Slaved Turrets

[Supplement Four]

Another idea from my WD readings (although this one is Supplement Four-ized).

Book 2 Space Combat. Turrets can be slaved together as long as they share firing arc.

But, the gunner's skill is only applied to the turrent he is operating. Slaved turrets fire using no gunner input, even if the gunner interact program is running (they fire at 2D for 8+).







Alternate idea....

Slaved Turrest do use the gunner's skill as a DM to hit when the gunner interact program is running...but the gunner is subject to the CT multiple jobs rule (where a crew member can do more than one job at a time--but he's considered at 1 skill level lower for each additional job).

Therefore (when using the gunner interact program), a character with Gunner-2 could operate one turret with the usual +2DM.

Or, he could slave in another turret with the same firing arc, but he would be considered Gunner-1 for each weapon.

Or, a third weapon can be slaved in, provided it used the same firing arc, and the gunner is considered Gunner-0 on all three turrets.

This gunner, with Gunner-2, could not operate four slaved turrets.

 

[Supplement Four]

Another idea from my WD readings (although this one is Supplement Four-ized).

Book 2 Space Combat. Turrets can be slaved together as long as they share firing arc.

But, the gunner's skill is only applied to the turrent he is operating. Slaved turrets fire using no gunner input, even if the gunner interact program is running (they fire at 2D for 8+).







Alternate idea....

Slaved Turrest do use the gunner's skill as a DM to hit when the gunner interact program is running...but the gunner is subject to the CT multiple jobs rule (where a crew member can do more than one job at a time--but he's considered at 1 skill level lower for each additional job).

Therefore (when using the gunner interact program), a character with Gunner-2 could operate one turret with the usual +2DM.

Or, he could slave in another turret with the same firing arc, but he would be considered Gunner-1 for each weapon.

Or, a third weapon can be slaved in, provided it used the same firing arc, and the gunner is considered Gunner-0 on all three turrets.

This gunner, with Gunner-2, could not operate four slaved turrets.

 

[robject]

Slaving turrets together is being considered for T5.

 

[robject]

Slaving turrets together is being considered for T5.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
... the gunner's skill is only applied to the turrent he is operating. Slaved turrets fire using no gunner input, even if the gunner interact program is running (they fire at 2D for 8+).

This option makes more sense to me than the second one. Presumably the computer is operating the slaved turrets based on the one which the gunner is controlling. Thus, the gunner's skill should have no bearing on any of the slaved turrets. The number of turrets which can be slaved should relate to the computer running them.

I think this would call for a 'turret slave' program of different levels (e.g. TS-1 for up to 2 slaved turrets, TS-2 for 4 turrets, etc.). Maybe even more, because LBB2 computers would run out of space pretty quickly if multiple gunners were running these. Think of a 2000 dton ship with only 4 gunners, each running 4 slaved turrets in addition to their own. It would save a lot of accommodation space and cost: 8 double staterooms at 32 dtons and 4MCr.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
... the gunner's skill is only applied to the turrent he is operating. Slaved turrets fire using no gunner input, even if the gunner interact program is running (they fire at 2D for 8+).

This option makes more sense to me than the second one. Presumably the computer is operating the slaved turrets based on the one which the gunner is controlling. Thus, the gunner's skill should have no bearing on any of the slaved turrets. The number of turrets which can be slaved should relate to the computer running them.

I think this would call for a 'turret slave' program of different levels (e.g. TS-1 for up to 2 slaved turrets, TS-2 for 4 turrets, etc.). Maybe even more, because LBB2 computers would run out of space pretty quickly if multiple gunners were running these. Think of a 2000 dton ship with only 4 gunners, each running 4 slaved turrets in addition to their own. It would save a lot of accommodation space and cost: 8 double staterooms at 32 dtons and 4MCr.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
This option makes more sense to me than the second one. Presumably the computer is operating the slaved turrets based on the one which the gunner is controlling. Thus, the gunner's skill should have no bearing on any of the slaved turrets. The number of turrets which can be slaved should relate to the computer running them.

