Ship Weapon Thoughts/Discussion

[PFVA63]

Hi,

Discussions in the "Speaking of Commerce Raiding; Keith Ships" thread recently got me thinking about Traveller ship weapon systems. The first version of Traveller that I had had very few images and as such me and my friends had to guess alot about what we thought different items in the rules looked like. Since I don't really know if my interpretation is what was meant by the original authors, I thought I'd post my ideas here for discussion, and hopefully others will post their ideas as well.

With respect to ship weapons, my first thoughts on Book 2 turrets were since spaceships had to operate in 3D, maybe something like the belly turret on the US Army Air Forces B-17 from WWII might be a possiblity, where the barrels could rotate and elevate over a wide range.

However, this would require the turret to partially intrude into the ship's hull. I guess that you could assume that the 1dton of fire control might partially cover this, but on some of the earliest deck plans that I saw (like from Snapshot! or Traders and Gunboats) sometimes there was internal space allocated near the turrets and other times there wasn't.

http://www.sperryflight.com/i/ball_turretlg.jpg

As such, later I began to think of turrets more like maybe the chin turret on the B-17, or other similar craft. This way there would be controls somewhere in the ship (which could be near the turret or which could be located elsewhere) but the main part of the weapon itself would be for the most part mounted exterrnally, which seemed closer to the rules to me. The problem with this though was that I never really understood how turrets that fired sand or missiles were supposed to be reloaded.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/B17_chin_turret.jpg

When it came to Book 5 stuff, as I noted in the "Speaking of Commerce Raiding; Keith Ships" post, I never really understood what a barbette was meant be.

With respect to Bays, book 5 describes them as "large areas near the skin of the ship's hull". At first I thought that maybe they were then just areas of the hull where large numbers of similar weapons might be clustered together to operate as a group/unit, similar maybe to this image of some of the anti-aircraft weapons on a WWII battleship.

Later though when I picked up a copy of "Azhanti Highlightning" initially the bays just appeared to be larger turrets. Much later though after looking closer at the Azhanti Highlightning deck plans I began to notice something. (I posted about this in a previous discussion a long while age, but I can't specifically remember where.) In general, if you look closely at the deck plans, as shown in the figure below, inboard of the large turrets (shown in white) is a large area (shown in blue), separated from the rest of the area of the deck by heavy bulkheads.

As such, I began to wonder if maybe the intent was that weapon bays might instead be kind of like modern era naval weapon systems especially like the MEKO and STANFLEX ships, as shown below (along the lines that Rigel Stardin suggested in the "Speaking of Commerce Raiding; Keith Ships" thread).

http://www.amiinter.com/samples/denmark/images/stanflex_oto76mm .jpg

http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/aim7ssmk48b.jpg

http://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.de/bilder/produkte/Meko_rechts_1a_gr.jpg

Here in these images you can see that these weapon type systems are large spaces near the surface of the ship where you can mount different type weapon modules or maybe even leave it empty as a storage space, which seems like it could be along the lines of the original definition in High Guard. Here are some images that I drew up to demonstrate what I think a 50dton bay like this might look like in Traveller terms. In the first view you can see how the bay is dropped into an opening near the surface of the hull so that only the rotating weapon mount is shown above/external to the hull but the rest of the unit (in blue) is shown within the hull. In the second view I show the module extracted so that you can see how the unit extends down several decks (shown in red and grey).

With respect to spinal mounts, I guess that I've always envisioned them similar to what is shown on the Azhanti Highlightning though I never really understood why they ar only avaialble in certain sizes and why you can only have one per ship (instead of say a twin barrel unit), though those are the rules so I don't really ahve any problems with them.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and I'd be interested to see what others think.

Regards

PF

PS. I started a new post here because I didn't want to further take the other thread off track.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Think of a bay like the the battery of fixed missiles on either a sub or a CG. That's a bay; a collection of weapons ready to launch; i.e. missiles cloistered together in launch housings.

A barbette, defined by HG and those in the know, is a self contained weapon mounted externally from the ship's hull.

A turret is just that; a weapon with its support systems; magazine, loading mechanism, fire control, etc. still largely house in the hull behind, underneath or aside the weapon in question.

 

[sabredog]

Uh, yeah...pretty much the same conclusion everyone comes to eventually, and it makes the most sense. Though, you drawings illustrate why you can "unplug" a bay weapon and pop in a new one, or use the space as storage - as explained in HG.

The barbette thing I still think is either the "larger turret" described in the Gazelle article when it first came out. Or, it's more like a casemate gun, which would be sticking out of the side of the hull like the 5" guns on the sides of a lot of dreadnoughts and cruisers.

