HG Batteries clarification discussion

[DonM]

This is the revised draft clarification, posted for comment.

"Page 29, Batteries (clarification): The text is somewhat confusing. In order to use the High Guard starship combat rules, all ships must organize their weapons into batteries. The spinal mount of a ship (if it has one) is a single battery. Each bay weapon is considered a single battery. For turrets, a battery may consist of all weapons in a single turret to a maximum grouping of all weapons in ten turrets, but all turrets in a single battery must have the same type of weapon and weapon USP factor.

On ships of 1,000 tons and under, mixed turrets (weapons of different types in the same turret, such as one missile, one laser, and one sandcaster) are allowed, but mixed turrets can never be grouped together into batteries; every weapon in a mixed turret (regardless of the weapon combinations) must be organized as a single battery.

As an example, a TL 13 700-ton ship might have five triple turrets and two double turrets. Four triple turrets have two beam lasers and a sandcaster as mixed turrets where each weapon must be in individual batteries. Each of the double turrets has one fusion gun and one sandcaster, and as mixed turrets these weapons also must be in individual batteries. One triple turret has three missile racks; since this is not a mixed turret, the three weapons must form a single battery. The batteries on this ship would be organized as 8 beam laser-2, 6 sandcaster-3, 2 fusion gun-4 and 1 missile-3."

Please review and comment in this thread. I'll modify this initial post as required.

 

[aramis]

As an example, a TL 13 700-ton ship may have five triple turrets and two double turrets.

That may should be a might, and the use of a high-energy/sand mixed is informative, but makes the wording awkward.

Heck, that sentence probably should read "As an example, a TL 13 ship with 7 hardpoints might have five triple 1-ton turrets, and 2 double 2-ton turrets."

 

[Jeffr0]

I have no idea what this is saying.

I read it over and over and I still have no idea what it means.

Trying too compress every nuance into a single example that covers all the corner cases at one time does not communicate the intent.

Call me a nut, but I need three examples of the RIGHT way to set this up... followed by three examples of how NOT to do it... WITH explanations of which particular freaking nuance of the rule was violated.

Finally... if there is any way to incorporate the INTENT of the rule... and its rationale from both a setting and a war game standpoint, that would be absolutely grand.

As it stands... it STILL looks like this issue has been argued for over thirty years with ZERO progress. Please make the hurting stop!!!

 

[dean]

"Page 29, Batteries (clarification): The text is somewhat confusing. In order to use the High Guard starship combat rules, all ships must organize their weapons into batteries. The spinal mount of a ship (if it has one) is a single battery. Each bay weapon is considered a single battery. For turrets, a battery may consist of all weapons in a single turret to a maximum grouping of all weapons in ten turrets, but all turrets in a single battery must have the same type of weapon and weapon USP factor.

Last sentence may be more clear if stated as a few sentences; it's a lot to try and fit in one blurb:

"For turrets, all weapons of a type (i.e., beam lasers, missiles, etc) shall be organized into batteries having the same USP factor; the smallest battery possible would include all the weapons of a single turret, and the largest possible battery would include all the weapons of up to ten turrets. Battery groups of two to nine turrets are also possible, with multiple batteries of the same USP being allowed for all such groupings from one to ten turrets. Note that the Weapons table does have break points that create optimal groupings for each USP code."

On ships of 1,000 tons and under, mixed turrets (weapons of different types in the same turret, such as one missile, one laser, and one sandcaster) are allowed, but mixed turrets can never be grouped together into batteries; every weapon in a mixed turret (regardless of the weapon combinations) must be organized as a single battery.

No problems with the above; it restates the mixed turret rule while adding clarity.

As an example, a TL 13 700-ton ship may have five triple turrets and two double turrets. Four triple turrets have two beam lasers and a sandcaster as mixed turrets where each weapon must be in individual batteries. Each of the double turrets has one fusion gun and one sandcaster, and as mixed turrets these weapons also must be in individual batteries. One triple turret has three missile racks; since this is not a mixed turret, the three weapons must form a single battery. The batteries on this ship would be organized as 8 beam laser-2, 6 sandcaster-3, 2 fusion gun-4 and 1 missile-3."