I could see it either way. You make a strong case.

OTOH, I could also envision a gunner "running" several slaved weapons at a time, focusing on his main turret, but also correcting/inputting data into the computer-assist. The penalty puts both a limit on how many turrets the gunner can operate in a slaved fashion and a penalty as the work piles up.

I like both ideas. Leaning towards your argument, though. I'll have to consider both if this comes up in my game.

I think this would call for a 'turret slave' program of different levels

Now that makes a lot of sense to me. Consider it copied into my notes.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
This option makes more sense to me than the second one. Presumably the computer is operating the slaved turrets based on the one which the gunner is controlling. Thus, the gunner's skill should have no bearing on any of the slaved turrets. The number of turrets which can be slaved should relate to the computer running them.

I could see it either way. You make a strong case.

OTOH, I could also envision a gunner "running" several slaved weapons at a time, focusing on his main turret, but also correcting/inputting data into the computer-assist. The penalty puts both a limit on how many turrets the gunner can operate in a slaved fashion and a penalty as the work piles up.

I like both ideas. Leaning towards your argument, though. I'll have to consider both if this comes up in my game.

I think this would call for a 'turret slave' program of different levels

Now that makes a lot of sense to me. Consider it copied into my notes.

-S4

 

[BlackBat242]

My question is this...

"Slaved" means that the other turrets are pointing at exactly the same target as the one the gunner is using as "master", and they fire at exactly the same time as the "master"... so how do they act in any way different than the "master"?

Sure, the computer is adjusting for the positioning on the hull, but since the computer operates far faster than the human mind can, this adjustment is made so fast that it cannot materially affect the aiming or firing of the turret.

This degradation of the "slaved" turret's accuracy... or the reduction in applied gunner skill purely because the computer is relaying his commands to more than one turret, make no sense at all from a real, practical view of how electronics and computers work.

The only thing any such rule does is apply an artificial, externally-applied restriction to force the ship's Captain to hire more gunners... that is based only on a Referee's desire to "fudge" reality in order to satisfy his/her view of "game balance".

 

[BlackBat242]

My question is this...

"Slaved" means that the other turrets are pointing at exactly the same target as the one the gunner is using as "master", and they fire at exactly the same time as the "master"... so how do they act in any way different than the "master"?

Sure, the computer is adjusting for the positioning on the hull, but since the computer operates far faster than the human mind can, this adjustment is made so fast that it cannot materially affect the aiming or firing of the turret.

This degradation of the "slaved" turret's accuracy... or the reduction in applied gunner skill purely because the computer is relaying his commands to more than one turret, make no sense at all from a real, practical view of how electronics and computers work.

The only thing any such rule does is apply an artificial, externally-applied restriction to force the ship's Captain to hire more gunners... that is based only on a Referee's desire to "fudge" reality in order to satisfy his/her view of "game balance".

 

[far-trader]

Perhaps it's a game mechanic to simulate the difference in angle of the strike or delay in coinciding the hits due to the ship having to roll to bring each slaved turret to bear without shooting through your own ship?

 

[far-trader]

Perhaps it's a game mechanic to simulate the difference in angle of the strike or delay in coinciding the hits due to the ship having to roll to bring each slaved turret to bear without shooting through your own ship?

 

[BlackBat242]

"Book 2 Space Combat. Turrets can be slaved together as long as they share firing arc."

This means that no such "rolling the ship" is needed... since all of the "connected" turrets must be able to fire on the same target with the same firing arc.

 

[BlackBat242]

"Book 2 Space Combat. Turrets can be slaved together as long as they share firing arc."

This means that no such "rolling the ship" is needed... since all of the "connected" turrets must be able to fire on the same target with the same firing arc.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by BlackBat242:
"Book 2 Space Combat. Turrets can be slaved together as long as they share firing arc."

