Clarifying Weapon Mounts (errata)

[BillDowns]

Pendragonman, I never commented about this wisdom of not using batteries.

Dean, I think you may be misunderstanding me. I agree with your position overall. It's simply that the "proof" you offered needed a minor adjusment.

I would also like to point out one more thing about the statement "A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten". This implies a battery may not contain more than 10 turrets.

I would call Don's attention to the fuzzy case where batteries seem not to be required. The handling of such weapons needs to be explained.

I would also like to point out that in last year's TCS battles here, 3 Factor-1 Lasers usually delivered more damage points than 1 Factor-3 Laser. Someone, I forget who, has their fighters set up that way.

 

[Matt123]

I am out of time this morning for this, so a couple of quick replies. I'll come back to Deans response when I can do it justice.

However, adding a fourth fact from sentence three: "A battery may be as few

as few as one turret".
Logic: This fact alone strongly implies that a battery may not be less than one turret.

But does not imply that a turret is limited to only one battery.
There are plenty of examples demonstrating that a turret may contain more than one battery. Both in Book 2 and Book 5.

Facts 1 and 2 (from Dean) imply that batteries are not required for mountings of 1 to 10.

This begs the question: How the hell do you use them in a HG battle?

To use any turret weapon in HG, you must refer to the Turret Weapons table to get the weapon USP, which lists single weapons. This is also how you rate Book 2 ship weapons for HG combat. And single weapons in mixed turrets. And single weapons in non-mixed turrets.

Using single weapons in HG is not complicated. And we are already doing it.

I would have to say if backwards compatibility was actually desired, then this has to be an extremely poor attempt. Besides all the radically different engineering systems, Missiles are drastically down-rated and Beam lasers are drastically up-rated.

I'll wager the writers of Book 5 would rather they had a clean slate. However they didn't and that was MM's call at the time, and since I might add. He has been very consistent in insisting on backwards compatability within a rules set and the background.

 

[Matt123]

Thanks for the attempts to state the examples, guys. I'm not much the wiser, but that's probably just me.

No problem.

Take for example "mount = turret". The rule states therefore "turrets of a type". Pick a turret type (I would pick triple). The rule states more than 10 triple turrets MUST be grouped into batteries.

Those three sentances (for your reading conveniance) direct from Book 5, with "mounts" replaced by "turrets".

1. Ships with more than one turet of a type may group them into batteries.
2. Ships with more than ten turrets of the same type must group them into batteries.
3. 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).


Two problems.
1) 11 & 13 & (pick a prime number) turrets, cannot be broken into smaller battery groups.
2) It effectively stops you using other weapon types in that turret type.
3) If turrets form batteries, per 1 & 2, why does 3 refer to batteries being formed of weapons
4) If that gets changed to 'turret' too, thats three times in three sentances.
Errata can fix that of course and the referances in the Turrets section, the Turret weapons table and the Small Craft rules. A lot of errata tho'.
5) As turrets form batteries, what USP rating do you give 10 empty triple turrets.

ok, that was five problems, I can go (obviously).

I feel a little like we are all standing around a broken car and I'm saying "here's a key, try it".
A weapon mount = a mount for a weapon.

What is lacking from the other corner of this debate is practicle problems with my interpretation. And responses to the problems I am highlighting.

If Mount = Turret, there is a rather large list of errata that needs clearing up.

I'm fairly happy with that, but I'm less sure why a turret containing two lasers and a missile can't fire the pair of lasers as a factor two attack.

That is specifically an artifact of the mixed turret rule. I have less problem with that as it only negatively affects one weapon system (Beam) and prevents forming batteries from mixed turrets. (eg: 30 triple turrets of Beam, Missile, Sand combining to form 3 large batteries of 30 weapons each.)

 

[Matt123]

I've spent too much time already this morning. I'll create over the Easter break a list of errata needed should the interpretation Mount = turret be adopted.

And I'll summarise problems with Mount = Turret in one post so Dean (& others) can respond. The detail is getting lost in the interactions.

