Combat at "visible" range.

[Carlobrand]

I'm not sure the two Plasers in a single turret may be divided as 2 factor 2 batteries. While MT is not clear in this aspect, it seems to say that multiple batteries can only be organized when the máximum is reached (something I don't believe to be it's intent), but, even if not accepting that, I guess a single turret's equal wepons must be in the same battery, as it would be quite difficult to fire at diferent targets

The actual design rules don't say anything one way or another on the use of the turret as two batteries instead of one. It offers two ways to calculate gunners, and the way specified for small craft starts off requiring a gunner for each gun then includes an option to reduce the number of gunners if the vehicle has sufficient sensors and computer power. One can even eliminate the gunner entirely if spacing is tight and only one gunner is needed, leaving the gun in the hands of the pilot.

In point of fact, I can't find anything suggesting multiple batteries can only be organized when the maximum is reached. Imperial Encyclopedia's Patrol Cruiser runs 4 turrets as two factor 2 laser batteries and two factor 2 missile batteries, which given the tech level means the turrets house a single weapon each. Fighting Ships is lousy with problems, but their fighter example runs it as two factor 2 plaser batteries, for what it's worth.

In BG the fighters were hard to hit, but not imposible, and fighters dogfighting is quite common...

Yeah, big flaw, Trav fighters don't dogfight. I would very much like to see some official change that eliminates the unhittable craft.

 

[Carlobrand]

...I'd like to see this design. To eliminate those criticals, you'd need mínimum armor 67 (else, a factor 9 battery would mean at least a critical, regardless what weapon are we talking about), and to have such an armor the weight multiplier is over 10 times that of an armor 40 fighter, so to have agility 6 becomes quite difficult...

And see that even this fighter will be quite vulnerable to rapid pulse fusión guns, should personal combat rules apply to visible range as you suggested.

Lessee if this works right. Pasting from Excel is tricky.

CraftlD: QL; Class: 25 dT fighter; Type: Fighter; TL = F (High Stellar); MCr151.1

Hull: 23/56; Disp = 24.815T; Config = 1AF: airframe needle/wedge; armor = 67G: 24.93 cm. Bonded Superdense
Unloaded = 1043.2t. Loaded = 1053.6t.

Power: Main: 7/14, Advanced Fusion = 1751.4 Mw, Duration = 2 x24 hr. days / 6 x8 hr. days; No backup power plant
No main-power solar cells; no emergency solar cells
No batteries except startup batteries integral to power plant (capacity not known)

Locom: 4/8, Maneuver = 6Gs;
NOE = 190 kph, Cruise = 2835 kph, Top = 3780 kph. Agility = 6 loaded; Agility = 6 without cargo.

Commo:
Radio: TL 15 System (1000 AU) x3
Laser: TL 15 System (1000 AU) x3

ECM: Electromagnetic Masking Package (EMM)
EMS Jamming Array: TL 14 Far Orbit (500,000 km)

Sensors,
Active Obj.: EMS Active Array: TL 14 Far Orbit (500,000 km)
ActObjScan = Active EMS: Routine (7+)
ActObjPin = Active EMS: Routine (7+)

Passive Obj.: Densitometer, Lo-P: penetration = 250 m.
PasObjScan = Densitometer, Lo-P: Routine (7+);
PasObjPin = Densitometer, Lo-P: Routine (7+);

Passive En.: EMS Passive Array: TL 14 Interstellar (2 parsecs)
Neutrino Detector: 10 kw
PasEnScan = Passive EMS: Simple (3+)
PasEnPin = Neutrino Detector: Routine (7+)

Offensive,
Missile Launch.: xx2; 1 triple-turret with 2 TL 13 Missiles in 2 Factor 2 batteries
Batt.: x/x/2 Bearing: x/x/2
Laser Turrets: xx2; 1 triple-turret with 1 TL 13 Pulse Laser in 1 Factor 2 battery
Batt.: x/x/1 Bearing: x/x/1

Defensive, Space: DefDM=17 loaded

Control: Computer= Model 9 x3; Panels: TL 13 Holographic Linked x1; Special: TL 9 Heads-up Display x1
Enviro: TL 5 Basic Environment, TL 5 Basic Life-support, TL 5 Air Lock x1, TL 6 Extended Life Support, TL 10 Artificial Grav Plates, TL 10 Inertial Compensators

