Mixed Turrets/Batteries in HG

[tbeard1999]

Ok, two points.

1. If you choose not to group your weapons into batteries, what does this sentance leave you with...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph loath that I am to resort to such a contentious referance, Wikipedia does serve as a fair 'quick & dirty' place to start.

In a nutshell, a paragraph starts with a main point and continues on with statements that build on and support of that main point. It appears that instead of reading & comprehending the main point, most just remember the last point in the paragraph.

You could as you suggested earlier, remove the first two opening sentances as a 'mistake'. You would then be left with a paragraph that supports what people would like it to say.

I didn't say it was a mistake. Rather, it appears to me that the author used two terms for the same thing. Hardly unique in wargame rules. And I think that this is the most sensible interpretation.

In any event, I have laid out my summary of what I think the HG rules clearly say:

All weapons must be formed into batteries, since the combat system speaks exclusively in terms of batteries.

A "Battery" is one of the following:

1. A spinal weapon.

2. A single weapon bay.

3. 1-10 turrets.

4. 1 individual weapon in a mixed turret.

I can't say it any clearer than this.

And if it helps, I certainly agree that the rules will occasionally have some dubious effects, such as the fact that a fighter with 2 fusion guns (or plasma guns) will be no more effective than a fighter with 1 fusion gun (or plasma gun). Of course, the same would be true of a fighter armed only with two missiles (or lasers).

Nontheless, I think that these are the rules. And given the logarithmic scale of HG, there will always be some granularity.

Now, if I were gonna suggest a change, I'd allow fighters to form batteries from individual weapons, regardless of whether they are mixed. I would also enforce the "1 gunner per battery" rule, so that a fighter with 2 Fusion Guns would need a pilot and a gunner (if it had 2 batteries of 1 fusion gun each).

But this is a variant and should be identified as such.

 

[Matt123]

Matt's design is incorrect because it uses a dual fusion gun turret and a dual fusion gun turret is not a mixed turret because no other weapons are present.

But that interpretation relies on using a rule that clearly does not apply.

It doesn't apply, because the turret isn't mixed. Go back to the opening sentence of the paragraph, not the supporting statement at the end allowing mixed turrets in certain conditions.

The turret isn't mixed. The opening line means that individual weapons have to be batteries if they are not grouped and that grouping is optional.

All the mixed turret rule does is allow mixed weapons, utilising the already established ability to fire three seperate weapons from one turret, which is the case if you have chosen not to group them. Argueing that three weapons cannot fire from one turret flies in the face of the entire paragraph, including the mixed turret rule...

But, I'm pleased you are engaging. Ta.

 

[Matt123]

what I think the HG rules clearly say:

All weapons must be formed into batteries, since the combat system speaks exclusively in terms of batteries.

A "Battery" is one of the following:

1. A spinal weapon.

2. A single weapon bay.

3. 1-10 turrets.

4. 1 individual weapon in a mixed turret.

But you cannot provide a rules based reason for ignoring the first line.

I would add to your list:

5. Any weapon mount that has not been voluntarily grouped into a larger battery.

The ignoring of text, clearly puts the resulting interpretation into the realms of IMTU and out of the OTU. And that is the quandry facing many on this list.

 

[far-trader]

I know I said I woudn't meddle any more but...

...keep talking Matt

Either you're brainwashing me or I might actually be starting to see it differently

I keep going "Oh, yeah, I see now." Then I read the page in the book again and go "Oh, wait, no he's not quite right." I need to sleep on this and figure out just where my brain is disconnecting since both can't be right.

 

[tbeard1999]

But you cannot provide a rules based reason for ignoring the first line.

I would add to your list:

5. Any weapon mount that has not been voluntarily grouped into a larger battery.

The ignoring of text, clearly puts the resulting interpretation into the realms of IMTU and out of the OTU. And that is the quandry facing many on this list.

We're done, I think.

I've made my case and in my opinion, you are stretching hard to make a very dubious point. And I see no gain in continuing this.

