What does a gunner actually do?

[Low-G Vagabond]

Better question would be...where does the gunner use his skills?

Is he sitting in a chair connected to the turret (ala Star Wars IV)?

Is he at a computer display on the bridge?

Or is he manning a PC and a monitor near the turret?

I realize the Star Wars version of swiveling in a chair and aiming your pulse laser is a bit unrealistic, given the distances of most space combat and the simple fact that computer programs are much more capable due to targeting specific programs.

But, I just cant seem to form a mental picture of what a gunner would look like during combat...so I would love to hear your scenarios.

Thanks,

Raelian

 

[far-trader]

IMTU (of course) the gunner could be in either place depending on the ship.

Any bridge station can serve any ship function, including gunnery, as long as the computer is functioning.

The first problem comes when you have more crew than seats. You either add seats (bigger bridge) or put the gunners in the turret. IMTU each turret (and barbette, bay, or spinal) includes local controls for operation of the weapon with computer aid or independantly.

The second problem is if the computer is offline (or there isn't one to start with). Then the only way to operate the weapon is locally. This incurs a penalty to hit (-1 in CT/HG).

A hit on a weapon operated remotely does not disable the gunner. A hit on a weapon operated locally results in a hit on the gunner.

Oh, my turret (and barbette, bay, or spinal) local control stations are also escape pods. So if the ship blows, or abandon ship is ordered, the local gunner(s) (if any) get a free ride away from the ship. As an escape pod they are marginal. They have limited sensors and communications and can make very limited thrust and possible landing. They also have about 24hours of independant life-support for the rated crew.

As usual, something like that, IMTU, YMMV, etc.

 

[Low-G Vagabond]

Thanks Far-Trader,

That clears up alot.

I can now picture the gunner sitting at the turret..with a HUD...uploading software and monitoring the situation. If, lets say a fighter closed ranks...the gunner could switch to local control and take a hand at targeting the enemy ( at a -1).

I also like the escape pod...good idea.

Thanks,

Raelian

 

[kafka47]

Of course, one could have a gunner in a virtual reality set-up in which distances are protrayed in relative terms to the gunner's own perception. This way the Gunnery skill becomes more real rather than just being able to operate the hardware. I would wonder how much targeting is done by computer on the big Capital ships as having individual gunners would make ship combat seem like firing canons off the broadside rather than some quick & deadly.

 

[far-trader]

I like that picture kafka47. I think it's what has long been in the back of my mind but now it lives. Yes a virtual projection of the elements rescaled to something that allows the gunner to react and think. Very nice. I think capital ships, at least for large batteries would work just that way. The gunner is more of fire director/target qualifier. Once he designates a target as legit the computer opens up and fires for effect with the full battery.

I have a harder time figuring just what the interplay is between the gunners and pilot when bringing a spinal mount to bear. Complicated I think, unless again the computer does the grunt work.

 

[flykiller]

imtu where gunnery is taken seriously an actual one dton bulkhead-defined gunner's station will be located behind the single or lead turret of the battery. this is done for several reasons. one, it reduces gunnery system vulnerability by eliminating interior comm and power cables between the station and the weapon. if this is combined with a large battery (or capacitor to maintain compatibility with book 5) then the gunnery station becomes a self-contained entity capable of operating even if the ship's power plant is destroyed. two, it gives the gunner a secure station from which to operate. no matter what damage the rest of the ship takes the gunner is still able to operate securely from his station, a turret and bulkhead between him and the enemy and several bulkheads protecting him from all other directions. three, telescopes have utility imtu and being at the turret enables the gunner to semi-directly see what the turret sees even if all power is lost. four, such a station acts as an airlock when accessing the turret from within the ship's hull.

 

[Low-G Vagabond]

Here, here Kafka...very nice.

Raelian

 

[jhulse]

Don't forget though, Traveller space combat is very different from Star Wars or movie based combat. That fighter the gunner is shooting at is tens of thousands of kilometers away. The gunner shoots constantly for 20 minutes at a time at a "probable" point in space the computer thinks the fighter will be. Then the gunner hopes he hits something. Traveller space combat is more like WWI or WWII ships fire volley after volley at targets many miles away.
But I still prefer the fast paced movie version of space combat!

 

[Elliot]

Kafka and Jaks models are not incompatible - the gunner uses human instinct and skill to match computer projections into likely hits at vast distances. That is why humans are necessary until virus.

 

[Elliot]

Kafka and Jaks models are not incompatible - the gunner uses human instinct and skill to match computer projections into likely hits at vast distances. That is why humans are necessary until virus.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Raelian--good question! Ty for bringing this one up me bows!

Far Trader--I like the idea of the life-pod turret socket! Makes good sense! After all, they are a "socket" weapon with hopefully 360 degree axis of fire on the hull, [or less if a fixed barbette--ala the Gazelle-class CE].

In the sense that we discuss the Gunner's position/ and job on ship, Raelian bear in mind there should be delineated two versions of this--

of which each turret weapon has a targeting computer that gives choices to the gunner, who uses his Skill to decide which one plotted he will 'fire' with; and the battery fired from the bridge, unmanned turret gunner.

Most civilian vessels IMTU do not have an MFD, or Master Fire Director, and thus It is something if the players wish added [instead of having programmed software inserted in their ship's main computer to do the same, competing with other programming that runs the ship] they pool their resources together for.

The MFD requires power, a monitoring station of course on the bridge, [or just off it in case of crowded designs.] and this allows one person to do the job of many.