Accom.: Crew=1 (Bridge=1), Passengers=1
Seats: 2 Roomy, 8 hours or less
Double-occ. small staterooms=1

Other: Magazines: 1.067 dT (72 battery rounds) Missile Magazine, HE
Cargo = 0 Kl available space
Fuel = 3 dT (42.805 Kl); Fuel Scoops (5 dT per hour; fills tanks in 0.6 hours),
Fuel Purification Plant=None
ObjSize=Small
EmLevel=Moderate
Battery Round=2 missiles;

Comments: I lose a laser, replacing it with a missile, and it costs a bit more, but the result is something that is less vulnerable to attrition.

RP energy weapons are battlefield weapons with very limited range. The RF-Y, the most powerful available at TL15, has a max range of 21 kilometers and doesn't have the punch to penetrate my armor at that range. It starts at a penetration of 71 and attenuates to half at 5 kilometers. I've been talking about 50 kilometers.

That's not to say we couldn't design an RP space weapon for such combat, but it would likely be laser-based.

 

[McPerth]

The actual design rules don't say anything one way or another on the use of the turret as two batteries instead of one. It offers two ways to calculate gunners, and the way specified for small craft starts off requiring a gunner for each gun then includes an option to reduce the number of gunners if the vehicle has sufficient sensors and computer power. One can even eliminate the gunner entirely if spacing is tight and only one gunner is needed, leaving the gun in the hands of the pilot.

In point of fact, I can't find anything suggesting multiple batteries can only be organized when the maximum is reached. Imperial Encyclopedia's Patrol Cruiser runs 4 turrets as two factor 2 laser batteries and two factor 2 missile batteries, which given the tech level means the turrets house a single weapon each. Fighting Ships is lousy with problems, but their fighter example runs it as two factor 2 plaser batteries, for what it's worth.

I agree rules for organizing batteries are not clear, but in RM, page 73, under point 9 it says:

The tables show the number of turret weapons required to achieve a specific UCP factor. If more weapons that the maximum number shown in the table (usually 30) are installed, organize them into several evenly divided batteries.

While not epecifically said, it seems to me that if you have 27 weapons, you must organize them into one battery, while if you have 32, you can organize as you want, as long as they are evently divided.

As I agree this has not too much logic, we can refer to CT:HG (as with too many MT rules, they seem to asume you know CT and can use it as a basis), where in page 29, under Batteries we can read:

A battery may be as few as a turret, or as many as ten

So, weapons in the same turret must be in the same battery (if this allows mixted turrets would be for another debate )

Yeah, big flaw, Trav fighters don't dogfight. I would very much like to see some official change that eliminates the unhittable craft.

What about careful aiming (cautious tasks), as I suggested in post 14 this same thread?

Lessee if this works right. Pasting from Excel is tricky.

CraftlD: QL; Class: 25 dT fighter; Type: Fighter; TL = F (High Stellar); MCr151.1

Hull: 23/56; Disp = 24.815T; Config = 1AF: airframe needle/wedge; armor = 67G: 24.93 cm. Bonded Superdense
Unloaded = 1043.2t. Loaded = 1053.6t.

Power: Main: 7/14, Advanced Fusion = 1751.4 Mw, Duration = 2 x24 hr. days / 6 x8 hr. days; No backup power plant
No main-power solar cells; no emergency solar cells
No batteries except startup batteries integral to power plant (capacity not known)

Locom: 4/8, Maneuver = 6Gs;
NOE = 190 kph, Cruise = 2835 kph, Top = 3780 kph. Agility = 6 loaded; Agility = 6 without cargo.