But I have a hard time imagining that it's a big PAW just stuck on the side of a ship behind a splinter shield and open to space. Early barbette guns were an evolutionary step in wet navy weaponry and they evolved into enclosed turrets when that tech was perfected.

You have to be careful not to fall into the trap of literally interpreting Traveller's nautical terms as those of the wet navy of the past or present. A lot of those have changed over the years anyway in real life so in Trav terms they can mean whatever you want.

For example: some people think missile bays are big turrets and some think they are like something from Robotech or an Aegis cruiser VLS. I go with both and say they are big turreted box launchers that have the boxes reloaded from behind automatically and have a wider arc of fire than a strict VLS system.

 

[Zutroi]

IIRC, there are non-missile bays as well. I always pictured these as an array of large (or at least larger than the turret/barbette mounted ones) lasers/PA/energy weapons or what-have-you, sharing a common fire-control system and all aimed at a single target (to avoid crossing the streams, I suppose.)

Bays are open to space when in use, but may be closed off during cruise (if the design permits) to allow for shirt-sleeve maintenance.

 

[Major B]

However, this would require the turret to partially intrude into the ship's hull. I guess that you could assume that the 1dton of fire control might partially cover this, but on some of the earliest deck plans that I saw (like from Snapshot! or Traders and Gunboats) sometimes there was internal space allocated near the turrets and other times there wasn't.

That is how I envision turrets - they have to extend into the hull somewhat. For deckplans I've done recently I've used the turret's listed volume as the space taken up inside the hull, and assumed the the external portion only housed the weapons themselves in a fully rotatable mount remotely operated from inside. Since MT crew requirements routinely assigns less gunners than the number of turrets I've assumed a redundancy. Batteries are operated from centralized gunnery stations (singular in smaller ships) and the interior space of each turret contains a backup gunner's station in case the weapons need to be manually controlled for any reason.

Here in these images you can see that these weapon type systems are large spaces near the surface of the ship where you can mount different type weapon modules or maybe even leave it empty as a storage space, which seems like it could be along the lines of the original definition in High Guard. Here are some images that I drew up to demonstrate what I think a 50dton bay like this might look like in Traveller terms. In the first view you can see how the bay is dropped into an opening near the surface of the hull so that only the rotating weapon mount is shown above/external to the hull but the rest of the unit (in blue) is shown within the hull.

Think of a bay like the the battery of fixed missiles on either a sub or a CG. That's a bay; a collection of weapons ready to launch; i.e. missiles cloistered together in launch housings.

For example: some people think missile bays are big turrets and some think they are like something from Robotech or an Aegis cruiser VLS. I go with both and say they are big turreted box launchers that have the boxes reloaded from behind automatically and have a wider arc of fire than a strict VLS system.

The description of bays confused me too and the pictures show how I envisioned reconciling the ability to use empty bays for storage and the bit in the MT RM that describes a bay as 'essentially a large turret' (not sure if that wording is exact).

Sabredog's description of a missile turret matches mine. Not a exuivalent to a VLS but a rotatable box launcher that can be trained in a given direction to ensure the missiles track on the intended target.

A barbette, defined by HG and those in the know, is a self contained weapon mounted externally from the ship's hull.

The barbette thing I still think is either the "larger turret" described in the Gazelle article when it first came out. Or, it's more like a casemate gun, which would be sticking out of the side of the hull like the 5" guns on the sides of a lot of dreadnoughts and cruisers.

My image of a barbette is similar - something like the sponson-mounted 75mm gun on the M3 Lee/Grant tank from WWII or the weapons mounted along the hull on a pre-dreadnought battleship. It has more limited traverse than a turret but has at least some ability to train onto a target so it is better than a fixed mount (like a spinal mount weapon). MT seems to have discarded the idea of barbettes, but requires larger turrets for earlier particle accelerator models. There are no rules to penalize either limited traverse or no-traverse (fixed-mount) weapons though I'm considering a house rule to do that.

 

[Icosahedron]

I'm with Major B. IMTU the listed volume of the turret is the bit inside the ship. Small ship turrets are controlled locally, larger ships and batteries are controlled remotely.
Barbettes are simply overgrown turrets.
Bays are similar to an Enterprise shuttle bay with clamshell doors and may have either internal, or popup weapons similar to the Shado 2 vehicle (on TV not the toy).