 

[dean]

I have the 1980 (2nd Ed) of Book 5.

Batteries: Ships with more than one weapon mount of a type may group them into batteries. Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries.

Clearly, a fighter with one mount won't have more than ten, so it is not required to group the mounts into batteries. The group distinction is important here. What's unsaid but implied is that individual turret mounts (simply by how the combat system works) are by default batteries in and of themselves, unless you choose or are required by rule to group them into clusters of mounts as batteries.

The last line of the paragraph supports this also indirectly:

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.

The outright statement that each weapon in a mixed turret constitutes it's own battery also implies that when not mixed, each mount is a battery, for ships under 1000 tons.

I believe that this is also purposeful from the arrangement of the turret weapons table, on page 25. Only one Fusion or Plasma gun is needed to give a minimum factor battery is one weapon (and note that the book always refers to batteries in the combat section, not weapons, and that the only time the rules indicate a mount may constitute more than one battery is a mixed turret), but to achieve the next factor you need two weapons in two mounts.

Finally, if the purpose is to allow a fighter to achieve a status of 2 factor 4 batteries, this is certainly contrary to the spirit, if not the literal letter, of the rules.

If two weapons were desired, then put one plasma and one fusion weapon in the turret. Then you get the two batteries, within the letter of the rules. Not as powerful, but hard to argue with being "illegal".

 

[atpollard]

Batteries: Ships with more than one weapon mount of a type may group them into batteries. Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries.

IMHO, a 'mount' is a hardpoint (which could have a single, double or triple turret, or a barbette attached), not an individual weapon in the first line and 'of a type' means that the turret is not mixed. Clearly it is ships with more than 10 Turrets of the same type which MUST combine them into batteries and ships with 1 to 10 Turrets of the same type which has the option of listing each Turret as a battery or combining multiple turrets into a single battery.

[Remembering that each battery has a gunner and may shoot at 1 target].

 

[Whipsnade]

Finally, if the purpose is to allow a fighter to achieve a status of 2 factor 4 batteries, this is certainly contrary to the spirit, if not the literal letter, of the rules.

Dean,

Neatly put. Following the letter of the rules, instead of their spirit, is a hallmark of the loophole.

Allow me an example. Avalon Hill's Midway was unique in several ways. The map didn't use hexagons and the game was played double-blind. Each player had his own map and relied on the other player's honesty when conducted searches. You'd say "searching square so-and-so" and the other player would let you know which of his units were there.

Just announcing searches gave your enemy information because you could only search squares within a certain distance of your carriers or surface ships. And finding the other fleet didn't mean you could attack it because all planes only had a 14 square range, the furthest you could fly was 7 squares out and 7 squares back, and you couldn't send planes on suicide missions beyond their range.

Each carrier in the game was rated for the number of fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo planes it carried. Because carriers sink and planes get shot down, you could land planes from any carrier on any other carrier up to that carrier's limit. All the US carriers had the same plane capacity.

Here's where the loophole shenanigans begin.

The rules about landing planes on other carriers was intended to allow planes whose carriers had sunk to land on other carriers if that carrier had the room. There was nothing in the rules that explicitly forbid "swapping" carriers, having all the planes from one carrier land on another and vice versa.

Very early after Midway's release, loophole experts quickly exploited the lack of any rule against "swapping". A player would have one carrier 4 squares away from his opponent's fleet and another 10 squares away. The other player would know about either carrier but not both and think themselves safe. The loophole expert would then launch attacks from both carriers. Planes would either fly 4 squares, attack, and fly 10 squares to land or fly 10 squares, attack, and fly 4 squares to land.

The letters column in The General soon was clogged with debate about this "tactic" and Avalon Hill finally addressed it in an editorial. The rule was amended to prohibit the "tactic" that followed the literal letter of the rules while also violating the spirit of the same. (Not to mention that no one ever performed a "cross deck" attack like the kind the loophole modeled.)