To expand the example:

"Take for example, a TL-13, 700-ton ship with five triple turrets and two double turrets.

One triple turrets has two beam lasers and a sandcaster as a mixed turret where each weapon must be organized into individual batteries. The USP factors would be 1 factor-3 beam battery (USP code 2 +1 for TL 13+), and 1 factor-3 (1 +2 for TL 10+) sandcaster battery.

Each of the double turrets has one fusion gun and one sandcaster, and as mixed turrets these weapons also must be in individual batteries. The fusion guns would be 2 factor-4 batteries, and 2 additional factor-3 sandcaster batteries. Note that the sandcasters have the same USP as the other sandcaster batteries, and must share the same USP factor regardless of the source of the battery grouping.

Four triple turrets have three missile racks; since these are not mixed turrets, the missiles must be organized into batteries. The smallest battery possible is one turret; if so organized the ship would have 4 factor-3 batteries (USP factor-2 +1 for TL, from the Turret Weapons table). Alternatively, all the weapons could be organized into a single factor-5 battery. In addition, it is also possible to organize the missiles into 2 factor-4 batteries (6 missile racks for factor 3 + 1 for TL13+) of two turrets each."



NOW, I do have a concern that the way the clarification is currently presented, it could allow the following situation to occur:

Say a TL 12 ship with 10 triple turrets; could organize batteries into 3 factor-5 batteries, having ten lasers in each battery, which would be splitting up one of the turrets to each of the 3 batteries, but would STILL be within the limits of the clarification.

Under the wording of this clarification it is possible. Perhaps intentionally.

If not, is it possible to state: "All weapons in any given turret must be in the same battery grouping." to fix the loophole?

Alternately it could be flatly stated: "Turret batteries shall be organized from all the identical weapons in one turret at minimum up to all the identical weapons in up to ten turrets, but must be formed in whole turret units, regardless of the size of turret, and must share the same USP for that weapon type."

 

[DonM]

NOW, I do have a concern that the way the clarification is currently presented, it could allow the following situation to occur:

Say a TL 12 ship with 10 triple turrets; could organize batteries into 3 factor-5 batteries, having ten lasers in each battery, which would be splitting up one of the turrets to each of the 3 batteries, but would STILL be within the limits of the clarification.

Under the wording of this clarification it is possible. Perhaps intentionally.

If not, is it possible to state: "All weapons in any given turret must be in the same battery grouping." to fix the loophole?

Alternately it could be flatly stated: "Turret batteries shall be organized from all the identical weapons in one turret at minimum up to all the identical weapons in up to ten turrets, but must be formed in whole turret units, regardless of the size of turret, and must share the same USP for that weapon type."

The problem with your suggestion is that I read what you've written as allowing a turret with two beam lasers and a sandcaster to have the sandcasters in one battery, and the two beam lasers in another battery, when the mixed turret rule requires that turret to be organized as one battery of a single sandcaster and two batteries of a single beam laser each. Could you rephrase what you are wanting with that in mind?

 

[DonM]

That may should be a might, and the use of a high-energy/sand mixed is informative, but makes the wording awkward.

Heck, that sentence probably should read "As an example, a TL 13 ship with 7 hardpoints might have five triple 1-ton turrets, and 2 double 2-ton turrets."

Ok, might it is... but I don't understand either the awkwardness of the fusion gun example, or the need to add the tonnage of the turrets to the example...

Or are you suggesting I was too specific in the example?

 

[BlackBat242]

the mixed turret rule requires that turret to be organized as one battery of a single sandcaster and two batteries of a single beam laser each.

Exactly why is this the rule?

Lets look at this example:

One turret has two identical beam lasers and one sandcasters. Each beam laser MUST be considered a separate battery.

A second turret has two identical beam lasers and one empty slot. Both beam lasers can be grouped into a single battery.