 

[sabredog]

My image of a barbette is similar - something like the sponson-mounted 75mm gun on the M3 Lee/Grant tank from WWII or the weapons mounted along the hull on a pre-dreadnought battleship. It has more limited traverse than a turret but has at least some ability to train onto a target so it is better than a fixed mount (like a spinal mount weapon). MT seems to have discarded the idea of barbettes, but requires larger turrets for earlier particle accelerator models. There are no rules to penalize either limited traverse or no-traverse (fixed-mount) weapons though I'm considering a house rule to do that.[/FONT]

The "batteries bearing" rule seems to cover this in an abstract way since it simulates that only x-number of guns can be on any given side of the ship. I think a better way to handle this that would take account of the 3-D aspect of space combat (rather than the psuedo-line of battle model HG seems to be using) would be to determine the number of batteries bearing by taking into account both the size and configuration of the ship, and then break it down into primary centrally directed weapons (the spinal gun doesn't count, this is for just the Bay weapons), secondary centrally directed weapons (barbettes since they have that limited firing arc), and finally the locally controlled batteries (turrets).

So, first determine the total number of batteries bearing based on size and configuration. Then break this total number down by using a percentile of each type of weapon to see how many will actually bear.

Then add the highest percentile modifier to determine primary batteries (the largest modifier to reflect the importance of these weapons).

The next highest modifier would be for the turret batteries to reflect both local fire control and that they would be the equivalent of the AA and anti-torpedo guns on a dreadnought or battleship and have the most discretion on targeting along with being turrets.

The lowest modifier would be for the secondaries (barbettes and other limited arc weapons) to reflect the limited arcs in addition to more central fire control.

An example might be that if you had say a potential total of 100 potential batteries bearing out of X number of total weapons based on the ship's size and configuration so it might be broken down to 50 bay weapons (those big centrally controlled turrets for masses salvo fire), 30 turret batteries, and 20 barbette (or limited arc weapon mounts) batteries.

I also flipped in my game the values of the PAW barbettes with the PAW turrets - so the turrets do less damage than the barbettes. I know, I know, the turrets could be smaller because they are a better design, but it makes them more useful otherwise why bother with them? And they are bigger.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Here are my general definitions for weapon systems

Turrets: A weapon system mounted and has 180 degrees hemispherical arc of fire.

Barbarettes: A mounted weapon system that has 120 degree cone of fire.

Bays: A space allocated that houses a static missile system, launched either horizonally or vertically.

Fixed weapon system: Any ballistic or energy weapon that is mounted to or in a hull. Aiming the weapon requires turn the ship towards it oponent much like a fighter aircraft.

Missiles: Are rockets which can track a target anywhere in the near space around a ship.

Torpedoes: Are rockets which can only track a taget within 120 degree cone of fire.

If you look at the CotI Build, you will see some examples of the turrets I've made. The Ericson build has an example of a weapons bay (retractable energy or ballistic weapon).

Weapon terminology:

PAW: Particle Accelerator Weapon
PPC: Pulse Particle Weapon
Laser: Standard Sci-fi definition
LAG: Linear Accelerator Weapon (Guass, railgun or needler take your pick)
Cannon: weapons with large bore or energy weapons intended to damage large targets
Lance: Energy weapons intend for anti aircraft/missile fire.
SRM: Short Range Missile
MRM: Medium Range Missile
LRM: Long Range Missile
Battery: 2 or 3 weapon system mounted in a single turret or barabette.
Array: 3 or more weapons mounted in such a way to provide 180 degree hemispherical fire.
ECB: Energy Converstion Bomb (Changes energy into mass reverse of e=mc2)
CSM: Cluster Submuntion (multi-warhead or Cluster Bomb)
Conventional Warhead: Warhead that use explosives (mostly found on civilian ships)
Plasma Warheads: The warhead is filled with energy plasma (first stage towards ECB) and can be modified to do different damages or perform different tasks.
EC Warheads: See ECB

Electronic Countermeasure:

ECM Decoy: a small missile that broadcast a signal that makes Missiles and Torpedoes believe it is a ship.
ECM Suite: Reduces the eletromagnetic signature of a ship.

Armor:

Slab: A solid plate of armor
Space-gap: Armor with a gap in between it that reduce the damage to the interior of a ship.
Abative: reduces energy weapons fire by "burning off" parts of the armor.
Force Shields: Standard Sci-fi definition (Power requires are basically 2 unit of power to 1 unit of defence.

This subject is so complex and people have so many house rules concerning weapons and their usage it best to keep it simple. That's what I've tried to do. The biggest part of a Gamemaster's job is controling his player desires for larger and larger weapons. Standardizing the weapons and "trade goods" is key to control this. If everyone is on the same level (NPC or PC) then there is no use for that mytical hand held weapon that zap your enemies into little particles.