If two weapons were desired, then put one plasma and one fusion weapon in the turret. Then you get the two batteries, within the letter of the rules. Not as powerful, but hard to argue with being "illegal".

You can't have plasma and fusion guns on the same ship because there is only one place for energy weapons in the USP.

That's rather neat actually. A rule originally meant to simplify the bookkeeping in the game is now being used to prevent a violation of the battery rules spirit!


Regards,
Bill

 

[Matt123]

Clearly, a fighter with one mount won't have more than ten, so it is not required to group the mounts into batteries. The group distinction is important here. What's unsaid but implied is that individual turret mounts (simply by how the combat system works) are by default batteries in and of themselves, unless you choose or are required by rule to group them into clusters of mounts as batteries.

I can read your interpretation two ways, can you edit your post to clarify where you are talking about individual weapon mounts or turrets. One interpretation that has been raised is that a turret is the weapon mount vs a turret may have up to 3 weapon mounts. I'm not clear from your post which approach you are using.

Post again to prompt me to recheck your edited post, I'm definately interested in responding. ta.

 

[Matt123]

IMHO, a 'mount' is a hardpoint (which could have a single, double or triple turret, or a barbette attached), not an individual weapon in the first line and 'of a type' means that the turret is not mixed.

However the sentence refers to weapon in the singular. A turret mount can hold 'weapons'.

Otherwise don't disagree that a hardpoint 'mounts' a turret, but it follows that a turret 'mounts' weapons. A turret mount holds a turret & a weapon mount holds a weapon.

Clearly it is ships with more than 10 Turrets of the same type which MUST combine them into batteries and ships with 1 to 10 Turrets of the same type which has the option of listing each Turret as a battery or combining multiple turrets into a single battery.

This depends again on your reading of the first sentance and whether you choose to interprete 'weapon mount' not to mean a mount for a weapon, but a turret of weapons.

 

[Matt123]

We're done, I think.

I've made my case and in my opinion, you are stretching hard to make a very dubious point. And I see no gain in continuing this.

Ok, thanks for your posts, you put forward some good & interesting debate.

Cheers
Matt

 

[Matt123]

...keep talking Matt

Either you're brainwashing me or I might actually be starting to see it differently

heh, brainwashing doesn't count - I must have your free will consent!

If it helps, focus on the first sentance, it establishes the primary assumption of the entire paragraph. Once that sentance is understood, the rest of the paragraph builds on it and makes more sense. Last of all (especially as its at the end of the paragraph!), read the mixed turret rule. You will find it sits in a more logical context.

But post your reservations regardless, others may build on it or I may slap my forehead for being a complete goober...

 

[Matt123]

Following the letter of the rules, instead of their spirit, is a hallmark of the loophole.

you may find it odd, but I agree with you.

Whether the sentence is a loophole tho' is debateable. Normally you would expect loopholes to come from unintended rules combinations or slack writing, not the opening assumption of a section of rules.

 

[rancke]

It seems to me that the discussion has reached an impasse, with neither side likely to convince the other, or to present fresh arguments.

To resolve the practical problem, I suggest that Jeff makes a declaration now. If he thinks either interpretation is obviously the correct one, announce that that's the one that'll apply to the game he is reffing. If he thinks the rules are ambiguous, flip a coin to decide which interpretation to use. The allow everybody to change their designs if they want to.

(Or Jeff could make a compromise decision that allows missiles in the same turret to be separate batteries (missile launchers not having to point straight at the target when launching) but disallows it for beam weapons (since beams do need to point straight at the traget to hit it) ).


Hans

 

[dean]

I can read your interpretation two ways, can you edit your post to clarify where you are talking about individual weapon mounts or turrets. One interpretation that has been raised is that a turret is the weapon mount vs a turret may have up to 3 weapon mounts. I'm not clear from your post which approach you are using.

Post again to prompt me to recheck your edited post, I'm definately interested in responding. ta.

A weapon mount is any single place that weapons are placed; a turret, a barbette, a bay, a spinal.

