Battery Formation Requirements

[atpollard]

Well, this is all getting off what I was intending to ask.

Let me rephrase: with 5 triple turrets, which contain 15 weapons, must batteries be formed?

And, really, I am just looking for a ruling from Don.

Then PM him.
Creating a topic implies that a general discussion is desired.

 

[mike wightman]

Guys, please take that off-line. That was not the point of my original post.

It's keeping the thread alive

Also your original post is answered in the High Guard rules - you just have to look at the three entries I quoted up-thread.

 

[dean]

You misunderstand what I mean.

An example may help with a fictitious 1000t ship.

I have 30 beam lasers mounted in 10 triple turrets [legal]

I choose to organize them as 3 equal sized batteries of #5, that's 10 lasers per battery as per the table in the rules [legal]

But the only way to do that is 3 x 3 triple turrets plus 1 laser from the spare turret.

No rule I can find prevents this - it's just odd.

Like I said - I think the 10 is a typo for 12.

Mike,

IF you choose to organize into batteries what is not required to be organized into batteries, you still have to follow the rest of the battery organization rules.

If you choose to organize, whether you are required to or not, all the rest of the rules limiting the organization of batteries applies (min 1 turret, must be same factor). That's the "may organize part". You "may" do so, but then you have to adhere to the rules that tell you how they need to be organized.

If you choose not to organize, per the errata and rules as published, you have 30 factor 1 batteries.

Sorry Bill; it's actually organic to your original question about batteries, etc. If you follow Mike's point of view, you get a different answer than if you do not.

 

[Matt123]

For what its worth Mike, I think you are correct.
Your 3 batteries meet the requirements under the rules.

 

[mike wightman]

Thanks - the daft thing is I'm trying to point out the rule is odd and should probably have been spotted for errata

Scrap all references to lasers and sandcasters having USPs for 10 weapons and instead change it to 12.

Makes more sense to me that way.

The sandcaster table gives even more scope for tomfoolery

USPs for 8 weapons, 10 weapons, 20 weapons.

Multiples of 3 make a lot more sense.

 

[Matt123]

Thanks - the daft thing is I'm trying to point out the rule is odd and should probably have been spotted for errata

Ahh, the road to purgatory is paved with good intentions .

Batteries can be formed from other than triple turrets, dual turrets are fine and there are several examples in cannon of dual turrets being used on fighting vessels. I'm not claiming its a good idea... but in canon they are there.

The more interesting point is how do you deal with the 'orphan' weapon and that cuts to the heart of mount = turrets (NO, cannot do that!) and mount = weapon (YES, its a logical extention of turrets being capable of holding three individual weapons capable of firing on three targets).

But this isn't the place to debate that, anyone interested can raise it on on the errata forum.

 

[Hal]

Ahh, the road to purgatory is paved with good intentions .

Batteries can be formed from other than triple turrets, dual turrets are fine and there are several examples in cannon of dual turrets being used on fighting vessels. I'm not claiming its a good idea... but in canon they are there.

The more interesting point is how do you deal with the 'orphan' weapon and that cuts to the heart of mount = turrets (NO, cannot do that!) and mount = weapon (YES, its a logical extention of turrets being capable of holding three individual weapons capable of firing on three targets).

But this isn't the place to debate that, anyone interested can raise it on on the errata forum.

And that doesn't even raise the issue of what happens when you have a single battery of lasers that take damage, and are down graded one "level" at a time until the value is 1 - at which point, the laser battery becomes destroyed entirely.

Problem arises when you have a single laser, that gains a bonus of +1 for TL 13+. So lets see if I have this straight. One laser in a single laser turret has a USP value of 2 at TL 13. yet, when the laser battery takes damage of a single wepaon-1 hit, it becomes a USP of 1, which can only happen if the laser's USP value is zero plus 1 for TL 13+



The game has its oddities here and there to be sure, but as I read the one protest about having USP values in non-integers of 3, my answer was at first "There has always been the possibility of single/double/triple turrets from day one of Traveller."

Ah well - I'll behave now

 

[dean]

Thanks - the daft thing is I'm trying to point out the rule is odd and should probably have been spotted for errata

Scrap all references to lasers and sandcasters having USPs for 10 weapons and instead change it to 12.

Makes more sense to me that way.

The sandcaster table gives even more scope for tomfoolery

USPs for 8 weapons, 10 weapons, 20 weapons.

Multiples of 3 make a lot more sense.

BUT you fail to answer my inquiry as to why it's OK to ignore all the rules about how batteries must be arranged, just because you are choosing to do so rather than being required to do so.

I am completely unsurprised that Matt agrees with you, but at the same time he doesn't read the rules as a whole, either. (IMO, not to be offensive or anything.. just so a certain someone can be sure there is no rancor).