Second thing I impress upon players is a civilian ship cannot win against a military ship. Its all about firepower. Military ships have it and civilian don't (unless you go IBay (Interstellar EBay) and find some surplus military weapons). And even then, those nasty Starport officals begin asking those silly little questions of why you want to mount military hardware on your punity little civilian tramp frieghter?

Planetary goverments as well as the Interstellar powers don't like the idea of having armed ships running around able to take down one of their warships. First it's bad for business and second it makes them look like they can't handle some civilians with a PAW. When Pirates get to bad in one sector or the trade war get's a little to bloody, the interstellar governments are going to step in and clean your clock. Even in frontier zone, the major powers are going to track your butt down and beat the tar out of you. WHY? Because you are a threat to the stability of their governent and trade.

Sorry to say this but money makes the world turn and is the binding agent for any interstellar community. All you have to do is look at history and see what it will be like in the future. Because mankind is always going to make the same mistake over and over again...

 

[Rigel Stardin]

One other thing we need to discuss in this thread.

Wargaming VS RPG.

Wargames like HGS and Mayday (as I understand it) use a different rule set than Traveller the RPG. The reason there is one is about fleet actions and the other is for individual starship action. GDW and those who followed in their footsteps made this distintion because there are people who enjoy wargaming and there are people who like to role play character in a story line. The community has mashed these two systems together in order to balance their games, without realizing the intent of the designers. That is why I see so much confusion about weapons here.

Starships modeling (Deckplans) are intend to be a playing area for the PCs involed in a story spun by the GM. Starship Stats (design a ship just for combat) are used for wargaming where the players are intending to use them in combat against other ships. The lines get blurred between wargaming and RPG when to add excitement to the game the Player Character are involved in ship on ship combat.

Anyone who has run a game knows, to enrich it they must use every source available to them. HGS ideas are then thrown into Traveller based games for the following reasons: Easy of use, better idea or more richly detailed. There is no one on this forum who plays a Cannonized version Traveller, rather a collection of rules which fit his or hers version of the game. That's the way the RPG community is and will all ways be.

Adapting rules from a wargame to an RPG often become the bone of contention forcing the GM to justify his actions to the player. House rules become more important than the actual Cannonized verison of the game. In the end, players either accept the rules or move on to another group trying to find that perfect mix of players and GMs that fit their style. Upon finding that special mix, that GM's version becomes the one that is forever locked in our mind.

Can the two be ingrated into one, of course they can. The issue then is a matter of opinion which we then see posted here. The thing we have to remember here is the differance between Role Playing and Wargaming. If you run a game where fleet actions are common place and the player characters are a small part of it then you have to make allowances for ship desgins and stats. In a regular Role Playing game, where fleet actions are uncommon the ship and the manner of combat must reflect this.

Weapons and their stats should be talyored to fit your style of play (Missile are a great example right now because of the confusion they make when you try to upscale them from Traveller to HGS). In general, if you bring a ship in from HGS as an encounter for your PC, then the players ought to have to a chance of either flee or beat it (Unless of course it a battleship and you're in a tramp frieghter). It's a balancing act we must all endure to run an enjoyable game for those who play with us...

 

[sabredog]

Here are my general definitions for weapon systems

Turrets: A weapon system mounted and has 180 degrees hemispherical arc of fire.

Barbarettes: A mounted weapon system that has 120 degree cone of fire.

Bays: A space allocated that houses a static missile system, launched either horizonally or vertically.

Fixed weapon system: Any ballistic or energy weapon that is mounted to or in a hull. Aiming the weapon requires turn the ship towards it oponent much like a fighter aircraft.

Missiles: Are rockets which can track a target anywhere in the near space around a ship.

Torpedoes: Are rockets which can only track a taget within 120 degree cone of fire.

These are great, but they don't all apply in a 3-D space environment that also has ships shooting at each other from light-seconds away and closing at hypervelocity+. I agree that missiles can (particularly since they are a long-range weapon) could be shot from even the rearward facing of the ship and still move towards their intended target 1500 kilometers+ away, but as ranges close things would have to start shifting.

Also, the whole batteries bearing issue as striclty a quality of a shop's size doesn't accurately reflect the details of a ship's design as it would in a 2-D environment, but its a usable abstraction in a 3_D one since the ship can change attitude in all directions to keep the maximum number of weapons firing.

Strictly and "realistically" speaking even this might not be that accurate, since some batteries that are missing some weapons on one side of the ship might cause other, less trainable weapons on another side to become masked when the ship moves to allow the previous batteries to be fully engaged, but it still more or less works.

