• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Mixed Turrets/Batteries in HG

"hmmm, defences up Sulu, fire all sandcasters in non mixed mounts to fend off Big Beat Stick" :-)

Bill- turncoat! Its ok, the debate for our fusion fighter doesn't rest on the mixed turret rule, I've already established in my last post that its not relevent and builds on the rule that mounts can be individual weapons/batteries.

tbeard - you argue that weapon mounts & turrets are one and the same. If that were the case or the intention then either the reference to weapon mounts or the reference to turrets is redundent.

Well, there wouldn't be any redundancies in a set of game rules, right? :)

Actually, as an amateur game designer myself, I've found that redundancies are easy to get, even in this day and age of search and replace. The most common occurence is when a new term is incompletely substituted for an old term. Happened in a recent editing draft of my upcoming A Fistful of TOWs III. We changed the term "pinned" to "neutralized" then to "suppressed". But we missed the change on the charts and almost didn't catch it. And somehow, we missed one reference in the text of the rules, even though we have search/replace capabilities.

IMHO "mount" is probably a better term than "turret", since there are also barbettes (which are described as "like turrets only bigger").

But at the end of the day, I think that the most reasonable inference is that mount=turret/barbette.

However we have both references. Given both, it is clear the intention is to establish a specific rule for weapons mounts.

I disagree. IMHO the text clearly intends for mounts to be the same as turrets/barbettes. I've explained why already.
 
Last edited:
It is a game artifact meant to avoid confusion and speed play. Nothing more.
And I don't have a problem with that, as long as that's all it's used for. It's when the game rules are applied to the "real world" that I think we sometimes see a disconnect, as for example in the rule that identical weapons in the same turret cannot aim at different targets. I think that makes sense for lasers but not with missiles. Now, if someone runs a TCS campaign and says, "well, the rule applies to lasers and missiles both, because that's easier", then that's fine, because it's just a silly wargame (:devil:). But if a player in an RPG session wants his gunner character to assign his three missiles to three different targets, I don't want a rule that was meant to simplify a wargame to be interpreted as a law of nature.

Let me give you another example. According to the rules, a ship cannot have secondaries of the same type as its spinal weapon, right? If you have a spinal meson, you can't have meson bays, and if you have a spinal PA, you can't have PA bays. Now, is that because the nice, simple USP doesn't have room for two different sets of the same weapon type, or because naval architects like to give ships different kinds of secondary oomph in case they run up against enemies that are particularly designed to withstand the main weapon, or because spinal weapons interferes with the performance of bays of the same type, or because the Great Bird of the Galaxy will instantly destroy any ship that sets out on maiden voyage with the same weapon type in both spinal and bays? Me, I'd say it is the first, and if I design a ship with a PA spinal and PA bays, I may not be allowed to enter it in a TCS battle, but I can use it in an adventure if I like.

What he is saying is that if you have a mixed turret, the same type of weapons within that turret must be grouped into a single battery. You could very well have three batteries in a single mixed triple turret if the three weapons in that turret are all of a different type.

Yes, I get that. What I'm questioning is the reason why they must be grouped into a single battery. If it's three lasers, I'm all in favor; if it's three missile launchers, I'm very much less sure that the rule represents a "real" impediment and not just a game artifact.


Hans
 
Bill- turncoat!


Matt,

Turncoat? Perhaps originally mistaken instead? ;)

Its ok, the debate for our fusion fighter doesn't rest on the mixed turret rule, I've already established in my last post that its not relevent and builds on the rule that mounts can be individual weapons/batteries.

It is relevant. You're focusing entirely on one rule while ignoring the rest. HG2 is a wargame and not a RPG. Unlike the rules in RPGs, the rules in a wargame are not suggestions. And having a redundant rule is not a problem, it a matter of emphasis.

Mixed turrets are explicitly stated to contain different weapon types and not multiple samples of the same weapon. If you have two fusion guns in a turret than that turret is not a mixed turret and the rules concerning multiple batteries within a mixed turret are thus moot.

Furthermore, multiple weapons of the same type within a mixed turret, as with the two laser/one sandcaster example used repeatedly, must be grouped into batteries. The option given the player about whether or not to create batteries has to do with whether or not the player wants to group multiple turrets into batteries and nothing to do with grouping multiples of the same weapon type within a turret.