If someone wishes to do the same with Mount = Weapon (actually a weapon mount = a mount for a weapon), I will respond as I have already to several posters.

And Dean, I will respond to your latest posts. My apologies but right now I am late for work and I take several hours to consider and respond to your posts!

Happy Easter everyone

Cheers
Matt

 

[aramis]

The more I think about it, the more this sounds like Matt123's "out". Take a ship with 15 hardpoints equipped so:

• 4 twin fusion gun turrets
• 3 triple sandcaster turrets
• 3 triple laser turrets
• 5 triple missile turrets

The designer could opt not to organize these as batteries. The implication, then is that these would function as single weapon batteries. Not we get to a new question: Since there are 15 missile weapons, must they be organized in "batteries" per the other rules?

No, it can't. It's over 1000 tons and therefore MUST organize into batteries, due to the 1 per 100 tons rule.

 

[Hyphen]

Dear Folks -

I posted here:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=372242#post372242

...before realising I was wading deep into a war with various canons firing off all around!

While it would be nice to be consistent between rules systems, especially since CT is one of the more consisent rule sets, we should also consider what the rule sets were designed for. (Marc or Loren pointed out that the TCS economic system, for example, was simply to help determine fleet budgets for a limited campaign, and not to be extrapolated across the entire Imperium.)

With that in mind, we can say that the Book 2 rules were designed primarily to build PC-scale starships, plus slightly larger warships for when the referee needed to keep the PCs in check. This was back in the days of a "small-ship" Traveller universe, before Star Wars, when pompous subsector officials could claim that four 1200-ton Kinunir-class "battle cruisers" were enough to hold off the nearby Zhodani fleets.

The Book 5 rules, however, came out after Star Wars made huge capital ships an interesting visual spectacle. Suddenly we had huge ships, up to and including the Tigress-class dreadnought, primarily to cash in on the "huge space battle" market (popular among bored archdukes and other high-ranking nobility).

OK, so the two rule sets were aimed at two different targets (kinda like a mixed turret). How do we reconcile them?

My take on deciding on solutions to problems with canon is to ask, "What do you want the answer to be?" (I kinda feel like the accountant who shuts the door and says that phrase when discussing a tax return with their client.)

I would prefer a definite cut-over at the 1000-ton mark. Let's face it, anything that size and over should be impossible for a PC-scale ship to defeat head-on. The majority are warships, folks, and even merchants this big should be able to swat a Beowulf without blinking. This suggests we're in the realm of automated, linked, ganged-together systems that call for single-weapon-type batteries, party for span-of-weapon-control purposes, partly for ease of maintenance, partly for efficiency.

That just leaves the sub-1000 ton area. Personally, I think this area should allow for variety, local colour, quirks, and (what I called in my earlier posting) creativity - from both players and referees. For example, the PCs see a Gazelle, and they are expecting a certain weapon mix. Well, don't let them become complacent, ref, throw something different at them! Force them to make their sensor rolls to find out what is actually mounted (there's that word again!) aboard ship. And allow the PCs to reconfigure their battery mix during combat - we've all seen it done in stories from Honor Harrington to Hunt for Red October.

In order to resolve the specific debate about "mounts", my suggestion is to define the following hierarchy: a battery can be made up of many turrets that can have many weapon mounts. A turret can have one, two, or three mounts.

(Yes, the military throw that word around and often use it differently. There's a reason "military intelligence" is an oxymoron. If you don't use the word "mount", what do you call them? Weapon "slots"? Why invent a new word? We already have hardpoint, mount, turret, and battery!)

The problem that then occurs is what if you have ten triple-missile turrets (30 weapons), the maximum for sub-1000 ton designs. Can each laser fire individually? Does this mean there are 30 batteries? Or that there can be, at most three batteries of 10 weapons each - which groups weapons across turrets (3+3+3+1)? Or group them on a "whole-turret" basis (3+3+3=9 weapons, max)?? Or by HG breakpoints???