Commo:
Radio: TL 15 System (1000 AU) x3
Laser: TL 15 System (1000 AU) x3

ECM: Electromagnetic Masking Package (EMM)
EMS Jamming Array: TL 14 Far Orbit (500,000 km)

Sensors,
Active Obj.: EMS Active Array: TL 14 Far Orbit (500,000 km)
ActObjScan = Active EMS: Routine (7+)
ActObjPin = Active EMS: Routine (7+)

Passive Obj.: Densitometer, Lo-P: penetration = 250 m.
PasObjScan = Densitometer, Lo-P: Routine (7+);
PasObjPin = Densitometer, Lo-P: Routine (7+);

Passive En.: EMS Passive Array: TL 14 Interstellar (2 parsecs)
Neutrino Detector: 10 kw
PasEnScan = Passive EMS: Simple (3+)
PasEnPin = Neutrino Detector: Routine (7+)

Offensive,
Missile Launch.: xx2; 1 triple-turret with 2 TL 13 Missiles in 2 Factor 2 batteries
Batt.: x/x/2 Bearing: x/x/2
Laser Turrets: xx2; 1 triple-turret with 1 TL 13 Pulse Laser in 1 Factor 2 battery
Batt.: x/x/1 Bearing: x/x/1

Defensive, Space: DefDM=17 loaded

Control: Computer= Model 9 x3; Panels: TL 13 Holographic Linked x1; Special: TL 9 Heads-up Display x1
Enviro: TL 5 Basic Environment, TL 5 Basic Life-support, TL 5 Air Lock x1, TL 6 Extended Life Support, TL 10 Artificial Grav Plates, TL 10 Inertial Compensators

Accom.: Crew=1 (Bridge=1), Passengers=1
Seats: 2 Roomy, 8 hours or less
Double-occ. small staterooms=1

Other: Magazines: 1.067 dT (72 battery rounds) Missile Magazine, HE
Cargo = 0 Kl available space
Fuel = 3 dT (42.805 Kl); Fuel Scoops (5 dT per hour; fills tanks in 0.6 hours),
Fuel Purification Plant=None
ObjSize=Small
EmLevel=Moderate
Battery Round=2 missiles;

Comments: I lose a laser, replacing it with a missile, and it costs a bit more, but the result is something that is less vulnerable to attrition.

It seems right. The only suggestion I'd make is to reduce fuel to 8 hours, as it's the máximum allowed by pilot endureance, and you could reduce it even a little more.

RP energy weapons are battlefield weapons with very limited range. The RF-Y, the most powerful available at TL15, has a max range of 21 kilometers and doesn't have the punch to penetrate my armor at that range. It starts at a penetration of 71 and attenuates to half at 5 kilometers. I've been talking about 50 kilometers.

That's not to say we couldn't design an RP space weapon for such combat, but it would likely be laser-based.

Once again, contradictory information here: while you're right in RM page 78 table range is distant (21), in PM page 80 table, máximum range is told as regional (so over 50 km).

About penentration, several points:

1. I guess among fighters visual range may well be under 5 km, instead of the 50 you say (and I find right for battleships)
2. As per PM page 70, even at no penetration wepons inflict 10% damage (so 3 points per hit) as structure damage (multiplied by the dice roll). With the ROF those weapons have, this can be quite devasting anyway, as 8 hits will reach the incapaciting level.
3. I'm not sure if I'm mixing up with CT again, but IITR that in vacuum weapons penetration is extended in range.

 

[Carlobrand]

...It seems right. The only suggestion I'd make is to reduce fuel to 8 hours, as it's the máximum allowed by pilot endureance, and you could reduce it even a little more. ...

Accommodations include a cabin and room for a passenger, allowing a relief pilot to "hang out" in the cabin and then alternate with the pilot after the pilot's completed 8 hours so the pilot can take a break in the cabin.

...
Once again, contradictory information here: while you're right in RM page 78 table range is distant (21), in PM page 80 table, máximum range is told as regional (so over 50 km).

About penentration, several points:

1. I guess among fighters visual range may well be under 5 km, instead of the 50 you say (and I find right for battleships)
2. As per PM page 70, even at no penetration wepons inflict 10% damage (so 3 points per hit) as structure damage (multiplied by the dice roll). With the ROF those weapons have, this can be quite devasting anyway, as 8 hits will reach the incapaciting level.
3. I'm not sure if I'm mixing up with CT again, but IITR that in vacuum weapons penetration is extended in range.

Whups! You are in fact mixing CT (Striker) and MT - although given that MT evolved from Striker and that we'd expect differrent performance in differrent environments, it's more likely an MT errata issue than a mistake on your part. However, MT does not carry forward the Striker tables altering range based on environment type, or at least I can't find anything on it, and currently published errata does not correct that.