If you read the example on page 29, this becomes abundantly clear, as the example talks about how "mounts" need to grouped into batteries, and then goes on to describe how eighty beam laser triple-turrets would be able to be arranged into batteries; the smallest division was eighty individual factor three batteries.

The only exception to the rule was the sub-1000 ton mixed turret rule, as I detailed in the previous post.

BILL: Thanks for pointing out the plasma/fusion mix rule; I had forgotten about it.

 

[Jeffr0]

Batteries: Ships with more than one weapon mount of a type may group them into batteries. Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries. A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten, but all batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code (USP factor). Each bay weapon is automatically a battery. The spinal mount of a ship (if it has one) is a single battery. 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.

Based on this rule...

We have the following cases all of which are examples of a single mount:

Case 1: Triple laser turret on a ship 1000 tons or less

Case 2: Triple missile turret on a ship 1000 tons or less

Case 3: Double fusion turret on a ship 1000 tons or less

Case 4: The classic mixed turret: 1 missile, 1 laser, 1 sand in one turret on a ship 1000 tons or less

Case 5: Two lasers and a missile in one turret on a ship 1000 tons or less

In the interests of limiting die rolls and (in the tradition of the great High Guard spirit) limiting fighters for the sake of the more "fun" mega-cruisers... I see the intent of the rules as being that Cases 1, 2, and 3 are required to group their weapons into a single battery. This is arbitrary and may or may not make sense from an rpg stand point-- that's okay because this interpretation is optimizing for Trillion Credit Sqaudron Tournaments.

Case 4 will have three separate batteries-- one of each type.

Case 5 will have two separate batteries-- one for a missile and one for the lasers combined together into the same batteries.

Next is the question of gunners.

The rule on page 33 of HG2 states "turret weapons should have a crew of at least one per battery. This is for ships of 1000 tons or more, though. The small craft section states on p 35 of HG2 that "one or more gunners may be optional crew members." This is not clear. So we will, as HG p 33 states, go with "the rules stated in Book 2." for ships 1000 tons or less. The rules on Book 2 p 16 state that "one gunner (gunnery skill-1 or better required) may be hired per turret on a ship" and that "armed small craft require a gunner in addition to the pilot." (Later this is contradicted, though, when Book 2 states that "if the craft is armed, but carries no gunner, the pilot may fire the weapon
at -1 skill level." This may be a rule for role playing situations and not the standard military situation presented in a Trillion Credit Sqaudron Tournament.)

SO for crewing purposes... small craft MUST have a gunner... who happens to be able to handle all of the above cases 1-5 by himself. A "non small-craft" ship or boat up to 1000 tons will have one gunner per turret.

THIS IS A DRAFT AND NOT A RULING
All designs currently in play will remain unchanged regardless of this issue.

I have not looked at the arguments insanely closely-- this is just me reading the rules and putting them together. Are there any cases or situations I've overlooked?

 

[dean]

heh, brainwashing doesn't count - I must have your free will consent!

If it helps, focus on the first sentance, it establishes the primary assumption of the entire paragraph. Once that sentance is understood, the rest of the paragraph builds on it and makes more sense. Last of all (especially as its at the end of the paragraph!), read the mixed turret rule. You will find it sits in a more logical context.

But post your reservations regardless, others may build on it or I may slap my forehead for being a complete goober...

Sorry, NO. That last sentence actually completely obviates your argument. The "may group" is the operational term here. Note that in the example where the designer would be forced to group the weapons does NOT have the option to make 240 factor 1 batteries (recall all batteries of one type must have the same USP). The rule explicitly states because he must divide his batteries into equal USP factor divisions, and that these "constitute the optimal battery configurations ion the turret weapons table".

When the example states that "other configurations are possible" it is referring tot he fact that you could choose to make 20 batteries of 4 turrets, but then you'd still only be at factor 5 and would be "wasting" some of the weapons (because you have 2 more weapons than you need to be at factor 5). Sure, you have more batteries, but less optimally arranged for firepower. Certainly, IF you could reduce your turrets to 240 factor 1 mounts, it would be an optimal arrangement (silly, but technically optimal). Since the example does not do this, the example supports the argument that smallest division is the mount (turret).

