• 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.

Ship design strategy: mixed turrets?

stofsk

SOC-13
As you know, in Traveller you can have a turret (whether it be single, double, or triple) that mounts a weapon or defensive system (point defence lasers or sandcasters, pulse lasers or missile racks). You can also have a mixed turret, say a sandcaster with two pulse lasers for instance.

Is this sensible? On the face of it I'm not sure what to think. Wouldn't an offensive or defensive system benefit from the focus of having the turret devoted to it? IE a triple turret that's all sandcasters. It could also cut down the logistics train somewhat by having all your ammunition arranged close to the turret, while a mixed turret system would necessitate dispersing the missiles or sand canisters to each of them.

On the other hand, a mixed system would give wider coverage.

I'm not sure what to think. Any ideas?
 
'pends on the ruleset. if the ruleset makes single weapons effective, then you might want a mix. if single items are iffy then you might want all lasers or all sand. if missiles and lasers are simultaneous in effect then maybe you want missiles.

if the ship has only one turret then a mix is almost required. if it has two or more then you can dedicate different turrets to different jobs (though if the ruleset takes bearing and aspect into account this might be tricky). seems to me a ship should always have at least one triple sand turret.

there's also the issue of how much extra energy is available. not much point in having lasers if you can't fire them.
 
I was less worried about the ruleset than I was about general principle, or strategy.

I suppose you can boil this down to focus vs versatility, and which is better. Is it better to have three lasers (or whatever) in a triple turret or mix and match?
 
Mixed turrets were originally an option for smaller ships, presumably to allow a choice of weapon types in a limited number of turrets. On larger ships, where the number of turrets exceeds the number of weapon types used, mixed turrets are rarely used.
 
Try this ---> Arming a free trader.

 
I always preferred (for a free trader) a mix of one pulse laser and twin sandcasters in a triple turret. Just enough offensive punch (plus extra missile defense if needed) to make the bad guy think twice, and lots of sand to keep said bad guy from punching big, expensive-to-fix holes in my ship.

I never used missiles; it was exactly like killing the bad guy with the profits from that voyage, given how much missiles cost and how easy they were to shoot down. Sand costs money too, of course, but sand is a lot cheaper than repairing damage to the ship.

This is in CT, of course.
 
Originally posted by The Oz:
I never used missiles; it was exactly like killing the bad guy with the profits from that voyage, given how much missiles cost and how easy they were to shoot down.
Missles are for when you absolutely positively need the other mothereffer dead right now.
file_23.gif
 
Another reason for smaller ships (even over 300 dtons) to mix weapons in their turrets would be to maintain capability even with one or two turrets knocked out. If you have, say, a 300 dtonner with one triple turret each of lasers, sand and missiles, losing even one turret would seriously cut down your options.

Of course, personally, I try to avoid space combat like the plague. Space is very, very cold, you know. Why do you think I moved here? ;)
 
I want to resurrect this thread to ask a question again about mixed turrets: Would it be better to have 2 sandcasters to a single missile rack in a triple turret, or 2 racks for a single 'caster?

To give some context: the ship design I have in mind has six turrets, four of which are pulse lasers, the other two are the mixed turrets outlined above.
 
If playing with full CT rules it's probably better to have only one sandcaster per turret since sand (under CT rules) is persistent: it hangs around and you can hide behind it.

Given the four p-laser turrets you already have, I'd guess this ship is an attack vessel, and having the maximum number of offensive weapons is probably more important.
 
It's actually a Scout vessel, an exploration vessel. I don't know if Pulse lasers or missile racks are apt for it, and it's mission isn't to kick anybody's arse, but to have that ability should it be necessary to do so.
 
Originally posted by flykiller:
'pends on the ruleset. if the ruleset makes single weapons effective, then you might want a mix. if single items are iffy then you might want all lasers or all sand. if missiles and lasers are simultaneous in effect then maybe you want missiles.
I second that. If you're using CT-LBB2, each weapon fires at its own, so it doesn't matter much except for reloading issues (so you'd keep all of your missiles close to the cargo-bay where you keep the reloads to reduce resupply runs).

If you are using HG or anything similar, you'd probably want to have non-mixed turrets (unless you have very few turrets) as you could stack weapons into batteries for more penetration and damage per shot, unless you houserule that weapons of the same time from different mixed turrets could be stacked into a battery.
 
well i always liked the idea of LMS for a triple
if its a double then MS or LS...for me the logic
is an LMS gives you a range of choice, yet you
dont become a DREADNUGHT as your dividing up your
strength betwix the 3...since we generally are
dealing with traders and scouts(at least for me)

depends on what you want for the adventure
or how such a ship will fit into YTU....

also im looking at LBB 2 and up front
i'm not seeing values for lasers
mentioned, correct me if i am wrong...

