CT HG Battery Rule

[dean]

All weapons of a battery need to be the same weapon. You can have different types of weapons on a ship. So 2 batteries of lasers, a battery of casters ect. I was saying you could not have 10 triple turrets with laser, caster,missile mix counting as three different batteries. One of lasers, one of casters, and one of Missiles. Amoung other things targeting different things at different bearings would make it impossable to do. This is also why it is reasonable that weapons tubes on a turret can not be split between batteries. How can a turret with 3 tubes fire fore, aft, and port at the same time because the three lasers are split between three different batteries?

It all comes down to what you want for your game in the end though.

Because a combat turn is a long time.. relatively speaking. But in the end it is just a simulation of reality.

 

[Dragoner]

How would one have 3 different lasers in the same turret firing at separate targets, even if they were on gimbals the turret would have to move or it would be a barbette. The turret rule makes sense, separate weapons in the same turret does not, except for the mixed turret, where the only real weapon having to be aimed is the laser and sand and missiles do not.

 

[mike wightman]

If you have 11 single laser turrets, you can have 11 single laser batteries, why you would is another issue.

It is very clear, the mount is the turret.

Co-axial means alongside the main armament, it is how it is mounted, but the mount is still the turret.

Not in HG you can't

More than 10 of a weapon and you have to group them into batteries.

Which is a bit tricky with 11 lasers

 

[aramis]

Not in HG you can't

More than 10 of a weapon and you have to group them into batteries.

Which is a bit tricky with 11 lasers

If in single turrets, yes, 11 factor 1's is valid. Odd, in many ways, but valid, since there is no minimum size in weapons, only in turrets, for a battery. Now, in theory one could even go above 34 batteries (Batts and bear theoretically cap at z=34...)

11 weapons in 6 double turrets, would require the mixed weapons rule to be valid.

 

[Dragoner]

Not in HG you can't

More than 10 of a weapon and you have to group them into batteries.

Which is a bit tricky with 11 lasers

Minimum battery is a single turret. I think it is able to be done with dual laser turrets as well.

 

[gammamutant]

Pretty sure a mount is the hardware that a turret or weapon is attached to. A battery would therefore be a grouping of these pieces of hardware. In clearer terms, the machinery and wiring that allows the ships computer or manual controls to aim and fire the attached weapon. When referring to a particular weapon you would speak of its mount. That is why the weapons in a battery must be similar because different weapons aim differently and the mount would be controlled differently. It is also why mounts must be installed at the building of the ship, but weapons and turrets can be added to those mounts later.

 

[McPerth]

If you have 11 single laser turrets, you can have 11 single laser batteries, why you would is another issue.

Perhaps to shoot more fighters in a turn?

If you are TL 13+, those turrets are factor 2, and that means a critical to any unarmored fighter you hit. That may be a reason, I think, if you know you will fight against light fighters.

Anyway I think a mount should be a weapon, and mainly for game mechanics reasons.

One of the reasons of the batteries is (IMO) to avoid having to fire too many idividual weapons (and so spending all the afternoon on a single salvo).

If a mount is a turret, you can have your 3000 dton ship equiped with 9 triple laser turrets, 9 triple missile turrets, 9 double fusion turrets and 3 triple sandcaster turrets, and yet you needn't to group them in batteries.

Of course, this means in a battle round you must roll 81 times (sandcasters don't roll, as I remember)... Quite easy to get a critical in B2 system...

If a mount is a weapon, you must group them in batteries, and its nearly impossible to get a critical against a similar ship (in fact, this weapon array becomes quite absurd, unless you want to have single turret batteries).

I know this is not a rules based reasoning, just inferred from game mechanics...

 

[atpollard]

I came up with a simple solution ... change the word MUST in the battery rules to MAY.

Ultimately, nothing really brakes if 100 lasers are allowed to fire as 100 single weapon batteries, you just roll lots of dice to get lots of low penetration attacks. So let the designer "group" or "not group" weapons to his hearts content. Who will be the worse for it?

 

[jawillroy]

Ultimately, nothing really brakes if 100 lasers are allowed to fire as 100 single weapon batteries, you just roll lots of dice to get lots of low penetration attacks. So let the designer "group" or "not group" weapons to his hearts content. Who will be the worse for it?

There are two major problems I see: for one thing, you'll need one gunner for EACH of those lasers, if each is a battery: HG2, p33: "turret weapons should have a crew of at least one per battery."