But that's why I gave Major B a quick example of how to break down the limited arc weapons vs. the turreted ones to help more accurately reflect the problem without having to go into a pretty complex model revolving around facing. Such as you would with a game like Seekrieg or Beat To Quarters.

And having cut my teeth on Napoleonic miniature wargames before delving into the boardgames and let alone RPGs I'm more comfortable with making those abstraction compromises when dealing with massive numbers of different weapons, units, and capabilities in order to play a game that won't just take days to resolve an hour's combat. Air War...."shuddder".

This subject is so complex and people have so many house rules concerning weapons and their usage it best to keep it simple. That's what I've tried to do. The biggest part of a Gamemaster's job is controling his player desires for larger and larger weapons. Standardizing the weapons and "trade goods" is key to control this. If everyone is on the same level (NPC or PC) then there is no use for that mytical hand held weapon that zap your enemies into little particles.

Second thing I impress upon players is a civilian ship cannot win against a military ship. Its all about firepower. Military ships have it and civilian don't (unless you go IBay (Interstellar EBay) and find some surplus military weapons). And even then, those nasty Starport officals begin asking those silly little questions of why you want to mount military hardware on your punity little civilian tramp frieghter?

Planetary goverments as well as the Interstellar powers don't like the idea of having armed ships running around able to take down one of their warships. First it's bad for business and second it makes them look like they can't handle some civilians with a PAW. When Pirates get to bad in one sector or the trade war get's a little to bloody, the interstellar governments are going to step in and clean your clock. Even in frontier zone, the major powers are going to track your butt down and beat the tar out of you. WHY? Because you are a threat to the stability of their governent and trade.

Sorry to say this but money makes the world turn and is the binding agent for any interstellar community. All you have to do is look at history and see what it will be like in the future. Because mankind is always going to make the same mistake over and over again...

Yes, and no. Depending on how you run your game you can have anything going on that you want, but for example let's take the basic CT concept: no armor (screens either) and everyone has access to the same weapons. A "warship" might just be bigger, have more guns, and certainly have a better trained crew (at least in theory). OK, that still works as far as it being risky to foolish to tackle a military craft - depending - on who's military it is.

The Royal Navy had worse ships technologically than the French but would beat them because their crews were better trained and experienced. (Lots of things could be added, but they always can be - I'm just making a point on CT here.) So often smaller British ships in poorer condition, slower, and not always having as many guns (the French and Americans built the monster frigates, for example, the Brits thought that was unfair because thier's tended towards the 24-32 gun range with smaller cannon and more carronades) beat larger, faster, and often heavier gunned French ships.

In CT the same can happen because that game is very much like the same historical period - warships are just bigger (maybe), have more guns (maybe), and better crews (maybe). than civilian ships (maybe).

And don't forget that during the 1700+ Napoleonic and American Wars privateers were usually just private schooners, cutters, and such loaded up with cannon and sent out to harass shipping and did so very successfully. Heck, the US "Navy" during the Revolution was pretty much composed of just that kind of ship. Brigs were about the biggest thing we had afloat. Even in the war of 1812 there were only 6 frigates - the British had hundreds of those and things like 74's and up.

In HG we get into more of the Pre-dreadnought to post days, and there, yeah, the little guy has almost no chance against a modern warship. A lower tech one, smaller and maybe with less armor - maybe. But that depends on which system of combat resolution you use and a host of other factors - crew quality (read "character skills") still plays a hugely under-appreciated role, though.

Anyway, sorry to rant - but this is sort of why there are so many house rules and why the subject is so complex even though it is at the same time so simple in Traveller. The key, I believe, is to remember we are talking about space combat, and whether or not you run a "small ship" game (CT level) or a "big ship" game (HG) and at what level do the players fit in.

Me, I run a small ship game with a slightly modified house rule to allow for limited HG influence and the big ship stuff stays in the background except for extremely rare instances.

 

[sabredog]

Can the two be ingrated into one, of course they can. The issue then is a matter of opinion which we then see posted here. The thing we have to remember here is the differance between Role Playing and Wargaming. If you run a game where fleet actions are common place and the player characters are a small part of it then you have to make allowances for ship desgins and stats. In a regular Role Playing game, where fleet actions are uncommon the ship and the manner of combat must reflect this.

OK, here's how I do it:

Basic house rules on design limits:

One of the reasons I use a two-tiered system for ships in Traveller is to take the different levels of weaponry and energy requirements into account without causing an unbalance. In original LBB2 any freighter could mount the same armament as the biggest warship. You end up with the same situation as the old sailing days - a 24 pdr gun is a 24 pdr gun and the only difference is how many can you carry. Well and good, but when meson guns, shields, repulsors and PAW bays start entering the picture then things have to be changed.