My suggestion is not to get so anal about forcing HG rules upon Bk2-sized ships, arbitrarily. Once you get down to the granularity of PC ships, there are other ways to limit the weapon mixes - methods that are too difficult to apply to fleets. For example, you can limit the allowed weapon groupings by the number of gunners available. The number of batteries able to be fired in one turn could be limited to the Computer size, or available Ship's Tactics level (or pool), or some other similar method already published. These approaches, being based more on common-sense than arbitrary rules, should impose the limitations you want as a referee while still being acceptable to your players. I figure if they say, "Well, that makes sense" to one of your rulings, that's a battle you've won. (Just watch out for the ambidexterous Turret Weapons-5 PC who dual-wields a triple laser & triple missile turret!!! )

What do you think? Who votes for the playability approach to solving the problem better than the stricter interperability method?

 

[dean]

No problem.

Take for example "mount = turret". The rule states therefore "turrets of a type". Pick a turret type (I would pick triple). The rule states more than 10 triple turrets MUST be grouped into batteries.

You fail to note that ALL the USP factors on the batteries table max out on the largest size turret allowed for that weapon type. SO, indeed 30 lasers arranged in 10 triple turrets is the largest turret battery USP you CAN have. So therefore the table DOES INDEED have the optimal configurations. So, Yes! the largest battery possible is 10 turrets! Just like the rule specifically states!!

Those three sentances (for your reading conveniance) direct from Book 5, with "mounts" replaced by "turrets".

1. Ships with more than one turet of a type may group them into batteries.
2. Ships with more than ten turrets of the same type must group them into batteries.
3. 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).

Two problems.
1) 11 & 13 & (pick a prime number) turrets, cannot be broken into smaller battery groups.
2) It effectively stops you using other weapon types in that turret type.
3) If turrets form batteries, per 1 & 2, why does 3 refer to batteries being formed of weapons
4) If that gets changed to 'turret' too, thats three times in three sentances.
Errata can fix that of course and the referances in the Turrets section, the Turret weapons table and the Small Craft rules. A lot of errata tho'.
5) As turrets form batteries, what USP rating do you give 10 empty triple turrets.

ok, that was five problems, I can go (obviously).

Problem 1 occurs EVEN if you use weapon = weapon mount. So your contention does not solve a problem. In addition , the DESIGNERS explicitly acknowledge that there are OPTIMAL and SUBOPTIMAL configurations possible. They are not apologetic about it either.

Problem 2 isn't a problem because of this. The prohibition of having the same weapon types being used in different mounts is stated explicitly in the design rules, and the prohibition requiring the USPs to be identical for all batteries is because the game uses the "USP" format, and the designers CHOSE to do it that way on purpose. It's not a flaw, it's a FEATURE.

Problem 3 isn't a problem; it does NOT "refer to batteries being formed of weapons", it says that mounts of the same type of weapon must share the same USP value (by rule). Those two things (what you say it says and what it actually says) are NOT equivalent.

Problem 4 Is NOT an actual problem, it is your own semantics criticism that you are trying to make be a problem. So a word is used three time in three sentences? So we should ban "die roll" in the character generation rules? And again, WTF does the ship design rules have to do with the small craft rules, as relates to this topic?

Problem 5. USP is zero. Duh.

I feel a little like we are all standing around a broken car and I'm saying "here's a key, try it".
A weapon mount = a mount for a weapon.

What is lacking from the other corner of this debate is practicle problems with my interpretation. And responses to the problems I am highlighting.

If Mount = Turret, there is a rather large list of errata that needs clearing up.

No, again, it does not. None of the problems YOU illustrate are actually FIXED by weapon = mount. And the other "problems" are not problems at all, except in your mind. I will admit the rules were pretty loosely written, but I don't think a total rewrite is in order because you are proposing to change a definition.

That is specifically an artifact of the mixed turret rule. I have less problem with that as it only negatively affects one weapon system (Beam) and prevents forming batteries from mixed turrets. (eg: 30 triple turrets of Beam, Missile, Sand combining to form 3 large batteries of 30 weapons each.)