Given the way MT handles ranges, we'd need to calculate up a table to cross-reference ranges with atmosphere types. At any rate, you're right, range in vacuum should increase by quite a lot. None of those weapons could fire outside of their own hex but they'd make dandy anti-fighter weapons, with ranges up to 21 thousand kilometers if you apply the Striker conversion. Might make fair anti-missile weapons.

You could design a TL15 RP128 to put out 5 Mw bolts with a penetration of 50 to a space range of a couple thousand kilometers: translating that into High Guard would give you one gun with the equivalent firepower of 128 standard fusion guns, but only to a range of a couple thousand kilometers, so only useful if someone strafes into Personal Combat range (or as an antimissile system). You'd have to develop some sort of IMTU table to come up with a High Guard factor for it.

 

[McPerth]

Whups! You are in fact mixing CT (Striker) and MT

Sure not Striker, as is one of the Traveller games/supplements I've never had the possibility to read...

Maybe in JTAS 17 atmospheres suplement...

 

[aramis]

Sure not Striker, as is one of the Traveller games/supplements I've never had the possibility to read...

Maybe in JTAS 17 atmospheres suplement...

MT is the merging of Striker and CT, with a few tweaks.

 

[McPerth]

Maybe in JTAS 17 atmospheres suplement...

Having reviewed it, nothing about that topic there...

ITTR that wherever I read about vaccum affecting penetration it was in range bands, and, as I've never been in Striker, I guess it should be MT, but I cannot find it. I'll keep searching (help welcome if anyone finds it, of course)...

 

[mike wightman]

RM Page 23 next to the TL chart.

 

[McPerth]

RM Page 23 next to the TL chart.

TY. I was nearly sure it was in a TD ot MTJ, never sought it in the basic books ...

So, the RFY-15 will keep its pen 71 up to either 21 km (as RM, page 78, says) or regional range (up to 500 km, as PM, page 80, says). Sorry for your fighters, Carlo ...

 

[Carlobrand]

RM Page 23 next to the TL chart.

Well heck, there it is! You'd 'a thunk they'd have at least mentioned it somewhere in the Player Manual.

You know, this would have been a truly great game if the company had gotten them past beta.

 

[mike wightman]

Well heck, there it is! You'd 'a thunk they'd have at least mentioned it somewhere in the Player Manual.

They did

At the end of the special considerations rules it has a list of what will be covered in the RM.

Finding it in the RM is the expertise

You know, this would have been a truly great game if the company had gotten them past beta.

I am fortunate to have the final printing - 3rd - in my MT collection (along with the earlier print runs of course). Most of the errata has been sorted out for the final printing.

 

[McPerth]

You know, this would have been a truly great game if the company had gotten them past beta.

It is, even as it is (at least once most errata have been applied...)

 

[atpollard]

I agree rules for organizing batteries are not clear, but in RM, page 73, under point 9 it says:

The tables show the number of turret weapons required to achieve a specific UCP factor. If more weapons that the maximum number shown in the table (usually 30) are installed, organize them into several evenly divided batteries.

While not epecifically said, it seems to me that if you have 27 weapons, you must organize them into one battery, while if you have 32, you can organize as you want, as long as they are evently divided.

I could easily be wrong, but I read that as:
1. each battery must have the same number of weapons.
2. No battery may have more weapons than the highest value in the table (usually 30)

Avoiding the whole 'mixed turret' side of the equation, a ship with 30 single P.Laser turrets could be configured as:
30 batteries of 1 weapon
15 batteries of 2 weapons
10 batteries of 3 weapons
6 batteries of 5 weapons
5 batteries of 6 weapons
3 batteries of 10 weapons
2 batteries of 15 weapons
1 battery of 30 weapons.

A ship with 40 single P.Laser turrets, could not be configured as 1 battery of 40 weapons, but would otherwise be treated similar to the 30 weapon ship:
40 b x 1 w
20 b x 2 w
10 b x 4 w
8 b x 5 w
5 b x 8 w
4 b x 10 w
2 b x 20 w
It could also not have 1 battery of 30 weapons and 1 battery of 10 weapons ... They must be equal.

[Note, I do not agree with this, but it is how I read the rules.
IMO, of you want 1 gunner controlled battery of 30 pulse lasers and 10 batteries of single pulse laser turrets under computer control for point defense ... go for it.]