Thus, that example explicitly clarifies that you may not group weapons into batteries in lots smaller than mount sized divisions, UNLESS you have a sub-1000 ton ship with a mixed turret. In that case alone will each weapon be it's own battery. In fact, the "mixed turret" rule, when taken in light of the first sentence AND the example, completely supports the idea that individual weapons in a mount may not be subdivided into separate batteries unless they are different weapons, and in that case each weapon must be it's own battery. It penalizes mixing weapons because three turrets with 2 beam lasers and 1 missile launcher in a mixed turret is far less effective (having 6 factor 1 beam laser batteries and 3 factor one missile launchers) than 2 triple beam turrets and one triple missile turret (being either two factor 2, or one factor 3 laser batteries and one factor 2 missiel battery).

I'd like to note that for all weapons except fusion guns, being able to split the turrets into individual batteries makes no sense at all, and it only makes sense for fusion guns because they are so powerful (and enter the Turret Weapons Table at a much higher factor).

Yes, the first sentence may be slightly ambiguous; however one really cannot take one sentence and use it to build an argument without then analyzing all of the verbiage in the rest of the section.

 

[Whipsnade]

Whether the sentence is a loophole tho' is debateable. Normally you would expect loopholes to come from unintended rules combinations or slack writing, not the opening assumption of a section of rules.

Matt,

Hans is correct, we've reached an impasse here. Ty's and Dean's explanations are the last word IMHO and Jeff has made his ruling.

I'd say that your interpretation rests entirely on slack writing in that kludgly portion of LBB:5 where it attempts to "dock" with LBB:2. When faced with slack writing, we next need to ferret out the authors' intentions. That's where the examples in the book and the huge numbers of designs produced afterward come into play. As Dean as pointed out, when you examine LBB"5's examples with the written rules, your interpretation falls apart.

No one in my experience has ever read those passages and came to the same conclusions you have. I've been playing with LBB:5 for thirty years. During a roughly 18 month period in the Navy during a WestPac and an ELINT mission off Petropovlosk, I ran dozens of TCS campaigns and round robin tourneys similar to Jeff's current project.

I had over three dozen people involved in those games at one level or another and I had a few xeroxed copies(1) of LBB:5's construction rules being passed around among them. Most involved were navy nucs and could "hack" a system like no one else. I saw fighters predominate at low TLs and I saw designs possessing some of the (in)famous Eurisko characteristics(2) at higher TLs.

What I never saw was anyone interpret the battery rules as you have. Never during that concentrated play period over 25 years ago and never in all the years since. No one ever read those passages and interpreted them in the fashion you have.

As I wrote earlier, it's time for Occam's Razor. On one hand we've thirty years of play, thousands of designs, and tens of thousands of users. On the other hand we've your exercise in semantics. Which do you think is more likely to be true?


Regards,
Bill

1 - Sorry GDW.

2 - Such as drop tank abuse and vessel displacements ending in 9.

 

[tbeard1999]

Based on this rule...

We have the following cases all of which are examples of a single mount:

Case 1: Triple laser turret on a ship 1000 tons or less

Case 2: Triple missile turret on a ship 1000 tons or less

Case 3: Double fusion turret on a ship 1000 tons or less

Case 4: The classic mixed turret: 1 missile, 1 laser, 1 sand in one turret on a ship 1000 tons or less

Case 5: Two lasers and a missile in one turret on a ship 1000 tons or less

In the interests of limiting die rolls and (in the tradition of the great High Guard spirit) limiting fighters for the sake of the more "fun" mega-cruisers... I see the intent of the rules as being that Cases 1, 2, and 3 are required to group their weapons into a single battery. This is arbitrary and may or may not make sense from an rpg stand point-- that's okay because this interpretation is optimizing for Trillion Credit Sqaudron Tournaments.