Once again, that EXCEPTION specifically also states that weapons are then counted as individual batteries. It does not change the definition of weapon mount.

 

[Matt123]

The more I think about it, the more this sounds like Matt123's "out". Take a ship with 15 hardpoints equipped so:

• 4 twin fusion gun turrets
• 3 triple sandcaster turrets
• 3 triple laser turrets
• 5 triple missile turrets

The designer could opt not to organize these as batteries. The implication, then is that these would function as single weapon batteries. Not we get to a new question: Since there are 15 missile weapons, must they be organized in "batteries" per the other rules?

Its lunchtime here... and reading Deans reply I noticed I missed your post Bill.

Aramis is of course correct, your sample ship is over 1000 tons. But in order to answer your concern, I'll pretend for a moment that restriction doesn't apply in this case.

And I'll assume we are talking a Book 5 design. Under Book 2 those 45 weapons are treated all as individual batteries and may take part in Book 5 battles. No one appears to have an issue with that.

Under Book 5, single weapons are batteries. The Turret Weapons table provides for that, Book 2 requires it and Book 5 uses single weapon batteres for mixed turrets and small craft. The ability to have single weapon batteries is clearly not in dispute.

Sooo, back to your example (mount = weapon);

• 4 twin fusion gun turrets
  • may use the 8 fusion guns as 8 individual batteries
• 3 triple sandcaster turrets
  • may use the 9 sandcasters as individual batteries
• 3 triple laser turrets
  • may use the 9 lasers as individual batteries
• 5 triple missile turrets
  • amounts to more than 10 missile weapons and they therefore must be grouped into batteries with the same USP code.

Now, back to Aramis's concern. None of these turrets are mixed. Therefore the 'mixed turret rule' does not apply.

In a nutshell the configuration above is legal for your Book 5, 1500 ton ship.

And of course your Book 2 varient can have all 45 weapons as individual batteries in the same combat.

Lunch over & I'm late, again...

 

[dean]

Its lunchtime here... and reading Deans reply I noticed I missed your post Bill.

Aramis is of course correct, your sample ship is over 1000 tons. But in order to answer your concern, I'll pretend for a moment that restriction doesn't apply in this case.

And I'll assume we are talking a Book 5 design. Under Book 2 those 45 weapons are treated all as individual batteries and may take part in Book 5 battles. No one appears to have an issue with that.

Under Book 5, single weapons are batteries. The Turret Weapons table provides for that, Book 2 requires it and Book 5 uses single weapon batteres for mixed turrets and small craft. The ability to have single weapon batteries is clearly not in dispute.

Sooo, back to your example (mount = weapon);

• 4 twin fusion gun turrets
  • may use the 8 fusion guns as 8 individual batteries
• 3 triple sandcaster turrets
  • may use the 9 sandcasters as individual batteries
• 3 triple laser turrets
  • may use the 9 lasers as individual batteries
• 5 triple missile turrets
  • amounts to more than 10 missile weapons and they therefore must be grouped into batteries with the same USP code.

Now, back to Aramis's concern. None of these turrets are mixed. Therefore the 'mixed turret rule' does not apply.

In a nutshell the configuration above is legal for your Book 5, 1500 ton ship.

And of course your Book 2 varient can have all 45 weapons as individual batteries in the same combat.

Lunch over & I'm late, again...

"A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten..." I don't see any way around the fact that you must organize batteries into AT LEAST turret sized units.

Again, the phrase from the mixed turret section "... in such cases, each weapon is a battery" also adds credence that in all other cases, batteries are in turret sized quantities (be they single, double or triple, it does not matter), as this case identifies the single situation where the battery is considered the weapon alone.

If it were possible to organize the weapon alone into batteries in non-mixed turrets, this phrase would be completely unnecessary. But it does exist, so therefore that must be an exception case to be able to organize batteries in some other fashion than what the rules state, which is "as few as one turret", NOT "as few as each weapon in a turret".