 

[McPerth]

The tables show the number of turret weapons required to achieve a specific UCP factor. If more weapons that the maximum number shown in the table (usually 30) are installed, organize them into several evenly divided batteries.

I could easily be wrong, but I read that as:
1. Do what you want for up to 30 weapons
2. If you group into more than one battery, each battery must have the same number of weapons.
3. More than 30 weapons must be organized into batteries.

Avoiding the whole 'mixed turret' side of the equation, a ship with 30 single Plaser turrets could be configured as:
30 batteries of 1 weapon
15 batteries of 2 weapons
10 batteries of 3 weapons
6 batteries of 5 weapons
5 batteries of 6 weapons
3 batteries of 10 weapons
2 batteries of 15 weapons
1 battery of 30 weapons.

A ship with 40 single Plaser turrets, could not be configured as 40 batteries of 1 weapon, but would otherwise be treated similar to the 30 weapon ship:
20 b x 2 w
10 b x 4 w
8 b x 5 w
5 b x 8 w
4 b x 10 w
2 b x 20 w

I trust your English more than mine (after all, you're native user, I'm not), and your approach is more logical (and more according to canon ships and HG) that as I understand it, but it only speaks about multiple batteries if more weapons than the maximum are installed, while if the maximum is not reached it only talks about how many are needed for a given factor in a battery.

In this way, as I understand what is written (not as I apply them, BTW, as I feel it's an errata, but I didn't find anywhere else in the design sequence how turret weapons are distributed in batteries), if you have 12 double turrets (so 24 weapons) you must group them in a single battery, but if you make your same 12 turrets triple (so 36 weapons), as maximum has ben exceded, you may group them as you want as long as they are evently divided (2 batteries of 18 weapons, 3 of 12 weapons, 4 of 9 weapons, 6 of 6 weapons, etc...).

Of course I feel this is absurd, but I also feel absurd that 2 equal weapons in the same turret might be in different batteries (and so able to fire at different targets without pennalty).

All this said, the logical question for any of you is: why does he point a rule he himself finds absurd (at least outside the errata thread)?

I pointed it because, as Carlo pointed, there's nothing in MT forbiding the division of a turret in as many wepons as it has, so, to my understanding, using MT RAW, you could organize the 12 triple turrets told above as 36 single weapon batteries, but if the turrets are double instead of triple, you must organize into a single 24 weapon battery.

Personaly, I find both approaches equally absurd, so, I remit myself to its predecesor (HG) for the lacking rules about organizing turrets: as few as a single turret or as much as 10 (what means that if you want to use single turrets, you cannot group 30 for a maximum effect battery, something I rationalize for fire control and turret distribution issues).

 

[atpollard]

I edited my post to be a little clearer.
... I think that the important word is more that 24 lasers MAY be grouped into a single battery, not that they MUST be grouped into a single battery. While 36 lasers MAY NOT be grouped into a single battery, and therefore MUST be grouped into batteries less than the maximum on the table (30 for lasers) ... even into 36 batteries of one laser each.

Strictly my opinion, but I think the intent was to avoid someone attempting to simply extend the tabe upward to create batteries of turret weapons that were factor A, B, C, etc. ... no Bay Weapon and Spinal Mount bonuses and criticals from turret weapons no matter how many you have.

 

[atpollard]

On the subject of one triple turret having three batteries of 1 weapon each, yeah, I found that hard to handle as well. In High Guard, it was even worse since the rules actually say that a mixed turret CAN do that, and a non-mixed turret CAN NOT do that. Then the wording implies that a mixed turret with two lasers and one missile launcher would be required to group the lasers into one battery and the missile launcher into its own battery of one weapon. o:

I think that ultimately, some of this is just falling below the level of detail in the combat rules.

Attacking the problem from a graphic standpoint (since I like to draw deckplans), I realized (IMTU) that a triple turret is about 1 dT (I favor High Guard) with 3 weapon mounts. We also know that a hardpoints can mount up to a 5 dT barrette (like the Gazelle). So it does not seem to great a stretch to assume that it is possible to build a cluster of three 1/3 dT turrets that could:
1. Hold one missile launcher, laser or sand caster in each.
2. Be aimed separate from the other weapons in the cluster.
3. All three mini-turrets mounted to a single hardpoint.
That would explain the ability to aim one turret at three targets.