Yes, LBB:2 has each weapon in a turret fired individually. iHG2 is not LBB:2 however and the tourney is using HG2's rules.


Regards,
Bill
 
And I don't have a problem with that, as long as that's all it's used for. It's when the game rules are applied to the "real world" that I think we sometimes see a disconnect, as for example in the rule that identical weapons in the same turret cannot aim at different targets.


Hans,

Speed of play and ease of play trumps all. It's a game so some loss of reality must be expected.

Yes, in the real world and over a 20 minute span my last ship could have launched multiple missiles from a single rail and guided them to their target. Of course, USS California had targeting radars and other sensors with which to do that. You'll notice that ships in HG2 have none of those systems modeled discretely. instead, there's that catch-all computer rating.

Could Traveller ship combat handle multiple missile launches against different targets from a single turret? Yes, TNE's "Brilliant Lances" does so already.

Should HG2 ship combat which handles large numbers of large ships with even larger numbers of missile launchers model individual missile launches from single launches against multiple targets? Hell no, unless you want a single game round to last days.

But if a player in an RPG session wants his gunner character to assign his three missiles to three different targets, I don't want a rule that was meant to simplify a wargame to be interpreted as a law of nature.

It isn't a law of nature and any interpretation is, in the end, up to you as the GM. Also, if you're using HG2 for player scale space combat, you're using the wrong system. Your player cannot use his skills as a gunner in HG2, while he can use those skills and fire missiles from the same turret at different targets in LBB:2 and Mayday.

Now, is that because the nice, simple USP doesn't have room for two different sets of the same weapon type...

The real reason is a meta-game one, just as you surmise.

An in-game reason is yours as a GM to craft. It could be tactical reasons, it could be sensor interference reasons, and it could be the Great Bird of the Galaxy.

What it actually is in-game doesn't matter, the real reason has to do with the USP and speed of play.

What I'm questioning is the reason why they must be grouped into a single battery.

Because it's a rule and nothing more.

If it's three lasers, I'm all in favor; if it's three missile launchers, I'm very much less sure that the rule represents a "real" impediment and not just a game artifact.

No one is suggesting it is a "real" impediment. It's a game artifact and a well crafted one too.


Regards,
Bill
 
Mixed turrets are explicitly stated to contain different weapon types and not multiple samples of the same weapon. If you have two fusion guns in a turret than that turret is not a mixed turret and the rules concerning multiple batteries within a mixed turret are thus moot.
So a turret with one fusion gun and one plasma gun would be a mixed turret? What about a fighter with a fusion and a plasma gun? Do they amount to two batteries? (Note: I don't have HG within reach; if the rules prohibit such a constellation, well, good for the rules ;)).


Hans
 
An in-game reason is yours as a GM to craft. It could be tactical reasons, it could be sensor interference reasons, and it could be the Great Bird of the Galaxy.
Or, and this is the point I've been trying to make, it could be "none of the above". If the irreverent inhabitants of the world Heresy builds a Iconoclastic Apostate class cruiser with a PA spinal and gobs of PA bays, such a ship would be entirely possible.

Whereas I wouldn't allow a "real life" turret with three beam weapons to shoot in three different directions simultaneously, even if some set of wargames rules allowed it for ease of play.


Hans
 
If it helps to clarify issues a little...

CT rules specifically outlaw the ability to fire multiple lasers in the same turret from attacking different targets in the same turn.

There are some other nicities within the High Guard rules that people may want to take a closer look at, such as the rules for sub-100 dton craft with their "effective turret" rules. To wit, that a fighter can have a single weapon type requiring a single gunner, and that all other weapon types installed aboard the craft are treated as batteries requiring their own gunner. The odd exception is that a pilot whose sub 100 dton craft outfitted with a fusion gun for example, may ignore such restrictions if the second weapon type is a sand caster. Thus, a fusion gun/sandcaster combo requires only a single gunner - ie, the pilot himself.

I've noted too, that Traveller publications subsequent to High Guard such as the Alien Modules, do NOT depict their ship descriptions using High Guard rules, but instead, are all Book 2 designs. Co-incidence? I think not.