And again, the structure of the turret weapons table supports this idea completely.

And again, the sole example in the book supports this idea as well.

And again, organizing batteries in "weapon" sized batteries does not fix any of the "problems" identified, and in fact exacerbates them.

 

[Matt123]

Dear Folks -

I posted here:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=372242#post372242

...before realising I was wading deep into a war with various canons firing off all around!

It is a freindly discussion! Dean & I get a bit passionate perhaps, but I think we both understand that & Deans position doesn't detract from my respect for Dean as a fellow knowledgable Traveller enthusiast. Just gloss over any bits where we get a little exasperated with each other.

The problem that then occurs is what if you have ten triple-missile turrets (30 weapons), the maximum for sub-1000 ton designs.

Not really. The design exists already for Book 2 ships which cannot have batteries greater than 1 weapon. That Book 2 ship has 30 missile batteries.

Book 5 restricts that for its designs to "more than 10 mounts of a type must be grouped". In this example, the ship would have at most 10 batteries.

I'll add that the 'sub-1000 ton design' is not a factor where turrets are not mixed and your example does not have 'mixed turrets'.

A Book 2 5,000 ton ship with 50 triple missile turrets in a Book 5 combat, will field 150 missile batteries.

The same sized Book 5 ship with 50 triple missile turrets and 150 weapons would have to group the weapons, into at most 50 batteries.

That all assumes a weapon mount = a mount for a weapon.

If weapon mount = turret, then that 5000 ton Book 5 ship is restricted to having missile batteries of at least two turrets. ("more than 10 turrets of a type must be grouped") ie: no single turret batteries. mount = turret means at most 25 batteries.

My suggestion is not to get so anal about forcing HG rules upon Bk2-sized ships...

the debate is not about Book 2. Book 2 as the precursor to Book 5, influenced Book 5 AND Book 2 designs are required to be usable as is in Book 5. Book 2 deals in individual weapons for small scale ships. mount = turret prevents Book 5 small scale ships doing the same, meaning a Book 5 Beowolf cannot have a Book 2 Beowolfs choice of weapon layouts.

 

[Matt123]

Again, the phrase from the mixed turret section "... in such cases, each weapon is a battery" also adds credence that in all other cases...

snip...

If it were possible to organize the weapon alone into batteries in non-mixed turrets, this phrase would be completely unnecessary. But it does exist...

That rule prevents you creating batteries from multiple mixed turrets.

eg: 30 turrets containing missile, sand, laser, without that rule could form 3 large missile, sand, laser batteries.

If you want mixed turrets, each weapon is a battery by itself. Makes perfect sense to me.

And it ties in with the underlying capability already expressed at the start of the paragraph, that ships with more than one mount may group them and that if you choose not to group them, there in the Turret Weapons table is the USP for an ungrouped weapon.

And again, the sole example in the book supports this idea as well.

I assume you are talking the 80 laser turrets example in the Batteries section. Well...

Under mount = weapon (using shorthand here) that example is correct. More than 10 mounts/weapons must be grouped. The example would be wrong if the 240 laser weapons were not grouped.

Under mount = turret, that example is incorrect. More than 10 turrets of a type must be grouped. The example gives 80 triple turrets. Clearly those 80 triple turrets are more than 10 and must be grouped. Single turret batteries are illegal. (in this example of more than 10 triple turrets.)

So, the example does not support mount = turret, at all... But I await your reply with interest...

I shan't post again till tomorrow (I think I have the willpower!), a few years back I think you and I went on a mad posting frenzy when we were both online together. It got a tad frustrating if I recall correctly. & I think it was the same topic.

 

[robject]

Maybe High Guard, version 1, can help us understand the problem.