Ah, that's right, that was mentioned up-thread mea culpa

Still could be off angle, maybe, but the angle is going to be so slight as to be negligible. Soooo, you got me BlackBat242. Makes little sense to me either, but then I've always played house rules that allow on the fly configuration of firing batteries with no penalty

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by BlackBat242:
"Book 2 Space Combat. Turrets can be slaved together as long as they share firing arc."

Ah, that's right, that was mentioned up-thread mea culpa

Still could be off angle, maybe, but the angle is going to be so slight as to be negligible. Soooo, you got me BlackBat242. Makes little sense to me either, but then I've always played house rules that allow on the fly configuration of firing batteries with no penalty

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by BlackBat242:
The only thing any such rule does is apply an artificial, externally-applied restriction to force the ship's Captain to hire more gunners... that is based only on a Referee's desire to "fudge" reality in order to satisfy his/her view of "game balance".

It surely does that, and I'd be lying if I wasn't thinking in those terms when suggesting such a rule.

But, too, have you ever played online poker?

Ever played more than one table at a time?

I have. Two tables is a lot more involved than I was expecting, and I found that my play degraded as I made decisions for both tables.

One time, I opened three tables and played 'em. I'll never do that again. Lost money that session.

The work load needed for success certainly more than doubled for me--it went up exponentially.

And, that's just poker--not operating a weapon system during combat with my life on the line.

I think the rule's got a little ore reality to it than you might be giving it credit for--with the side benefit of the game dynamic you mention above.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by BlackBat242:
The only thing any such rule does is apply an artificial, externally-applied restriction to force the ship's Captain to hire more gunners... that is based only on a Referee's desire to "fudge" reality in order to satisfy his/her view of "game balance".

It surely does that, and I'd be lying if I wasn't thinking in those terms when suggesting such a rule.

But, too, have you ever played online poker?

Ever played more than one table at a time?

I have. Two tables is a lot more involved than I was expecting, and I found that my play degraded as I made decisions for both tables.

One time, I opened three tables and played 'em. I'll never do that again. Lost money that session.

The work load needed for success certainly more than doubled for me--it went up exponentially.

And, that's just poker--not operating a weapon system during combat with my life on the line.

I think the rule's got a little ore reality to it than you might be giving it credit for--with the side benefit of the game dynamic you mention above.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by BlackBat242:
"Book 2 Space Combat. Turrets can be slaved together as long as they share firing arc."

This means that no such "rolling the ship" is needed... since all of the "connected" turrets must be able to fire on the same target with the same firing arc.

There's plenty of time to make all firing arcs during a Book 2 space combat round of 15+ minutes, so typically, I wouldn't care about firing arcs. But, I think it's appropriate to enforce a rule that a ship firing in multiple firing arcs during a round should not be able to change velocity. It can change facing, but not velocity.

If the ship speeds up, slows down, or changes direction (or any combination), I think the ship should not be allowed to fire that round unless the target falls into the obvious firing arc.

Meaning: If a target is on the left side of the starship, and the starship's single turret is on the starboard side of the vessel, then the target can be fired at normally as long as the ship doesn't change it's velocity.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by BlackBat242:
"Book 2 Space Combat. Turrets can be slaved together as long as they share firing arc."

This means that no such "rolling the ship" is needed... since all of the "connected" turrets must be able to fire on the same target with the same firing arc.

There's plenty of time to make all firing arcs during a Book 2 space combat round of 15+ minutes, so typically, I wouldn't care about firing arcs. But, I think it's appropriate to enforce a rule that a ship firing in multiple firing arcs during a round should not be able to change velocity. It can change facing, but not velocity.

If the ship speeds up, slows down, or changes direction (or any combination), I think the ship should not be allowed to fire that round unless the target falls into the obvious firing arc.

Meaning: If a target is on the left side of the starship, and the starship's single turret is on the starboard side of the vessel, then the target can be fired at normally as long as the ship doesn't change it's velocity.

-S4