So, the rules of thumb are:

If you are a civilian building a civilian ship you use LBB2 unless you need some super custom job for some reason. Like if you are building a research vessel that has some special requirements, or want to be able to use the more exotic weapons...

...in which case you then use HG to build your ship because if you are using other than the off-the-shelf components in LLB2 you have to take into account energy point requirements, finer tuned agility rules (one reason to custom build using HG is if you want a ship that absolutely positively has to have high agility all the time), and more flexiblity in design.

Ship hulls can be refit using either design system but again, only so long as you use the basic weapons can you use the LBB2 components. You want PAWs and/or screens you have to use HG.

Armor can be built into an LBB2 design per the HG rules. The primary sections of a ship can have armor added to them by calculating the tonnage of the section and using that to determine armor tonnage for that section alone. The sections are: Bridge (incl Computer), Fuel tankage, Engineering, Cargo, hull (everything else).

LBB2 ships can use drop tanks but the tanks do not add tonnage for the purposes of creating more hardpoints (no Gazelle Cheat allowed).

Component backups can be worked into either design system, but they are backups only - not combined for increased performance.

For purposes of determining agility you have to use the agility system matched to the design system used to build the ship:

LBB2 designs use my house rule for determining agility; this is because the maneuver drives in this system are smaller than in HG for the same thrust. Included in this house rule is the size limit for landing ships safely. LBB2 ships tend to be slower and less agile but cheaper.

HG ships use the HG formula for agility; it creates faster, more nimble ships which is why the maneuver drives are so huge. The house rule for size limits for landing still applies. HG ships tend to be faster and more agile, but more expensive.

Player ships built with HG don’t use the battery rules for weapons; that is only for the really big ships that players swim in the shadows of.

Bays are really huge turrets in my universe so you can’t use them to store things if you take out the weapons like it mentions in HG.

 

[sabredog]

Second, the rules for combat:

Traveller Ship Combat Conventions

Expanded and modified High Guard/LBB2 rules to allow for small ship (5000 tons or less) combat.

Weapon Rules

Missiles – Per LBB2 missiles will always hit the target unless stopped by countermeasures. Missiles are fired at end of turn, and hit at end of following turn.

• ECM program stops all incoming missiles currently in flight on a roll of 7+ each
• Anti-Missile: Lasers can destroy one incoming missile on a roll of 8+ ( +1 DM per laser in turret above the first one) Pulse Lasers must roll 9+. ONLY Beam Lasers used to fire on enemy targets are allowed to fire on incoming missiles, Pulse Lasers cannot shift fire quickly enough.
• Sandcasters: Each incoming missile must save at 11- on 2D6 if sand is fired.


Missile Types – Missiles may be fired from turrets or bays. Bay missiles (commonly called torpedoes) cannot be fired from turrets, but can be launched from ordnance hardpoints on small craft so equipped, i.e. FA-6 Avenger Torpedo/Bomber. A 50-ton missile bay fires 4 torpedoes at a time, a 100-ton bay fires 8.

• Standard HE: does 1D6 hits (less armor) applied randomly
• Standard HEAP: does 4 points damage (less armor) to one location
• HE Torpedo: as standard HE, but 3D6 hits (less armor) applied randomly
• HEAP Torpedo: 8 points damage (less armor) to one location


Energy Weapons – Each turret rolls only once to hit a target. All fired energy weapons in the turret hit on that single roll. Armor protects against each weapon mount independently. For example, a triple laser turret firing all its weapons rolls once to hit, and then once on the location table for 3 points of damage against that location less armor. 3 points of armor would keep out triple beam turrets no matter how many turrets fired.
• Beam Lasers – Beam lasers hit at 8+ (+/- appropriate DM) and do 1 point of damage each.
• Pulse Lasers – Pulse lasers hit at 9+ (+/- appropriate DM) and do 2 points damage each.
• Plasma / Fusion Guns – Both are short range weapons that can be fired from turrets and bays. Plasma guns do 3 points each, Fusion guns do 4. Bay versions are increased by 2 points respectively at 50 tons, 4 at 100 tons.
• Particle Accelerator Weapons (PAW)-
• PAW turrets do 4 points damage (less armor) plus 1 hit radiation damage, crew take 1D6 damage (less personal armor).
• PAW barbettes do 6 points (less armor) and 2 hits/2D6 radiation damage.
• PAW Bays 50-ton bays do 8 points damage (less armor) plus 4 hits & 3D6 personnel radiation damage. 100-ton bays do 12 points damage (less armor) plus 6 hits & 4D6 personnel radiation damage.
Personal armor reduces crew radiation by that armor’s point value.