 

[Carlobrand]

On the subject of one triple turret having three batteries of 1 weapon each, yeah, I found that hard to handle as well. In High Guard, it was even worse since the rules actually say that a mixed turret CAN do that, and a non-mixed turret CAN NOT do that. Then the wording implies that a mixed turret with two lasers and one missile launcher would be required to group the lasers into one battery and the missile launcher into its own battery of one weapon. o:
...

Bugged me too.

Technically, High Guard has no restriction:

"A small craft may mount the equivalent of one turret. In actuality, the mountings are probably rigid, and no actual turret is present. {In other words, you point the ship to point the weapon}... The pilot is assumed to be the gunner for one type of weapon on the craft. If additional types are mounted (a craft could conceivably have three different types of weapons), a gunner is required for each additional weapon. Exception: no additional gunner is required for sandcasters."

The rule speaks to the number of gunners needed. Can't find anything that says the pilot can't run, for example, three batteries of beam lasers and shoot each in sequence in the same turn. It's logical to assume the pilot can't - if he can line up three shots from three separate batteries, then why does a 100dT+ ship need one gunner per battery - but it isn't enumerated.

Meanwhile, the ship section does not specifically endorse nor prohibit using a single turret for multiple batteries. However, it does requires one gunner per battery. So, one is left to point to the ship rule and, reasonably, insist it be applied to small craft in order to keep your pilot from operating three beam lasers, on the argument that a 95 dT small craft shouldn't be able to do something a 100 dT ship can't do. But, one is still left with the possibility of that 100 dT ship having 3 gunners and 3 batteries in one turret.

Back in MegaTrav land, they tossed that whole system and came up with some equation based on price, tech level, and the computer and sensor CP rating for ships - then it had to be revised to address some odd results. Still produces some odd results, such as a pair of beam lasers requiring three gunners on a Free Trader whether they're organized as one battery or two.

Then they put that aside for small craft and vehicles and made it one gunner per gun, which since the small craft by definition has only the one hardpoint, means more than one gun per hardpoint. Then they introduced ways to reduce the number of needed gunners, then added a rule that threw even that calculation out the window "(i)f space is critical," which it pretty much always is.

If it were me making the rules, I'd say you could only fire one beam weapon from a turret in a turn, irrespective of the number and type of beam weapon. You want to mount a laser and a fusion beam? Fine; which one do you wish to use this turn? Missiles, fine - you're not really aiming the missile tube; in fact, the thing could easily launch straight outward and then take its course. Sandcasters, maybe - their performance is based more on keeping a cloud between you and the enemy than on how long it takes to line up a shot on a target tens or hundreds of thousands of kilometers away. Beam weapons, one attack per turret or larger battery per turn. And, I'd say one gunner per turret battery and reserve the clever formula for bay weapons and spinal mounts.

For one thing, that would make the wee fighters a little less dominating.

 

[McPerth]

Bugged me too.

Technically, High Guard has no restriction:

"A small craft may mount the equivalent of one turret. In actuality, the mountings are probably rigid, and no actual turret is present. {In other words, you point the ship to point the weapon}... The pilot is assumed to be the gunner for one type of weapon on the craft. If additional types are mounted (a craft could conceivably have three different types of weapons), a gunner is required for each additional weapon. Exception: no additional gunner is required for sandcasters."

Once again assuming that most of you, as native English users, may have better understanding of what's written tan myself, I understand that when HG says A battery may be as few as a turret, or as many as ten that means a turret cannot be divided among several batteries.

There can be discussion about dividing a turret as long as there's at least a full turret into a battery (e.g. dividing 3 double turrets as 2 batteries of 1.5 turret each), but not (as I read it) if this is the only turret, or to have batteries of less than a full turret. Off course, I set aside the mixted batteries from the whole discussion...

If it were me making the rules, I'd say you could only fire one beam weapon from a turret in a turn, irrespective of the number and type of beam weapon. You want to mount a laser and a fusion beam? Fine; which one do you wish to use this turn? Missiles, fine - you're not really aiming the missile tube; in fact, the thing could easily launch straight outward and then take its course. Sandcasters, maybe - their performance is based more on keeping a cloud between you and the enemy than on how long it takes to line up a shot on a target tens or hundreds of thousands of kilometers away. Beam weapons, one attack per turret or larger battery per turn. And, I'd say one gunner per turret battery and reserve the clever formula for bay weapons and spinal mounts.