 

[mike wightman]

BUT you fail to answer my inquiry as to why it's OK to ignore all the rules about how batteries must be arranged, just because you are choosing to do so rather than being required to do so.

I am completely unsurprised that Matt agrees with you, but at the same time he doesn't read the rules as a whole, either. (IMO, not to be offensive or anything.. just so a certain someone can be sure there is no rancor).

One last time.

I'm not ignoring any rules.

I'm applying them as written in the book.

I even showed point by point how a 1kt ship with 30 lasers in 10 triple turrets can have 3 factor 5 laser batteries with every rule about battery formation being observed.

All weapons the same - check

All batteries the same factor - check

All batteries a minimum of 1 turret - check

 

[pendragonman]

Thanks - the daft thing is I'm trying to point out the rule is odd and should probably have been spotted for errata

Scrap all references to lasers and sandcasters having USPs for 10 weapons and instead change it to 12.

Makes more sense to me that way.

The sandcaster table gives even more scope for tomfoolery

USPs for 8 weapons, 10 weapons, 20 weapons.

Multiples of 3 make a lot more sense.

Mike is right. He is applying the exact, written rule without interpretation. His position is even somewhat supported by the example on HG p29:

"For example, a ship has eighty triple beam laser turrets. The ship may have 80
batteries of one turret (attack factor 3), 40 batteries of two turrets (attack factor of
4), 16 batteries of five turrets (attack factor of 6), or 8 batteries of ten turrets
(attack factor of 8). Other configurations are possible, but these selections constitute
the optimal battery configurations on the turret weapon table."

And it is not explicitly written anywhere that I can find (if it is, please give me the pointer) that batteries must be whole turret increments. It is heavily implied, but not strictly stated (which is the basis for the whole tempest).

Ok, so we do what you ask, and now have the weapons table in multiples of three for each break point.

There are canon examples of ships that mount dual beam laser turrets. Are they now invalid if they aren't in batteries of 6 (or 12 or ...)?

The issue is that while trip turrets are often the OPTIMAL configuration, they are not the only configuration. Just like how you want to arrange your 30 beam laser. 3 batteries of 10 lasers is not optimal. Closer optimization would be two batteries of 15 (factor 6) and fully optimized would be one battery of 30 (factor 8). Of course all factors go up by one if we are talking TL 13+.

Note that this is based on optimization for a likely hit and penetration. This is not an optimization for the maximum number of shots. If we optimize for maximum number of shots, regardless of penetration ability we have 30 factor 1 shots. Clearly, your request for 3 factor 5 shots is not optimal for number of shots either.

So, you must ask yourself, under what conditions is my requirement for 3 factor 5 shots optimal for 10 trip turrets of 3 beam laser each? If it is a role-play requirement (so and so noble, being a noble and thus arbitrary, wants it that way, or some such) you are taking it out of the HG ship combat conditions and batteries don't matter except where you want them to.

If there is a design element unrelated to some role-play (npc or otherwise) that makes your configuration optimal, then please tell us what that design element is.

Warship designers try to optimize their design configurations. In real life, these design optimizations are subject to political (and hence role-play) realities that make for some, ahhh, "interesting" compromises (and probable cost overruns, c.f. the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle).

If you are designing outside any political reality, then why are you not trying to optimize?

 

[dean]

If you are organizing weapons, you must organize ALL the weapons.

You are not allowed to leave one out, because you choose to.

There is one laser in that example that is not organized into a battery. It's USP factor is therefore either 0 or 1. This does not equal the rest of the batteries' value.

Furthermore, the battery must be "as few as one turret".

Your one battery violates this by only including two of the weapons.

Gah.

 

[pendragonman]

If you are organizing weapons, you must organize ALL the weapons.

You are not allowed to leave one out, because you choose to.

There is one laser in that example that is not organized into a battery. It's USP factor is therefore either 0 or 1. This does not equal the rest of the batteries' value.

Furthermore, the battery must be "as few as one turret".

Your one battery violates this by only including two of the weapons.

Gah.

How do you figure one weapon is left out?

"For example, a ship has eighty triple beam laser turrets. The ship may have 80
batteries of one turret (attack factor 3), 40 batteries of two turrets (attack factor of
4), 16 batteries of five turrets (attack factor of 6), or 8 batteries of ten turrets
(attack factor of 8). Other configurations are possible, but these selections constitute
the optimal battery configurations on the turret weapon table."

The table in question:


USP Code Beam
Rating Laser
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 6
5 10
6 15
7 21
8 30
9 —

Notice that 80 triple beam laser turrets is 240 beam laser weapons.

80 batteries of one turret is 3 weapons/battery. Clearly on the chart.
40 batteries of two turrets is 6 weapons/battery. Clearly on the chart.
16 batteries of five turrets is 15 weapons/battery. Clearly on the chart.
8 batteries of ten turrets is 30 weapons/battery. Clearly on the chart.