The only difference is the presence or absence of a third, different, weapon.

Without regard to whether the sandcaster is present or not, both beam laser weapons in the turret are aimed together and fired by the same gunner!

Despite this, if the sandcaster is present the two beam lasers are forbidden to be considered as a single battery, and their attacks are considered and resolved as separate attacks... while if the sandcaster is NOT present they are considered as a single battery, and their attacks are considered and resolved as one attack?


This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

 

[DonM]

I understand that treating two identical weapons in a mixed turret as separate batteries may make no sense.

However, I'm thinking that it really was for simplifying bookkeeping.
Having a simple rule for mixed turrets does make it easier to understand organizing batteries.

 

[dean]

The problem with your suggestion is that I read what you've written as allowing a turret with two beam lasers and a sandcaster to have the sandcasters in one battery, and the two beam lasers in another battery, when the mixed turret rule requires that turret to be organized as one battery of a single sandcaster and two batteries of a single beam laser each. Could you rephrase what you are wanting with that in mind?

You are correct; it appears I had inadvertently mis-stated the correct way to organize the beam lasers in the mixed turret. The example I wrote was intended to cover the organization of batteries in general, giving examples of how the rules interact. My apologies for misapplying the mixed turret rule in my example.

HOWEVER

My primary concern is not with the mixed turret rule, but with the example of the ten triple turrets being arranged into 3 factor 5 batteries, as it is allowed under the clarification's original (revised) wording. Under that scheme, 10 beam lasers can be arranged into a battery of factor-5, three full turrets + 1 weapon from another turret, then replicated three times for 3 factor-5 batteries.

Since all the batteries share the same USP, and all the weapons are grouped into batteries, and all the batteries are at least one turret and not more than ten turrets, it is technically legal to do this. Now, since mixed turrets require each weapon to be a battery, this seems like it "ought" to be disallowed. However, if that's what the thinking is at the brain trust I am ok with it too. I just want to make sure that's the intent.

(I'd point out that the example of 3 factor-5 batteries was pointed out by Mike Wightman (hat tip) and illustrates the problem of not addressing what a "weapon mount" is, in the original rule from Book 5).

If it's ok to have each weapon in a triple turret assigned to three different batteries, then the mixed turret rule just seems silly. If not, and all the weapons in a turret must be part of a single battery, either alone or in combination with all the weapons in other turrets, up to ten maximum, then....

"All weapons in any given turret must be in the same battery grouping." to fix the loophole?

OR

"Turret batteries shall be organized from all the identical weapons in one turret at minimum up to all the identical weapons in up to ten turrets, but must be formed in whole turret units, regardless of the size of turret, and must share the same USP for that weapon type."

...could be used, or it could be stated that weapon mounts are spinals, bays, turrets, and barbettes, and that all turret batteries need to be organized in whole turret groupings, from one to ten turrets.

 

[dean]

No Comments?

Weird.

 

[aramis]

Don:

an alternate rewording propsal:
For turrets, a battery is composed of either (A) all the weapons in a group of from 1 to 10 turrets without mixed weapons, or (B) of a single weapon of a turret. Note that weapons in mixed turrets are always single weapon batteries. A mixed turret has 2 or 3 different types of weapons in it; remember beam and pulse lasers are different types of weapons.

 

[aramis]

Weird.

Think time required...

 

[warwizard]

The example of 3 factor 5 batteries from 10 triple laser turrets could also be orginized as 1 laser from each of the 10 turrets in each battery.

 

[Matt123]

The example of 3 factor 5 batteries from 10 triple laser turrets could also be orginized as 1 laser from each of the 10 turrets in each battery.

The 3 factor-5 batteries could also have a four weapon turret. Thats 6 triple turrets & 3 quad turrets occupying the space of 10 turrets. Each battery of 10 lasers uses 2 triple turrets & a quad.

But that sort of design specifics is below the level the game is operating on. And I'm sure there are other options talented 3I weapon designers could come up with.