Battery Formation Requirements

[pendragonman]

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.

And if you noticed, I said you were correct and using all rules as written. I also see where NOBODY has come up with a pointer to where it explicitly states that batteries must be formed from whole turret units. No matter how hard it is implied, without it in black and white there will be some that will disagree.

Now, back to my point in my post. Designers try to optimize design. Even the HG rules push you to optimize your designs. Making a design that is not optimal "just because the rules allow it" does not explain why you are not trying to optimize. In fact, I now must pose another question: Would you ever consider taking that design concept into combat against a similar 1000 dton, 10 trip turret all beam laser armed ship, which has fully optimized for hits and penetration?

My bet is no, but here is how it plays out. Let's say we are at TL-13. Since we are both 1000 dtons and all ten turret spots are used for lasers, there is no sand to worry about. We are both size A, so we are both -1 to hit. At Tl-13, you have 3 batteries at factor 6, and I have 1 battery at factor 9. We will both have the same armor value for this example.

You have 3 shots at 6 (BTH 5 +1 for size factor (or if you prefer -1 to the die roll)), so you have a ~73% chance to hit with each shot, so two rounds out of three you can figure on three hits (or 8 hits over three rounds)

I have 1 shot at 5 (BTH 4 +1 for size factor), so I have a 92% chance of a hit each round, and over three rounds I can figure on 3 hits. So far it looks like you are gonna massacre me. Here's were it gets interesting.

Applying damage: you have 8 hits. We have the same armor (and not being idiots we maximize this at factor D (13)). Your weapon factor is 5, clearly less than 9 so your damage rolls on me are at +6. Which means your rolls are at +19 on the surface damage table, which means to do any damage at all to me you need to roll a 2 on two dice. Which will happen ~3% of the time, which means to damage me once you need ~33 hits (statistically speaking) which will take on average 12-13 rounds to achieve as long as you have all of your weapons, and that hit will do weapon-1.

Now for my hits. I have 3 hits. Same armor, but my weapon is factor 9. So my damage roles are at +13 on the surface damage table, which will hit something on of value on a roll of 8 or less,, or I apply damage ~72% per hit. Calling it 2 hits that actually damage something in this first three rounds, that damage will be a weapon-1 72% of the time and a fuel-1 the other ~28% of the time. Giving the benefit of the doubt, I damage one weapon-1 and one fuel-1.

So after the first three rounds you hit me 8 times but did no damage (the statistically most likely result) and I hit you 3 times and did one weapon-1 and one fuel-1 (again, the most likely statistical result). Starting on round 4 you are down to 2 shots at factor 6 and I am unharmed. At the end of the next 3 rounds you are likely to be down to one shot at factor 5, and so on until you are out of weapons and/or dead in space out of fuel.

Statistically speaking, of course. Die rolls are known to do funny things in the hands of gamers ;-)

 

[jawillroy]

NOBODY has come up with a pointer to where it explicitly states that batteries must be formed from whole turret units.

I feel certain that someone actually has, but here goes:

The Rule: HG2 P.29, line 18: "A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten..."

The Exception: HG2 P.29, line 21: "On ships 1000 tons and under, mixed turrets (weapons of different types in the same turret) are allowed; in such cases,each weapon is a battery." (Emphasis mine.)

A Clarification of the exception: HG2 P.30, 5th line from bottom: "On ships with more than 10 turrets, weapons may not be mixed within a turret."

This seemed clear to me when I was fourteen, and it seems clear to me at 41. You have a general rule; and you have an exception to allow existing ship designs to work within the system somewhat. What's confusing?

 

[pendragonman]

I feel certain that someone actually has, but here goes:

The Rule: HG2 P.29, line 18: "A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten..."

The Exception: HG2 P.29, line 21: "On ships 1000 tons and under, mixed turrets (weapons of different types in the same turret) are allowed; in such cases,each weapon is a battery." (Emphasis mine.)

A Clarification of the exception: HG2 P.30, 5th line from bottom: "On ships with more than 10 turrets, weapons may not be mixed within a turret."