In short, the reason I brought up the point about subsequent publications of ship designs post High Guard rules, is because you'd think that high guard descriptions of warships would have been the most natural thing worth considering. None of the subsequent publications regarding High Guard ever evinced the prospect that you can have 10 mixed turrets with three separate weapon types in the turret, ever suggested that you could have a single gunner handle what amounts to 3 separate weapon system "batteries" by himself.

While true that in CT, a single gunner can fire a laser, a missile, and a sandcaster in the same turn without penalty, the same doesn't seem to hold true in High Guard. The only exception to this seems to come from the rules on page 34 as relates to sub-100 dton hulls with weapons mounted. There, a pilot can handle a direct fire weapon (which now includes missiles) and a sandcaster without a problem. (Note: Direct fire weapons are those which require a die roll to prove effective. CT didn't require a gunner to hit roll for success, whereas High Guard requires a to hit roll, hence my observation missiles are now direct fire weapons).

In any event, I can see why people are disturbed by the rules as written for Mixed Turrets. The only comment I will make further on this topic is that since 1981, when High Guard second edition was introduced, we've not seen a single ship description of ANY High Guard based ship where one could take a single gunner, group all the mixed-weapon turrets together into a single battery, and permit that single gunner to operate all three "battery types" by himself. Even the Alien Modules published subsequent to High Guard do not include High Guard statistics, which seems a trifle odd when you think about it.

So, it seems to me that it is self-evident, that the smallest combat unit in the game of High Guard is not the ships themselves, but the gunners who are firing the weapons.

A battery is by definition, comprised of a weapon system (or more than one of the same type) grouped together (which when you only have one, is NOT a group when you get right down to it) such that a single gunner gets to make a single attempt to inflict damage upon his foe.

The only real "exception" to the rule of a single weapon system battery operated by a single gunner seems to be the sub-100 dton weapons rule of "effective turret" allowing for the need of one gunner per weapon system EXCEPT sandcasters, which permit a single pilot to operate a direct fire weapon plus the sandcaster.
 
So a turret with one fusion gun and one plasma gun would be a mixed turret? What about a fighter with a fusion and a plasma gun? Do they amount to two batteries? (Note: I don't have HG within reach; if the rules prohibit such a constellation, well, good for the rules ;)).


Hans,

The rules do prohibit such because there is only one spot in the USP for energy weapons. ;)

If the irreverent inhabitants of the world Heresy builds a Iconoclastic Apostate class cruiser with a PA spinal and gobs of PA bays, such a ship would be entirely possible.

Not according to HG2's rules but definitely within the purview of GM sanction.

Do it if you want to, and enjoy dealing with the resulting complications.


Regards,
Bill
 
Hans...

I don't think Dan's suggesting that.

What he is saying is that if you have a mixed turret, the same type of weapons within that turret must be grouped into a single battery. You could very well have three batteries in a single mixed triple turret if the three weapons in that turret are all of a different type.

Just to confirm, yep :)
 
Not according to HG2's rules but definitely within the purview of GM sanction.
Am I being too vague, Bill? Because I sure don't see how I can express myself any clearer. My thesis is that the HG rules are abstractions of "reality" that does not, in fact, portray the underlying "reality" completely accurately. As such, the entire point of my argument is that something can be against HG's rules and still not be wrong; contrariwise that some things can be allowed by HG's rules and yet be contrary to "reality".


Hans
 
Am I being too vague, Bill? Because I sure don't see how I can express myself any clearer. My thesis is that the HG rules are abstractions of "reality" that does not, in fact, portray the underlying "reality" completely accurately. As such, the entire point of my argument is that something can be against HG's rules and still not be wrong; contrariwise that some things can be allowed by HG's rules and yet be contrary to "reality".

Hans,

The thread title is "Mixed Turrets/Batteries in HG", not "Traveller ship designs, logic, and so-called reality."

If you want to debate rules, reality, and High Guards relevance to your OTU, your rpg campaign, and (I must say) your excellent GURPS articles and supplements, then please do so in a different thread.
 
Well, there wouldn't be any redundancies in a set of game rules, right? :)

:-) Well having run a gaming company I cannot disagree, but the redundency having snuck in, if thats what it is, now becomes the norm.

