Mixed Turrets/Batteries in HG

[Icosahedron]

The rules explicitly state that in mixed turrets, EACH weapon is a battery. [Bk 5 p 29, Section WEAPONRY, Subsection Batteries, first paragraph, sentence six (last sentence)].
Of course, in YTU you can do it any way you want I certainly do.

But I am writing strictly about the "official" rule, as it is written.

True, but IMO this defies logic. If your two laser, one missile fighter omits the missile launcher, it can happily group its twin lasers into a single battery, because it's no longer a mixed turret. Why should the addition of an independent missile launcher prevent the two lasers from being slaved together? Doesn't make sense to me.

Of course, you could also argue that if a ship has two such turrets, all four lasers could be a single battery if the missile launchers are removed, so why shouldn't they do so when you refit the launchers?

I think, as you say, it's a matter for each GM to decide in his own TU. The CT ruleset was specifically designed as a guide, not a law.

There is but one law: The GM is always right!

 

[dean]

True, but IMO this defies logic. If your two laser, one missile fighter omits the missile launcher, it can happily group its twin lasers into a single battery, because it's no longer a mixed turret. Why should the addition of an independent missile launcher prevent the two lasers from being slaved together? Doesn't make sense to me.

Of course, you could also argue that if a ship has two such turrets, all four lasers could be a single battery if the missile launchers are removed, so why shouldn't they do so when you refit the launchers?

I think, as you say, it's a matter for each GM to decide in his own TU. The CT ruleset was specifically designed as a guide, not a law.

There is but one law: The GM is always right!

Yep! Just statin' the gov'ner's view. I'm the law in my town, and here things are done different

I think it was written in that fashion because otherwise it would be WAY too hard to track batteries and allocate damage. Lots of extra work for small benefit. In addition, there's a lot of useless dice rolling because the individual weapons have such low codes, and hits are unlikely against opponents who frequent Book 5 country. Book 2 country is a whole 'nother story.

 

[Matt123]

On another forum, this topic came up and I supported the side of one turret = one battery. This post was a reply to the OPs assertions and response to my first reply. I spent some time on it so I thought I would stir the pot and share it here. I refer to the poster as "You", as to protect the innocent

Cough...

The troublemaker otherwise known as "You" is me and no, I'm not that innocent.

I really should visit more often! I did mention to Dean that I had some experience in this debate, he obviously didn't make the connection when he posted directly under my 22 month old post that it was me he was debating with two years ago. Obviously we didn't convince each other then...

The thread on the other forum was locked down as the Ref made a ruling & that was that. End of discussion. Dean did private message me, but I haven't taken the time to read or reply to it. My bad, but I've been flat out on other stuff. However now I cottoned onto the previous debate, I think I'll ignore the posts, I don't need the hassle and it will end up with us both repeating arguements made years ago.

But it is kinda odd to see my post so thoroughly debated by a protagonist on a forum it wasn't posted to and that I haven't visited for a goodly while!

To balance out the Ref rulings Dean didn't like, the Ref also ruled ones he asked for. For example fighters in this campaign must have a pilot or gunner for each battery. A fighter with two missile and a beam weapon must have 3 crew. I'm not phased, it affects everyone equally, even if its not what I would have ruled.

My abiding opinion after many years debating this question on batteries (one refines the problem after a while), is that is comes down simply to one question.

What is a weapon mount?

Your answer to this one simple question then shapes your views on the entire issue.

And to finish, I'm likely repeating myself from 2 years ago.
IMHO (heh, not so humble...) A weapon mount enables a weapon to be mounted in/on something else (turret, bay, hull, wing, deck, railing, wall, display case, etc).

Gotta go, Dean feel free to continue the debate in my absence!

Cheers!
Matt
Chairman Technical Commitee
Serendip Belt

 

[atpollard]

Personally, I have no problem with a triple turret containing one 'battery' of two lasers and a second 'battery' of one missile launcher. The rules are clearly intended as a compromise allowing mixed turrets on small ships and simplifying combat for large ships. It would have made for a simpler rule system to simply say that mixed turrets are not allowed, period.

The real issues arise when one applies these 'batteries' to the rest of the HG combat rules (since LBB2 doesn't use 'batteries').

For example, does each battery require its own gunner? If not, then why can't the 100 dTon Missile Bay and the 100 dTon particle bay be fired by the same gunner?

How does 1 turret with 2 batteries and 2 gunners shoot at two different objects at the same time?

I simply visualize what has been done and apply logic to what that means the gunner can do. IMTU one gunner per turret is the norm, so he can fire the pair of lasers (as one battery) at a target in turn 1 and then fire a missile at another target in turn 2 - each turn he can choose to operate either one of the batteries under his control, and freely toggle between them at the start of each new round. He could also track a single target and fire both batteries (2 lasers, 1 missile) at the same target in one turn. He could not track Target 1, fire the laser battery, acquire and track target 2, and fire the missile battery all in the same turn. Two actions require two gunners with two turrets.

If the player designing his custom 100 ton starship wanted to mount a special combination dual-turret and single turret (1 dTon combined total) and wire them to two gunner stations/fire controls (2 tons), then I would happily allow it (at increased cost for a special design) and I would allow each battery to track and fire at a different target in the same round.

Visualization and common sense go a long way IMO.

 

[Matt123]

Visualization and common sense go a long way IMO.

Agreed. (& I really should stay away from this debate!)

All Bk5 ships are custom made. Regarding turrets, the only "known" element is the cost & space requirements of fire control. The size and dimensions of the turret/s is left to the designer to visualize.

Personally I have no problem with the abstract "Triple Turret" actually being three seperate "mini" turrets all using the same 1tn of fire control. The entire Bk5 vesse is custom designed, I have no doubt the Arms manufacturers are quite inventive when it comes to mounting, but equally its detail below the scope of the rules.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]The rules are clearly intended as a compromise allowing mixed turrets on small ships and simplifying combat for large ships. It would have made for a simpler rule system to simply say that mixed turrets are not allowed, period.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]

Ahh, back to the "What is a weapon mount?" question. Your position that the mixed turret rule is a "compromise" relies on the premise that weapon mount = turret.

If weapon mount = mount for weapon, then the first two sentances of the Batteries section clearly intends (up to ten) individual weapons, regardless of "turreting", may operate as individual batteries. All the mixed turret rule says, is that you can now mix the weapons in a turret too.

I really should stay away...
[/FONT]