This seemed clear to me when I was fourteen, and it seems clear to me at 41. You have a general rule; and you have an exception to allow existing ship designs to work within the system somewhat. What's confusing?

What you have above strongly implies that batteries must be whole turret units, but it does not say, in clear unmistakable black and white print, batteries must consist of whole turret units.


My question is this:Do the rules explicitly state that a battery must be in whole turret units? If so, where?

My position never dealt with mixed turrets.

 

[jawillroy]

What you have above strongly implies that batteries must be whole turret units, but it does not say, in clear unmistakable black and white print, batteries must consist of whole turret units.

"A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten..."

This creates a range of permissible battery sizes from one to ten turrets. The exceptions would not be necessary if this above were not the rule. It's not the phrasing you'd like, but it's the strongest phrasing you'll get, and you won't find a better argument to the contrary in High Guard.

My copy of High Guard cost me five bucks. I've already wasted enough time on this wankery today to buy fifty. I'm done.

 

[pendragonman]

"A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten..."

This creates a range of permissible battery sizes from one to ten turrets. The exceptions would not be necessary if this above were not the rule. It's not the phrasing you'd like, but it's the strongest phrasing you'll get, and you won't find a better argument to the contrary in High Guard.

My copy of High Guard cost me five bucks. I've already wasted enough time on this wankery today to buy fifty. I'm done.

Sorry you feel that way. However numbers from 1 to 10 include numbers like 1.3 and 2.7 and 9.6, and therein lies the problem.

Shouting to get Don's Attention:

MAYBE DON CAN GET US A RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT BATTERIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF WHOLE TURRET UNITS? PLEASE?

 

[jawillroy]

Sorry you feel that way. However numbers from 1 to 10 include numbers like 1.3 and 2.7 and 9.6, and therein lies the problem.

Why?

First of all, HG2, Page 29: "All batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code (USP factor.)"

So while in LBB2, it's perfectly acceptable to have turrets organized any which way, such is not really the case in High Guard. MWM's protest on p. 18 notwithstanding, the two systems are not really compatible.

Or are you suggesting that three double turrets might be grouped into two batteries of 3 weapons each? Or that six triple turrets might be divided into nine batteries of two weapons each? Dividing turrets between batteries might be possible mathematically, but it doesn't make sense at all in terms of what batteries represent.

(I hate myself for coming back.)

 

[mike wightman]

Nope, doesn't make sense.

But it is allowed in the rules as written

 

[jawillroy]

Nope, doesn't make sense.

But it is allowed in the rules as written

It's one of those places where common sense should trump the rules. Read it your way. But it won't work IMTU - and it shouldn't in any - to have weapons in one turret controlled by two different batteries.

 

[pendragonman]

Why?

First of all, HG2, Page 29: "All batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code (USP factor.)"

So while in LBB2, it's perfectly acceptable to have turrets organized any which way, such is not really the case in High Guard. MWM's protest on p. 18 notwithstanding, the two systems are not really compatible.

Or are you suggesting that three double turrets might be grouped into two batteries of 3 weapons each? Or that six triple turrets might be divided into nine batteries of two weapons each? Dividing turrets between batteries might be possible mathematically, but it doesn't make sense at all in terms of what batteries represent.

(I hate myself for coming back.)

Don't hate yourself for this. I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this either, yet here I am. I didn't start the thread, I am trying to end it. To end it, we either need the exact pointer that says batteries must be configured out of whole turret units or a ruling from Don or MWM that decides the point either way.

I am still working from Mike Wightman's original premise: 1000 dton ship, ten trip turrets, 30 beam lasers. He wants 3 batteries of ten weapons each, which is 3 and 1/3 turrets per battery.

I agree that it doesn't make sense but there is no rule or statement that stops someone from doing it. That is why I made my argument about optimization to begin with (c.f. post #30, page 6 in this thread). I tried to reason that only someone applying some sort of role-play requirement, and thus taking the ship out of straight HG rules, would even consider such an arrangement.