IMHO "mount" is probably a better term than "turret", since there are also barbettes (which are described as "like turrets only bigger").

But at the end of the day, I think that the most reasonable inference is that mount=turret/barbette.

I've got to be honest and say that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

- Turrets hold up to three weapons (requiring weapon mounts).

- There is a seperate rule for weapon mounts, the rule under discussion. This rule preceeds every other rule in the Batteries section - meaning, as you will know, the rest of the paragraph and indeed the section builds up on this underlying assumption.

- Several 'rules' in HG2 refer to mounting weapons and nowhere does it define a weapon mount as a turret capable of mounting three weapons!

- The text on small craft weapons refers to mounting weapons & turrets are not assumed to be present.

If this is the way you prefer to interpret the rules thats fine, but I'm struggling given the weight of contrary elements vs nothing in support (the rules as written are mistaken only works IMTU - like my dropping of bk2 ship design rules).

Give me some meat to your view.
 
Matt,

Turncoat? Perhaps originally mistaken instead? ;)

Ahh, thats ok. I was just quite surprised you didn't have a firm view to start with :-)

It is relevant. You're focusing entirely on one rule while ignoring the rest.

Yes, I am focusing on the pre-eminent rule, the rule that opens the batteries section and the paragraph that concludes with the mixed turret rule.

As far as the batteries section is concerned, the first rule/assumption is that weapon mounts are not obliged to form batteries. The rest of the paragraph then puts qualifiers on that first statement. Its simple paragraph construction!

Mixed turrets are explicitly stated to contain different weapon types and not multiple samples of the same weapon. If you have two fusion guns in a turret than that turret is not a mixed turret and the rules concerning multiple batteries within a mixed turret are thus moot.

My point exactly. We are not talking about a mixed turret. That part of the paragraph does not apply.

Furthermore, multiple weapons of the same type within a mixed turret, as with the two laser/one sandcaster example used repeatedly, must be grouped into batteries.

I'll debate this later, its refering to mixed turrets and muddying the waters for our fighter which doesn't have a mixed turret :-)
 
The text on small craft weapons refers to mounting weapons & turrets are not assumed to be present.


Matt,

As has been repeatedly explained to you, small craft mount weapons differently than +100dTon craft. You take a rule meant for small craft and expand it to cover all spacecraft. You're also deliberately confusing the terms "mount" and "turret" despite the fact that HG2 uses the terms somewhat interchangeably.

If this is the way you prefer to interpret the rules thats fine...

It's not the way Ty "interprets" the rules or how I "interpret" the rules. It's how the rules work and it's how the rules have worked since 1979.

I know of no one - as in no one - whose has read HG2 and come to the conclusions you have. In thirty years, no one has thought the rules mean what you say and, in thirty years, no one has built ships using the rules in that manner.

Your loophole doesn't exist and, if it ever did, someone else would have found it well before you have.

It's time to apply Occam's Razor, Matt. Either you're wrong or everyone else has been wrong for thirty years. Which is the simplest answer?


Regards,
Bill
 
Last edited:
My point exactly. We are not talking about a mixed turret. That part of the paragraph does not apply.


Matt,

What?!? Just what the hell are you actually suggesting then?

I thought you had a ship design with double/triple turrets carrying the same weapons and you wished each single weapons in those turrets be treated as separate batteries.

Perhaps you should step back and state what it is you're actually attempting to do because I, for one, am completely confused by now.

What are you trying to do?


Regards,
Bill
 
The thread title is "Mixed Turrets/Batteries in HG", not "Traveller ship designs, logic, and so-called reality."
Gee, that might be the reason why I'm commenting on HG rules and not, say, GT:Nobles rules. Threads drift, Bill. If you want to prevent that, just don't answer when a post begins veering off. If you do answer, it's reasonable to assume that you're going with me out along the tangent.

If you want to debate rules, reality, and High Guard's relevance to your OTU, your rpg campaign, and (I must say) your excellent GURPS articles and supplements, then please do so in a different thread.
My first post in this thread concerned the relevance of Mixed Turrets/Batteries in HG to the OTU (It's not my OTU, alas). Perfectly appropriate to the thread title. So if you reply to it, you should stick to the subject as it has evolved. Or start another thread yourself if you wish to respond but think my post is inappropriate for the thread.