Sandcasters – Sand will stop incoming laser fire at a rate of I canister of sand per laser stopped. For example: a triple laser turret would do 3 points damage if it hit, but only 1 point if 2 canisters of sand had been fired.

• Sand is launched at the end of the turn and counts towards the next round of laser fire.
• Sand only lasts one round of laser fire.
• Launchers may only launch one canister per turn.
• Sand will not stop fusion/plasma guns or PAW fire.


Armor – Ships may be armored per High Guard rules.


Boarding Actions

In all matters concerning maneuver the ship with the highest agility rating will dictate the range between ships.

To board another ship, its vector and velocity must be matched. To force a boarding the attacking vessel must have a higher agility than the target. If this is the case then the pilot of the boarding vessel must roll 10+ (plus Pilot or Small Craft skill as DM) to match course and lock the craft together.

The high roll is to simulate any desperate maneuvering the target ship may try at the last minute to avoid a forced boarding.


Damage Control

Critical hits may not be repaired since the damage has destroyed the component.

Components damaged to zero cannot be temporarily repaired more than to half their original value. For example: a Jump-2 drive damaged to 0 and then repaired will only function as Jump-1 until permanent repairs can be made.

Turrets hit twice are destroyed and may not be repaired,

All repairs are considered temporary only and will fail after the next jump unless more permanent repairs can be made in a shipyard.

The time required to make a repair is equal to 2D6 combat man-turns minus appropriate skill level. For example: the Jump Drive takes two points damage in combat. The Engineer rolls 2D6 and gets 5…less Engineer-3 equals 2 combat man-turns to patch things up. It means the Engineer will need 2 turns working by himself, or only 1 if another character with Engineer skill helps.



Combat Sequence

• Ranges are defined as moving from Long to Short to Close

1 – Both sides begin at Long Range unless special circumstances have occurred as ruled by the referee.

2 – Combat proceeds as per Book 2 rules (with DM’s per house rules below)

3 – At the end of the turn the ship with the highest agility will determine range for the next turn.

4 – When moving from Short to Close Range in an attempt to force a boarding action against an opponent who has functional weapons, the defender will be able to have 1 free fire round with ½ half of his functional weapons mounts against the attacking ship provided the weapons are still manned at the time of the range change (you can’t run from “starboard to larboard” with gun crews to replace casualties in this round).

• Missiles cannot be used for this free fire because they will not have sufficient time to properly arm prior to impact. At his option the referee may decide this rule does not apply to the specific situation.


Weapon Range Modifiers

Lasers: At Long Range all lasers fire at -1DM (-3 for Pulse)

Plasma/Fusion Guns may ONLY be employed at Short & Close Range

Missiles: Missiles cannot be fired at Close Range. 10+ on 2D6 to hit at Short Range. Automatic hit unless intercepted at Long Range.

All other weapons have no specific range modifiers.

 

[sabredog]

Hit Tables :

I have generic expanded ones, but for customized ships with more selective armoring (applique', "citadel"-style bridges, or up-armored drive areas and such), carriers, and other special types I use custom hit tables.

And for agility rules-melding I do this:

High Guard ships have huge power plants and maneuver drives tailored to the specific ship designed compared with the off the shelf ones in Book 2. That means the High Guard drives are more efficient and will produce more bang for the buck, but you have to make sure the power is distributed to computers, weapons, shields, etc., so there might not be enough power left for high agility. But, (IMTU) I assume that while the players don't have to worry about having enough power points for all their weapons and computers when designing Book 2 ships (which is my rule for all non-military ships), they don't get to have all that agility you can get from High Guard drives and plants.

I assign potential agility to Book 2 designs by tonnage. The actual agility the ship then gets is equal to the acceleration of the maneuver drive to the max potential. So 6-G fighters get 6, but an 800 ton cruiser can never have more than 3 no matter how big the drives are. Straight line acceleration is easy, but pushing the mass around laterally quickly takes more time and effort.

1-99 max Agility 6
100-300 max Agility 5
301-600 max Agility 4
601-800 max Agility 3
801-1000 max Agility 2
1001-2000 max Agility 1
2001 + no agility

Agility is based on the maneuver drive number up to the max allowed for the tonnage of the ship. For example, a 200 ton ship has a max agility potential of 5, but if the M-drive is only rated to 3 then that will be the agility.
Because LBB2 ships greater than 2000 tons have no agility rating they are only able to land on worlds with less than 1G of gravity and no atmosphere. There must also be a class A or B starport in order to have sufficient space and facilities to handle a ship of this size.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I'm with Major B. IMTU the listed volume of the turret is the bit inside the ship. Small ship turrets are controlled locally, larger ships and batteries are controlled remotely.
Barbettes are simply overgrown turrets.
Bays are similar to an Enterprise shuttle bay with clamshell doors and may have either internal, or popup weapons similar to the Shado 2 vehicle (on TV not the toy).

