aviation, my hunch is that when the Warrior comes out as a weapons platform, "flight status" will no longer be granted to enlisted personnel because of the implied responsibility that comes with that much firepower. I highly doubt they are going to let some PFC sit behind the controls with his thumb on the button of 4 Hellfire missiles. I will even venture to guess, without wagering on an outcome, that there will be a battle within the Pentagon over control of the program. After all, the USAF is the proponent for Aviation and capability is 'allocated' to other branches only when the proponent is not capable of providing that capability. Just take a look at the A-10. The USAF has tried to drop that aircraft numerous times through the years, but every time they do, the Army states they will take over the capability. The A-10 still remains in the USAF's inventory because the USAF is not willing to part with it and that means funding normally controlled by the USAF would be reallocated to the Army. At the end of the day it is all about the funding.

Ninjabunny wrote:I am not for the lose of soldiers on the battle field, it's sad to say but a human on the field keeps us connected to the horrors of war.I hope to never see unmanned go Beyond recon & low priority S&D.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you have much to worry about. The ever present media will keep EVERYONE connected to the "horrors of war". All the way to the point that it will degrade our stomach for warfare and destroy the will to fight on the home front/in the halls of Congress. Consider this, how fast do you think we would have pulled out of WWII if CNN had been broadcasting live from the beaches of Normandy?

Mephisto wrote:Any comments?

I think it could work out similar to Weapon Proficiency. There are over-arching categories (W.P. Blunt, W.P. Knife, W.P. Long Sword) and there are specific weapons (W.P. Chair Leg, W.P. Bowie Knife, W.P. Katana).

I prefer the current system. One of the things I like about the Palladium system is the complexity/diversity. Going to a bulk system oversimplifies the skills. Not everyone knows how to drive a car and not everyone who knows how to drive a car knows how to ride a motorcycle. Being able to sail a sail boat does not make one qualified to drive a tanker nor pilot a submarine. Simplifying the system begins to conform the Palladium system to other more simplistic games. That's my opinion.

Sounds like you are suggesting something along the lines of a "knowledge tree". I will agree that would allow for skill transfer and a little more player friendly. What I am personally against is over-simplifying the skill system as this appears to be a power shift towards PC's have elected to devote their life to collecting Martial Arts, i.e. the DMA and WMA.

On a separate note, the lack of skill utilization is a GM issue. GM's need to tailor the game to the PC's and the teams capabilities/limitations. If you have that player who has elected to be the master pilot, I can fly anything, then you should throw the player a bone and put an aviation aspect into the game.

It's nice to see one little throw away skill generating lots of discussion.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Our Military uses the term ROV=Remotely Operated Vehicles.

Um...Ok...what military is that?

-STS

slade the sniper wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Our Military uses the term ROV=Remotely Operated Vehicles.

Um...Ok...what military is that?

-STS

The one headquartered in the 'five sided shape.'

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

slade the sniper wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Our Military uses the term ROV=Remotely Operated Vehicles.

Um...Ok...what military is that?

-STS

The one headquartered in the 'five sided shape.'

Hmmm, I have heard UAV and RPV far more often...

-STS

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Our Military uses the term ROV=Remotely Operated Vehicles.

slade the sniper wrote:Um...Ok...what military is that?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The one headquartered in the 'five sided shape.'

slade the sniper wrote:Hmmm, I have heard UAV and RPV far more often...

As far as I can recall, the only time I hear ROV being used is with submersibles.