Tell me again where your spare weapon is?

This example very heavily implies that batteries must be whole turret units, but again it does not explicitly state it.

 

[mike wightman]

If you are organizing weapons, you must organize ALL the weapons.

I am organising all the weapons - all 30 lasers into 3 equal batteries of 10 lasers each - which gives a factor of 5

Go read the USP table - it's there

You are not allowed to leave one out, because you choose to.

I'm not leaving any out.

I am organising all the weapons - all 30 lasers into 3 equal batteries of 10 lasers each - which gives a factor of 5

There is one laser in that example that is not organized into a battery. It's USP factor is therefore either 0 or 1. This does not equal the rest of the batteries' value.

There are no lasers left out

I am organising all the weapons - all 30 lasers into 3 equal batteries of 10 lasers each - which gives a factor of 5

Furthermore, the battery must be "as few as one turret".

Your one battery violates this by only including two of the weapons.

Gah.

Nope - each of my batteries is a minimum of 1 turret.

 

[pendragonman]

I am organising all the weapons - all 30 lasers into 3 equal batteries of 10 lasers each - which gives a factor of 5

Go read the USP table - it's there



I'm not leaving any out.

I am organising all the weapons - all 30 lasers into 3 equal batteries of 10 lasers each - which gives a factor of 5


There are no lasers left out

I am organising all the weapons - all 30 lasers into 3 equal batteries of 10 lasers each - which gives a factor of 5


Nope - each of my batteries is a minimum of 1 turret.

Ahhh, but you are ducking the questions I asked.

 

[mike wightman]

I've forgotten, which questions were those again?

 

[pendragonman]

Mike is right. He is applying the exact, written rule without interpretation. His position is even somewhat supported by the example on HG p29:

"For example, a ship has eighty triple beam laser turrets. The ship may have 80
batteries of one turret (attack factor 3), 40 batteries of two turrets (attack factor of
4), 16 batteries of five turrets (attack factor of 6), or 8 batteries of ten turrets
(attack factor of 8). Other configurations are possible, but these selections constitute
the optimal battery configurations on the turret weapon table."

And it is not explicitly written anywhere that I can find (if it is, please give me the pointer) that batteries must be whole turret increments. It is heavily implied, but not strictly stated (which is the basis for the whole tempest).

Ok, so we do what you ask, and now have the weapons table in multiples of three for each break point.

There are canon examples of ships that mount dual beam laser turrets. Are they now invalid if they aren't in batteries of 6 (or 12 or ...)?

The issue is that while trip turrets are often the OPTIMAL configuration, they are not the only configuration. Just like how you want to arrange your 30 beam laser. 3 batteries of 10 lasers is not optimal. Closer optimization would be two batteries of 15 (factor 6) and fully optimized would be one battery of 30 (factor 8). Of course all factors go up by one if we are talking TL 13+.

Note that this is based on optimization for a likely hit and penetration. This is not an optimization for the maximum number of shots. If we optimize for maximum number of shots, regardless of penetration ability we have 30 factor 1 shots. Clearly, your request for 3 factor 5 shots is not optimal for number of shots either.

So, you must ask yourself, under what conditions is my requirement for 3 factor 5 shots optimal for 10 trip turrets of 3 beam laser each? If it is a role-play requirement (so and so noble, being a noble and thus arbitrary, wants it that way, or some such) you are taking it out of the HG ship combat conditions and batteries don't matter except where you want them to.

If there is a design element unrelated to some role-play (npc or otherwise) that makes your configuration optimal, then please tell us what that design element is.

Warship designers try to optimize their design configurations. In real life, these design optimizations are subject to political (and hence role-play) realities that make for some, ahhh, "interesting" compromises (and probable cost overruns, c.f. the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle).

If you are designing outside any political reality, then why are you not trying to optimize?

Quoting the entire posting where I posed them. Bolded and italicized for your convenience.

 

[dean]

I guess I would have to say:

DON: This is what makes the distinction of "mount=turret" or "mount=weapon" important.


And it's not been addressed.

You know my opinion. If A=B=C then A=C.

 

[pendragonman]

I guess I would have to say:

DON: This is what makes the distinction of "mount=turret" or "mount=weapon" important.


And it's not been addressed.

You know my opinion. If A=B=C then A=C.

Exactly why I phrased it the way I did. Much harder to ignore the question.

 

[mike wightman]

In HG 2 mount means weapon -

p21 - 'turrets mounting particle accelerators...'

p25 - just read the weight entry in the USP table

p30 - read the turrets section

I honestly don't see what the fuss is...

 

[mike wightman]

Quoting the entire posting where I posed them. Bolded and italicized for your convenience.

I never claimed it was the best way to do it

I just claimed it was rules legal, making the rules a bit odd.

And you are right about making the 10 into a 12 with regards to double turrets.