The Universal Ship Profile code for turret weapons is based on the average strength of all turret weapons of a single type per 1000 tons of ship. The point values from the turret weapons section are totalled. If the ship tonnage is over 1000 tons, then the point total is divided by the ship tonnage in kilotons. If the tonnage is less than 1000 tons, then the point value is not modified. The point value is then refe- renced to the ratings section of the table to determine the exact code for the USP. Codes range from 0 (none) to 9 (the best available). Only one code is allowed for each type weapon.

Note: "code" above is essentially equivalent to HG2's battery factor. In fact the word "factor" is used later in the text when referring to this code.

So in 1979 it was per weapon. Even the bays in the weapons tables mapped type and TL to the number of weapons of that type which were installed in the bay. So in any case, the total number of weapons were indexed against a final table which told you what your Code (i.e. factor) was.

 

[dean]

That rule prevents you creating batteries from multiple mixed turrets.

eg: 30 turrets containing missile, sand, laser, without that rule could form 3 large missile, sand, laser batteries.

And, pray tell, what is the purpose of that restriction IF by allowing the batteries to be grouped on a by-weapon basis you FUNCTIONALLY get the same results???

If you want mixed turrets, each weapon is a battery by itself. Makes perfect sense to me.

Let's look at the situation both ways. Since ships with more than 10 turrets / >1000 tons cannot mix turrets, we'll just use that as or reference point. Say a 900 ton ship with 9 hardpoints.

If I take 9 triple turrets and place 1 laser, 1 missile, and 1 sand in each one, then I am restricted BY RULE to have 9 factor 1 batteries of each type.

If I make them one-type turrets and make three of them pulse laser triples, 3 sand, 3 missile, then I can have either (by your system) 9 factor 1 batteries, 3 factor 2 batteries, or 1 factor 3 batteries for each weapon type.

IN both cases I can create the same battery factors with or without the mixed turret rule. Which makes that last phrase in the mixed turret rule sentence completely irrelevant!! Why specify that condition if it does not matter? Because it IS relevant and it DOES matter. But only if Turrets=mounts. So that is why it HAD to be included.

NOW, if I say we have to use a minimum one-turret arrangement, then the ONLY way I can get those 9 factor 1 batteries is by mixing the triples - or of course by making mixed doubles or single turrets. Since both the alternatives reduce the firepower, then it makes sense not to do so.

And, unless we plan on swatting a lot of flies rather than fighting actual battles, mixed turrets are not really a great plan. Nor is assigning individual weapons as batteries.

Otherwise, we are then limited to the one turret quantity limit with the triples meaning we have the 1-factor 3 or so batteries, the or the three factor 2 batteries for each.

And it ties in with the underlying capability already expressed at the start of the paragraph, that ships with more than one mount may group them and that if you choose not to group them, there in the Turret Weapons table is the USP for an ungrouped weapon.

The turret weapons table is there to tell you the USP rating based upon the number of weapons you have in total, yes. You also fail to acknowledge that the minimums are reflective across the table of being able to use a single turret (which I see little use or reason, but hey, there it is), a double turret (useful for energy weapons), and of course triple turrets. You can see that the "logical break points" in the table are optimally arranged at the largest turret size available for the weapon type and maxes out at the highest factor when you group ten turret's worth of weapons into the largest possible (ten turret) batteries.

So contrary to your supposition, it's not for "ungrouped weapons". You have to account for the fact that single and double turrets ARE available and that the SMALLEST UNIT of battery is a single, single turret. Not necessarily "one weapon". Again THIS LINE OF REASONING (i.e., the table supports your argument), while feasible under your interpretation, is also perfectly valid for my interpretation, so therefore is NOT proof that you are correct. Nor is it "proof" I am correct.

However, the last line of the mixed turrets rule's inclusion DOES support my argument, and does not support yours, and in fact is unnecessary under your interpretation.

I assume you are talking the 80 laser turrets example in the Batteries section. Well...

Under mount = weapon (using shorthand here) that example is correct. More than 10 mounts/weapons must be grouped. The example would be wrong if the 240 laser weapons were not grouped.