It is also why I created an example of Mike's proposed ship versus one that is "properly" designed (c.f. post 41, page 9 in this thread) to show him that his whim will lose him the fight. My point is that just because it is allowed doesn't mean it is worthwhile to do.

 

[jawillroy]

I am still working from Mike Wightman's original premise: 1000 dton ship, ten trip turrets, 30 beam lasers. He wants 3 batteries of ten weapons each, which is 3 and 1/3 turrets per battery.

I agree that it doesn't make sense but there is no rule or statement that stops someone from doing it.

Okay, missed that and the OP was soooooo looooong ago.

Ah: I see it. With each battery controlling ten lasers, all batteries end up with dibs on one turret. It shouldn't work, if lasers organized in batteries are fixed to the ship in turrets, one to a hardpoint.

If a battery is imagined as, say, a bank of ten lasers rather than dividing them up in turrets, and one assumes turrets to be an abstraction for purposes of allocation of tonnage, I could see that design working. After all, HG does dispense with the turret as a monetary expense. But I have to think that'd be a houserule, and not a tournament-friendly design.

Sigh. This is why there are Referees.

 

[pendragonman]

Snip
Sigh. This is why there are Referees.

Agreed.

 

[mike wightman]

Just to set the record straight - as a ref I wouldn't allow it either.

My personal ruling would be the minimum size for a battery is 1 turret and all the weapons contained there in - no fractions of turrets despite what the tables and rules say.

 

[dean]

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

And I need to say to mike: Sorry I misread your post. I was hasty in this case.

 

[Hal]

Just to set the record straight - as a ref I wouldn't allow it either.

My personal ruling would be the minimum size for a battery is 1 turret and all the weapons contained there in - no fractions of turrets despite what the tables and rules say.

For what it is worth, the "mixed turret" rule plus the fact that sub-100 dton hulls do not have turrets, but instead, have "mounts", the following thought might give people the ammunition neccessary to "logically sway" their players who take the opposing view...

To wit:

In CT, all weapons within a turret MUST fire at the same target (bar none - both lasers and missiles must fire at the same target per the rules stating lasers must fire at the same target, and per the rules regarding Multi-target in the software section of the rules.

In addition, in CT, when a weapon strikes any given region of the ship, a turret hit takes out not "a single mount" but takes out the entire turret.

If anyone were to try to argue the point that one is allowed to treat each mount within a turret as a single battery, the logic of this approach means that in High Guard (which is supposed to have maintained backwards compability with Book 2), allows or permits one to inflict damage on a turret in such a fashion, that only 1/3rd (in the case of triple turrets) or 1/2 (in the case of double turrets) of the turret is damaged.

Last but not least:

If you note - the purpose of a battery is to secure a higher chance of a hit with a group of weapons aimed at the same target. Ignoring the fact that the question arises on how you can fire at three different targets with a single triple turret, the fact remains, that a single battery laying down a barrage against its target, only gets ONE damage roll despite the fact that it may have more than one weapon in its "battery". For example, a battery of 10 triple turrets, each with 3 lasers in it, for a total of 30 lasers - will secure only a single hit if the battery successfully inflicts damage at all.

So, what is the difference between a single turret firing three lasers in a battery at the same target, or three separate lasers in the same turret, firing at the same target at the same distance?

For those reasons mention above, and the fact that DonM has to secure it with Marc Miller before he attempts to write any "errata" or clarifications to rules - it seems to be a pretty slam-dunk reason to accept that one may NOT separate out weapons in a turret except "mixed weapon" turrets, and that all weapons within said turret not of the same time (due to backwards compatibility reasons ONLY) may form a single battery if, and only if they are not lasers.

Why?

Because in the original Traveller rules, those missiles were for the most part, homing missiles that did not require the turret operator to continually control the missile's path throughout its firing run. Ditto with the sand canisters. Only with lasers will there be a constant need to keep a running track on where the target is, and where the weapon pointed at the target is pointing before being fired in a 1000 second round (CT) or 20 minute round (HG).