Hans
 
Last edited:
I thought you had a ship design with double/triple turrets carrying the same weapons and you wished each single weapons in those turrets be treated as separate batteries.

Yes

Perhaps you should step back and state what it is you're actually attempting to do because I, for one, am completely confused by now.

I'm not surprised. Now you are starting to think the bit you are relying on (and attempting to bludgeon me with!), might not apply...

Pick up the rule book, stop relying on memory & rules snippets given by others.

Bk5 pg29 "Batteries", first paragraph, first sentance. "Ships with more than one weapon mount of a type may group them into batteries."

As has been repeatedly explained to you, ...snip... despite the fact that HG2 uses the terms somewhat interchangeably.

Where Bill? The only instance is tbeards interpretation of the paragraph I am also referring to. To achieve his interpretation tbeard has to resort to "they made a mistake" to support his view. Not an arguement that you would normally accept.

know of no one - as in no one - whose has read HG2 and come to the conclusions you have. In thirty years, no one has thought the rules mean what you say and, in thirty years, no one has built ships using the rules in that manner.

That is at odds with this thread then where most of the participants (including yourself) have already stated they would allow it. You may be having second thoughts right now, but we can safely assume that occured sometime after this thread started. Regardless the earth is flat arguement ('cause we all believed it for centuries) is a poor substitute for reading and applying the rule book.

How simple can I make it? I have given referances, multiple times. Pick up the rule book Bill, apply basic english paragraph construction and read the sentance that forms the introduction for the rest of the paragraph.

The only coherant arguement so far has come from tbeard. In support of his arguement you refute only one of 4 examples I gave tbeard & not particularly convincingly.

Don't paint yourself into a corner. Find a coherant arguement or accept that craft mounting less than 10 weapons of the same type do not have to form a battery. Its actually the view that most want to support, they just don't believe they have a rules basis to do so - yet.
 
...That is at odds with this thread then where most of the participants (including yourself) have already stated they would allow it.

No putting words in our mouths please :)

If I have it right for the others, and it's the same as mine, we only suggest we'd do it knowing full well it wouldn't be OTU approved but very much a house rule. And your goal here, is it not, is to gain a OTU by the rules interpretation to support your idea. Yes?

...accept that craft mounting less than 10 weapons of the same type do not have to form a battery. Its actually the view that most want to support, they just don't believe they have a rules basis to do so - yet.

Speaking only for myself, you don't know my mind at all if that's what you got from my posts. It's not that I don't believe we have a rule basis to do it. It's that I see no rule to support it, only rules that explain quite clearly that it is not. It's not a matter of faith. It's as you put it simple reading of the rules. And I've seen nothing in your arguments to change my mind in the least.

Our interest in doing it differently is just the tinkerer in us. And it's only something I'd do in an RPG application, not a TCS application, nor even a simple HG fleet battle application as part of an RPG. It just doesn't fit.

If anything you're convincing me my interest in accepting it even in an RPG application because it is neat is wrong :) Scratch that, you have convinced me it shouldn't be done. So you can move one off the fence you put us up on :D
 
No putting words in our mouths please :)

If I have it right for the others, and it's the same as mine, we only suggest we'd do it knowing full well it wouldn't be OTU approved but very much a house rule. And your goal here, is it not, is to gain a OTU by the rules interpretation to support your idea. Yes?

yes & no. IMHO it is part of the OTU already, I'm gobsmacked that you guys aren't reading the rulebook.

I agree with the rest of your post & perhaps I used your willingness to do this IYTU inappropropriately, in my defence it was in response to Bills oft repeated flat earth arguement.

It's not a matter of faith.

good

It's as you put it simple reading of the rules. And I've seen nothing in your arguments to change my mind in the least.

And the rulesy bit that supports the contrary view is? I keep asking for it and all I get is similar responses to yours. Fortunately I'm not too interested in mind changing, just establishing what the rules actually say. I've lost count of the "I like it this way" responses and count so far in 60 plus posts, only one rules based response.

The lack of rules based debate in favour of the "I like it this way debate" should set off alarm bells.

So you can move one off the fence you put us up on :D

:-)

So have I convinced you to put me right using the rulebook...
 
Back
Top