I agree. However, in each case, the turrets could be grouped into batteries with other identical turrets. And in particular, none of them could form individual weapon batteries.

Case 4 will have three separate batteries-- one of each type.

Agreed.

Case 5 will have two separate batteries-- one for a missile and one for the lasers combined together into the same batteries.

I believe that the plain language of HG would require 3 batteries:

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.

So the turret would have 2 laser batteries and 1 missile battery.

Of course, it's your game and you can deviate from this if you wish

Next is the question of gunners.

The rule on page 33 of HG2 states "turret weapons should have a crew of at least one per battery. This is for ships of 1000 tons or more, though. The small craft section states on p 35 of HG2 that "one or more gunners may be optional crew members." This is not clear. So we will, as HG p 33 states, go with "the rules stated in Book 2." for ships 1000 tons or less. The rules on Book 2 p 16 state that "one gunner (gunnery skill-1 or better required) may be hired per turret on a ship" and that "armed small craft require a gunner in addition to the pilot." (Later this is contradicted, though, when Book 2 states that "if the craft is armed, but carries no gunner, the pilot may fire the weapon
at -1 skill level." This may be a rule for role playing situations and not the standard military situation presented in a Trillion Credit Sqaudron Tournament.)

SO for crewing purposes... small craft MUST have a gunner... who happens to be able to handle all of the above cases 1-5 by himself. A "non small-craft" ship or boat up to 1000 tons will have one gunner per turret.

Here's how I read the HG rules on crewing:

1. General rule -- 1 gunner per battery; extra crew per page 33.

2. Ships 1000 tons or less -- use Book 2, which requires 1 gunner per turret.

3. Small Craft -- If one weapon type is mounted, Pilot can also be gunner. If additional weapon types are mounted (not including sandcasters), a separate gunner is required for each additional weapon (not each weapon type). So, a fighter with a laser and two missiles would require TWO gunners, plus the pilot. A fighter with three lasers requires only a pilot. (p34).

Comment -- the author of HG got a little sloppy with his airy "just use Book 2 crews for 1000 ton ships" ruling. Strictly following this rule would require 10 gunners for a single battery of ten triple turrets, while a ship sized 1001 tons would only need 1 gunner for such a battery. Therefore, I'd modify the Book 2 rule to read "one gunner per battery".

THIS IS A DRAFT AND NOT A RULING
All designs currently in play will remain unchanged regardless of this issue.

I have not looked at the arguments insanely closely-- this is just me reading the rules and putting them together. Are there any cases or situations I've overlooked?

Have you resolved the issue as to whether individual weapons can be formed into batteries? For reference, my opinion is that the HG rules clearly define batteries thusly:

All weapons must be formed into batteries, since the combat system speaks exclusively in terms of batteries.

A "Battery" is one of the following:

1. A spinal weapon;

2. A single weapon bay;

3. 1-10 turrets; or

4. 1 individual weapon in a mixed turret.

I also said that I'd allow a fighter with two fusion guns (or two plasma guns) to be considered as having a "mixed" turret, so that it could form 2 single weapon batteries. However, I'd also enforce the small craft crew rules and require the fighter to have a gunner as well as a pilot. This is a deviation from the rules, but IMHO it's a reasonable one. Take it for whatever it's worth.

Hope this helps.

 

[Jeffr0]

I believe that the plain language of HG would require 3 batteries:

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.

So the turret would have 2 laser batteries and 1 missile battery.

That was a clear inconsistency in my rules draft there.

I'm sticking with mine because I think they mainly have in mind the classic triple turret when they wrote that. (The sand/missile/laser combo turret is a common thing for some reason.) Once you plug two weapons of the same type in there... the earlier "a battery may be as few as one turret" rule comes into effect.

If I was going to make an errata to end this sort of debate, all I would have to change is... for starters... that last sentence to something like this:

On ships 1000 tons and under, mixed turrets (weapons of different types in the same turret) are allowed; in such cases, each weapon type is grouped together into a separate battery.