Change the bolded part for one beam battery, and you've sold it to me, but, as you wrote it, if you fighter has a triple blaser turret it must organize it as 3 single weapon batteries and might only fire one per turn, something quite absurd and (I guess) far from your intent .

 

[atpollard]

IMTU (just to be perfectly clear on that point):

I always preferred the 1 turret per 100 dTons as the starting point for my logical interpretation for creating starships and small craft.

If 100 dT of ship can mount a triple turret, then ships can mount 1 turret weapon per each 33.3 dTons. I also view 1 turret weapon as equal to two fixed weapons, so a craft can mount 1 fixed weapon per 16.7 dT. I tweaked the fixed weapons to maintain the 10 dT fighter as a valid design. Therefore:

A small craft <17 dT can only mount 1 fixed weapon (aimed by the pilot).
A small craft 17-33 dT can mount 2 fixed weapons (aimed by the pilot).
A small craft 34-66 dT can mount a single turret or two fixed weapons.
A small craft 67-99 dT can mount a double turret, or two single turrets or four fixed weapons.
A ship 100 dT+ can mount a triple turret, or three single turrets.

Larger than this, I viewed each 100 dT bay weapon as equal to 10 hardpoints and, therefore extrapolated that a 50 dT bay should be equal to 5 hardpoints.

So a 500 dT ship may mount 5 turrets or one 50 dt bay weapon, and a 1000 dT ship may mount one 100 dT or two 50 dT bay weapons.

I have yet to design a ship with a spinal mount (which I guess makes me a small ship universe guy), but I would probably view a spinal mount at equal to 10 large bay weapons or 100 hardpoints.

These are not the official rules, just how I like to do things. While a few of the results (like a 50 dT bay weapon in a 500 dT ship) may or may not break the rules depending on your source of inspiration (since I am not the first to do this and some later rules systems specifically allow it), but none of my ships are more powerful than allowed in the official rules. They just follow what I see as the spirit of the rules better than the letter of the rules.

YMMV (but it is IMTU so )

 

[Carlobrand]

Once again assuming that most of you, as native English users, may have better understanding of what's written tan myself, I understand that when HG says A battery may be as few as a turret, or as many as ten that means a turret cannot be divided among several batteries.

Oh, right, that part in the BASIC STARSHIP COMPONENTS section. And then it says, "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." As I said, "One is left to point to the ship rule and, reasonably, insist it be applied to small craft." The unreasonable sort would point out thatBASIC STARSHIP COMPONENTS and SMALL CRAFT are separate sections and then demand to know why a small craft can have a beam laser and pulse laser as two batteries, even though "the mountings are probably rigid" and the boat has to be aimed to aim the weapons, but it can't have two beam lasers as two batteries. The unreasonable sort can be a pain in the butt.

Change the bolded part for one beam battery, and you've sold it to me, but, as you wrote it, if you fighter has a triple blaser turret it must organize it as 3 single weapon batteries and might only fire one per turn, something quite absurd and (I guess) far from your intent .

Actually, that was kinda my intent. I see the 20-minute turn as meaning it takes an average of 20 minutes for your sensors and computer to give you a firing solution solid enough to warrant pulling the trigger. In the case of the small craft, you're having to point your boat to fire the weapon same as a battlewagon with a spinal mount. If you can do that three times in 20 minutes with three beam lasers, then you can surely do the same three times in 20 minutes with just the one beam laser.

Three lasers as one battery is achieved by "bracketing" the firing solution, so that if the solution is slightly off, at least one laser might still hit.

And, it's not always absurd to have more weapons than you can fire. At certain tech levels, and with certain weapon types, it's a way to soak up a bit more damage. Missiles, for example: below TL13, it's one factor-2 or 3 factor-1's, and factor-1's have the same basic to-hit; only advantage the factor-2 has is a bit of an improvement in penetration. Might be worthwhile to take a wee loss to penetration and leave 2 of your 3 missile batteries as backups in order to accept another weapon hit, especially if your usual prey is weak in defense. And if you're one of those who can't abide having the magical quiver of replenishment attached to sci-fi spaceships, a couple of backup launchers gives your pilot another 6 turns of fire.