And last, Elliot is right, in the fact that MFD's aide the sophont gunner in his ability to plot-pick and choose his firing solutions. And until the advent of Virus, this is done by a living being.

Military grade vessels, or those designed for 'commerce raiding' often will have an MFD as part of their 'packaged' design. Think of this as an additional computer station--it canot run the whole ship, but it can run all of its weapon systems remotely.

IMTU, a person who can operate an MFD gets paid higher than the individual gunner.[x2 the pay IMTU].

Hope this adds to your explanation of the ship's position, etc..

Far Trader--I do LIKE that idea!

 

[kafka47]

Originally posted by far-trader:


I have a harder time figuring just what the interplay is between the gunners and pilot when bringing a spinal mount to bear. Complicated I think, unless again the computer does the grunt work.

I could see the old fashioned periscope (refitted with Virtual Reality software) for the spinal mount weapons. Akin to what was seen in one of the Trek movies.

Like much of ship-to-ship combat, I find the idea of virtuality taking over whereby human reflexes are augmented by computer. Otherwise, the Virus would completely wipe out all sentient life in the New Era...if MJD's plans for a scaled back virus kicks in.

What I think happens in High Traveller (T20, CT, MT) is that computers do much to eliminate the gory bits of combat by projecting pheasants or similar fowl as target practice. Computers also work to eliminate much of "noise" of combat, eliminating things like space junk providing as much as possible a clear line of sight allowing human reflexes to be maximized. This way humans (and other sentients) have a chance when the Virus strikes because as much as computers are faster they are not as creative.

 

[vegascat]

Two gunners for a bay weapon. One will sit in the fire control seat, the other in front of an engineering board to monitor everything and prevent any firing delays as much as possible. If the weapon is hit, they will have a chance to repair it depending on the damage.
A large crew for a spinal mount weapon will be spread out along the weapon and in the main fire control area. Most of these guys will be used in prventative maintenance required for high energy systems, i.e. cleaning corroded contact points, polishing the brass/ mirrors/ tubes, inspecting/ replacing wiring bundles, fetching the chief a fresh cup of coffee.

 

[kafka47]

Vegascat, my problem with the scenario that you have outlined is that it seems awful waste of manpower. Surely, the 3I is not operating some sort of welfare employment agency for its armed forces? Plus, think of the losses when the Imperium goes to war...every battery hit means at least 2 deaths.

 

[vegascat]

The battery crew would be KIA if the gunner positions were inside the bay, unarmored, and the bay destroyed. If the gunners are in something like Far-trader's escape pods, then they would have a good chance of survival.

Does anyone know how many people are used to take care of a nuclear accelerator like the one used by CERN? Cross that with the crew of a Iowa class battle ships main turrets for manning requirements.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Kafka47

In answer to your line "the 'seeming waste of manpower" with two men per bay weapon, there is a solution..

Most Warships carry extra crew when their MFD is knocked out, allowing for the individual manning of weapons.

Larger warships, [Cruisers and upwards], have additional bridges [example,ISS Arrival Vengeance 60kton J5/1[2]G.] which has in its deckplans allowance for a 'Battle bridge'. A seperate bridge/ MFD station is required for her Spinal weapon.

This one of the things that allows her to run the MT/HT adventure for 3 years on a skeleton crew--TL-F automation.

Smaller vessels, down to 1ktons [smallest allowed with bay weapons] will resort if casualties mount prohibitively to use of their MFD on the bridge.

 

[ravells]

Really good question, Raelian. My answer is based on the underlying philosophy that (a) the function of the gunner(s) would depend on the size of the gun (and ship) and (b) that for dramatic purposes it is almost always preferable to allow the PC as much direct control of aiming and firing the weapon as the internal consistency of the game will allow.

So the more distant the PC is from controlling the weapon, the greater the likelihood would be that I would throw in some meguffin to ensure that he is actually making decisions and not just 'watching the computer do it'.

For example with Point Defence guns, this could be a starwars swivel seat arrangement for smaller craft. However, where the gunner is in charge of multiple Point Defence Gun systems on a capital ship it may just be target allocation from a computer screen. As the player is 'distant' from the actual aiming and firing, I would have some sort of other consideration, e.g. gun over-heating so that the PC would have to make some decisions as to which guns should fire for how long.

All the best

Ravs

 

[aramis]

Realistic answer:
Gunners? During Combat? Prioritize targets and watch the coolant levels. Pick missile warheads and slap them on. manually hold the deadman switch so that the targeting system will fire.

Travelleresque answer:
Guess where the target is going to be so that the Fire circle is smaller....

Both: Outside of combat: doing the maintenance...

 

[ravells]

Are you in the navy, Aramis?

Ravs

 

[aramis]

No, Ravs, I'm not. I was a Naval JROTC Cadet.
I was a CAP Cadet. four years each.
I did a very short stint in the army... til they realized I
1) didn't want to kill people
and
2) had tried to kill people, and failed.

I am, however, a military buff, and on top of that, hang with far too many ex-sailors. Even game with them.

1st rule of the military: there needs to be a person to blame for any tech gadget.
2nd, 3rd and 4th rules of the military: if it glitters, salute it, if it moves greet it, if it does not move and does not glitter, polish the damned thing!
5th rule of the military: Automation will not delete jobs, just make them less exciting.

It's this fifth one that I applied. The gunner is there to meet rule one, and his job consists of being responsible to not let the thing fire at bad targets.... nor overheat. So the automation simply results in really bored gunners.

A common complaint of the GM's (in this case Gunner's Mates) I know. (Most of them volunteered for boarding parties to have something to get the adrenaline going.)