*shakes head* Anyway, it's imbalancing on the defensive side. If you can have thirty lasers, in ten turrets, operating as thirty batteries of one laser each, then theoretically every weapon-1 hit you get takes out a measly laser, when by rights it should be taking out a whole turret. Each of those battery hits should be accounting for a whole hardpoint, generally speaking, and by breaking up triple turrets into individual weapons essentially triples a ship's complement of turret weapons as far as damage is concerned. It shouldn't be allowed.

(yeah, I know, if your only battery happens to be a turret it can be incrementally reduced by weapon-1 hits, but that's an exception made for puny ships that aren't HG's focus really.)

 

[HG_B]

There are two major problems I see: for one thing, you'll need one gunner for EACH of those lasers, if each is a battery: HG2, p33: "turret weapons should have a crew of at least one per battery."

That was 1950's thinking on Marc's part. One person could quickly assign targets to the turrets and change them once per turn.

 

[McPerth]

Another reason to form batteries (and so using HG combat system instead of Bk2 one) is when you use weaponry that doesn't exist in Bk2 (as the 9 double fusion turrets i talked about above or the PAs on a Gazelle)

 

[aramis]

Another reason to form batteries (and so using HG combat system instead of Bk2 one) is when you use weaponry that doesn't exist in Bk2 (as the 9 double fusion turrets i talked about above or the PAs on a Gazelle)

CT Rules for the Gazelle's PA exist.

 

[McPerth]

CT Rules for the Gazelle's PA exist.

For using them according to bk2 combat?

And where can I find them?

 

[aramis]

For using them according to bk2 combat?

And where can I find them?

The barbettes, and their particle accelerator weapons are not specifically covered in Traveller Book 2. They are a variant drawn from the material in High Guard, and grafted onto Book 2.
Specifically, the barbettes are 5 tons each. The particle accelerators should be treated as heavy lasers as in Traveller Book 2, subject to an advantageous DM of +2 to hit. Damage from such hits should be skewed toward crew casualties,
and electronic and computer damage if there is no fibre optic back-up
present.

There y'are.

 

[atpollard]

*shakes head* Anyway, it's imbalancing on the defensive side. If you can have thirty lasers, in ten turrets, operating as thirty batteries of one laser each, then theoretically every weapon-1 hit you get takes out a measly laser, when by rights it should be taking out a whole turret. Each of those battery hits should be accounting for a whole hardpoint, generally speaking, and by breaking up triple turrets into individual weapons essentially triples a ship's complement of turret weapons as far as damage is concerned. It shouldn't be allowed.

... and yet 20 defensive beam lasers and 10 defensive missile launchers can already do exactly that ... see what I mean about it not really mattering. It just eliminates the need for silly rules games to do what you want.

 

[mike wightman]

The particle accelerators should be treated as heavy lasers as in Traveller Book 2

Just one slight problem with this.

What's a heavy laser as in LBB2?

 

[aramis]

Just one slight problem with this.

What's a heavy laser as in LBB2?

Not specified...

I always used 4 damage points per PA hit... which ate through drives something fierce!

 

[McPerth]

Damage from such hits should be skewed toward crew casualties,
and electronic and computer damage if there is no fibre optic back-up
present.

And how is this done?

Do you reroll any dice roll not giving crew or computer damage, accepting the second roll, as example?

Also, how many PAs can you have in a ship?

As EPs are not used in Bk2, theoretically you could fit 2 PAs on a free trader, without upgrading its PP (just reducing the cargo hold)...

And what about Fusion turrets (or plasma for what is worth)...

I'm affraid any patch used to fit more weapons on Bk2 combat risks to be quite flawed...

 

[jawillroy]

As EPs are not used in Bk2, theoretically you could fit 2 PAs on a free trader, without upgrading its PP (just reducing the cargo hold)...

I wouldn't allow it on a standard type A imtu; it'd have to be designed from the start to have the appropriately sized hardpoints, setting aside the energy issue.

I'm affraid any patch used to fit more weapons on Bk2 combat risks to be quite flawed...

Full agreement.

 

[McPerth]

I wouldn't allow it on a standard type A imtu; it'd have to be designed from the start to have the appropriately sized hardpoints, setting aside the energy issue.

Neither I would. I talked about fitting it, not refitting. I meant at the construction time, use a standard type A and modify it to carry larger turrets, not reffiting it later.

I guess I didn't express this point as well as I intended.

And, anyway, I would force the PP upgraded quite a bit to allow it, should I be the referee in this game...