A bay is like an Enterprise shuttle bay? What the hell?

 

[sabredog]

He means the bay weapon system is behind armored clamshell or roll-up doors inside the hull as opposed to sitting on top of the hull surface. Like some modern torpedo and ASROC launcher systems are today.


UFO...I love that show!

 

[Blue Ghost]

Icosahedron; a shuttle bay? Care to clarify?

 

[aramis]

I suspect Icos means the bay doors close over the turret portion of the bay; it might even telescope out past the closed doors.

I've used that mode in a couple campaigns, then I got AHL...

 

[Icosahedron]

Icosahedron; a shuttle bay? Care to clarify?

BG, I'm over the pond in a different time zone, so sometimes there may be an 8 or so hour delay before I can reply. I just read both your requests for info.

Sabredog and Aramis are correct in their interpretations. Imagine the TOS shuttle bay with a torpedo launcher, rack of missile launchers or a massive tail-gun mounted in it - and if the weapon is removed, the bay can be used for other things - like housing shuttlecraft.

Edit: I even like the fact that it's rounded - makes for an easier firing arc.

 

[Major B]

Rigel Stardin and Sabredog, thanks both of you for posting all of these ideas. I wish I had more time for reading and exchanging on this subject but until I do, I had one small bit to add to the discussion related to this:

The "batteries bearing" rule seems to cover this in an abstract way since it simulates that only x-number of guns can be on any given side of the ship. I think a better way to handle this that would take account of the 3-D aspect of space combat (rather than the psuedo-line of battle model HG seems to be using) would be to determine the number of batteries bearing by taking into account both the size and configuration of the ship, and then break it down into primary centrally directed weapons (the spinal gun doesn't count, this is for just the Bay weapons), secondary centrally directed weapons (barbettes since they have that limited firing arc), and finally the locally controlled batteries (turrets). [emphasis added]

Configuration was where I am looking too. MT rules give cost and weight savings or penalties for different hull configurations but only differentiate by displacement for batteries bearing. Worse, the rules assume that single batteries always bear which I don't like when the battery is a fixed mount (but I'll cover that next). A wedge ship no matter the size could conceivably have all batteries bear if the target is to the firing ship's front, while only a small number might bear if the target is behind the firing ship. A cylinder-hulled vessel would need to broadside a target to present the most battaries and might even be able to rotate the hull to allow more batteries to fire in a turn, but then the spinal mount (if any) would not be able to fire at the same target.

My difficulty is that I want to strike a balance between ease of use and plausibility (almost said realism there) and I haven't hit on a good solution yet other than referee's fiat.

Fixed mounts I usually envision as mounted fixed-forward so that the ship or craft can't accelerate except toward the target ship. So when the fighter with fixed weapons is trying to get away, I don't let them fire unless they are not accelerating in which case they can maintain constant progress on their current vector and face any direction they wish (bringing the weapon(s) to bear).

Again, thanks for the discussion. I'll be following the thread more though I'm not sure how often I'll be able to post.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Major B: You can fire on ships without the loss of speed and course in a zero gee environment. Spacecraft and even starships can fly backwards without lost of speed or manuverablity. One example of that is below...

Crazy Ivan: In the wet navies of old, submarines use to turn around on a random bases to check the rear for the presences of enemy vessel in there accoustic shadow. In space warfare, it is a tact used to fire on enemy ships approaching from the rear....

Basically you fire your directional motors to spin the ship around while maintain speed, thus allowing you to bring your main weapons to bear on the enemy. You can do this because you're in a zero gee environment.

Basic description of manuver:
Pilot shut down main manuvering drive allow the ship to coast. He then fires his directional motor bringing his main weapons around on target without loss of speed or with little or no loss of direct. Failure to preform the manuver correctly changes course and speed.

The Need for Speed:
If you've ever watch the History Channel's Dogfights you know that speed is key to winning any enguagement. Therefore, applying the brakes might get you killed in most cases, however there are situtations when you can (i'm not going to give all my secrets away).

Gravitronic Drives:
Grav drives give the ship the ablility to do right angle turns without penalities in space. Depending on the shape of your craft, doing these manuvers in the atmosphere may tear it apart. We're talking pure Anti-grav here, its not the same grav tech as in Traveller.