I.E

i always assumed:

beams are for ranged broadsides since they do hvy damage...

pulse is more of an anti fighter/missle thing
short range...

of course missles are for long range attacks

and sand is a traders best friend for defense..


so you might also look at it with that in mind
 
Originally posted by stofsk:
I'm using T20.
Burn the heretic?
In T20 mixed turrets work, sort of. The issue is effectively the same as HG and MT but people tend to ignore this rule for some reason. Each weapon in the turret is a seperate battery. A Gunner can only fire one battery per turn. So you can have 3 Missile/Pulse Laser/Sand Turrets but 3 triple turrets (one each type) are more effective for everything except point defense against missiles. And while you are shooting at the enemy missiles you aren't shooting back. (A single sandcaster is generally useless in all versions of Traveller anyway.)
 
Part of the problem here is looking at what precisely is going on in a 20 minute turn depending on the rule set in question.

A) is a single laser firing continuously for 20 minutes such that statistically, only ONE shot is likely to hit with the rest missing?

B) is it really only one shot per 20 minutes such that only one hits if it hits, and it misses otherwise?

If A is the case, what is the difference between splitting your shots such that 10 minutes is spent firing offensively while 10 minutes is spent firing defensively? Can a gunner fire 1 shot of sand per minute - and if so, is he firing just one canister or is he firing 20 canisters and laying a field? If the latter, then he can program his "holes" such that he can take the shots when he wants to, but thereafter suffers the same penalty firing at the enemy ship as the enemy ships has firing at him. Why? Even if he programs "holes" in his screen so he can fire back - if the ship he's in even "jinks" one minute in a given direction as a "dodge" against being hit, the gunner who took the initial shot and layed his "screen" will no longer have the optimal firing solution any more.

So - which is it? One shot, one action, or multiple actions over a span of 10 minutes? Answer that question and you've got a whole new can of worms to digest. For example - if it is a series of 20 shots with only one in 20 likely to hit - what happens when you get a critical hit? Does that mean that more than one shot went home? What if a person decides to spend a 50/50 mix in defensive fires versus offensive fires? Would he suffer a -1 code in weapon offensive punch? Would he suffer a -2 to hit on 2d6? What are the modifiers involved in say, a 30/70 split for offensive/defensive fires? As they say, the can of worms just got bigger ;)

Ultimately, if I were to try to second guess the game designers, I'd go back to STRIKER rules and see what they did there and work it from there. Note too, that I've been using GURPS rules (another heretic *gasp*) for my traveller campaigns - and they use the rules that for every shot you take, you inflict one hit for every 2 points you made your skill roll by. Thus, rolling against a 14 on 3d6 with a roll of a 10, results in 2 hits scoring a hit, or 3 hits if you roll a 9. I've also built "point defense" lasers that are special purpose built using GURPS rules where the ship can defend itself against marauders in space (and do a bang good job of stopping incoming missiles!) and be kept from actively becoming an ethics challenged trader (after all, you can't do much SHIPBOARD damage with low power but multiple hitting point defense lasers).

One reason I like the GURPS combat system is that GURPS permits the GM to use what amounts to heavy lasers instead of standard lasers. That is like allowing merchants to arm themselves with 30mm cannons, but REAL warships can arm themselves with 120mm cannons ;)

The thing about heavier lasers in GURPS is that for the same space as 3 regular lasers, one heavier laser has twice the range as the lesser lasers, and acts in the "ye olde days of wooden ships and iron men" as 32 lbr cannons versus the civilian version of 8 lbr cannons. Imagine how a traveller universe might be if by law, Shipboard lasers for civilian use have to be of one vararity while military grade weapons outrange the civilians in a big way? All the more reasons why Ships heave to when a naval vessel puts a shot across their bows (so to speak). Ah well - time to call it quits here...
 
My referee disagrees with me, but I've always been a fan of an energy turret and a separate launcher turret. For the life of me, I can't see how a missile can move from whatever two squares you designated as your magazine without having to hand-carry them... which is dumb. :(

As an ex-M1 tanker, and having toured a BUNCH of naval vessels pre-9/11, it's my thought to set the launcher turret immediately adjacent to the magazine so that your two ready shots auto-replenish after you've fired what is in your ready racks. You fire a salvo of three missiles and/or sandcans per launcher, and then wait a full turn as they reload from storage...simple.

But that's just me....
 
I agree with you.. besides I like the idea of a triple missile turret with auto loader maybe a triple turret like so

[]II l II[]
.....U.....
[] = missle magazine with auto loader
II = missle tube
l = Laser/pulse laser
U = Gunner
I imagine the whole set up rotates in the turret so no worries about twisting up the ammo feed.
 
Originally by Ganidiirsi O'Flynn
a missile can move from whatever two squares you designated as your magazine without having to hand-carry them... which is dumb.
Only dumb until you work out why.

Universal employment, you too can be a loader in the Imperial Navy.

Sabotage. Eyeball examination of each round immediately before firing.
 
without having to hand-carry them... which is dumb.
in the wet navy a fully automated shell transfer system wasn't implemented, and a hatched-off manual step was included, in order to prevent a single hit and explosion within the upper shell transmission chain from reaching into the magazine and detonating that.

likely this is the source of manual loading in traveller. whether there's a continuing need for it at such tech levels is up to the ref.
 
Back
Top