Under mount = turret, that example is incorrect. More than 10 turrets of a type must be grouped. The example gives 80 triple turrets. Clearly those 80 triple turrets are more than 10 and must be grouped. Single turret batteries are illegal. (in this example of more than 10 triple turrets.)

So, the example does not support mount = turret, at all... But I await your reply with interest...

Wrong. It surely does. I CANNOT BELIEVE that I just read that you think that the AUTHORS are wrong. In their own example. Because it does not fit your perception. Incredible. No wonder you read my proof and reject it as apples=pears.

The reason YOU think the example is wrong, is because YOU are wrong. I cited this because it supports my interpretation as turret=mount, and your response is The Author Is Incorrect. Which or these two possibilities is more likely? (Not intended as a personal attack, please do not take it as so - but you are making a direct statement which frankly flabbergasts me.)

Ships with more than 10 Mounts (as turrets) of the same type MUST group them into batteries. (THIS SHIP HAS MORE THAN 10 MOUNTS of the same type under your interpretation OR mine.)

A battery MAY BE AS FEW AS one turret, BUT MAY be as MANY as ten.

The authors did not miswrite that, YOU misread it. You flatly state above that "Single Turret Batteries Are Illegal".

Can't be so. So WHAT does that sentence mean, if not that BATTERIES can be ONE TURRET? Please share!

So, proceeding on the correct asssumption that YES!! One turret CAN = "a battery" so it IS indeed legal to have 80 factor 3 batteries. And all the combinations they list as optimal battery grouping as well... BUT not the combinations YOU would be able to make under weapon = battery. So you say it's broken. But it is not, because you are mistaken.

Don't you think that if it was "legal" to make 240 factor 1 batteries, as that IS IN FACT SUPPORTED by the weapons table, by your own interpretation (above), and WOULD be "optimal" by your argument, the authors would have / should have included it?

By the same token, using the idea that weapon = mount, 120 factor 2 batteries would ALSO be legal, and should appear in the "optimal" example as well??? But that one is missing also. Weird.

But it isn't weird, because it is NOT legal to make a battery in a group smaller than one turret. ALL the "optimal" examples are included, because they ARE legal under BOTH our interpretations.. but ALL of the possible optimal examples are present in the example for "my" interpretation, but two of "yours" are missing.... BOTH of which are the case if weapon does = mount... hmmm.

Wonder why? Because the author was sloppy and incompetent and errata is needed to clarify weapon = mount? Or is it because Weapon <> mount? Yes, Virginia, it's that second choice there. The example WOULD include those two options as optimal if it WERE legal to group weapons in less than turret sized quantities, but it does NOT, because it is NOT legal to do so. So YES, the example "supports" my interpretation, and does NOT support your interpretation, which is why I cited it as support.

Just as I cited the "; in this case each weapon is considered a battery" as support, as I outlined way up top there...

And again, if you just drop your bias and look at the rule section as a whole, it JUST WORKS if you accept turret=mount. ONLY when you insist that weapon=mount do any perceived problems occur. Perception vs Reality is a powerful thing. And I think your perception is incorrect in this case.

I shan't post again till tomorrow (I think I have the willpower!), a few years back I think you and I went on a mad posting frenzy when we were both online together. It got a tad frustrating if I recall correctly. & I think it was the same topic.

May be. We both appear to have gotten more stubborn as we have aged. On the other hand, I am right so I can feel that way. He He.

 

[dean]

Apples = Pears

If

a = b

and

b = c

then

a = c

Mathematically proven.


If
A mount can be organized into a battery (mount = battery) (a=b)

and

A turret is the smallest battery (turret = battery) (b=c)

Then

mount = turret (a=c)

(And also bays and spinals, which are less ambiguously defined in the rules).

So Apples <> Pears. Thankyouverymuch.

 

[mike wightman]

A turret is not the smallest battery on sub1kt ships though.

A single weapon in a single, double or triple turret is

 

[atpollard]

A turret is not the smallest battery on sub1kt ships though.

A single weapon in a single, double or triple turret is

ONLY if using the Mixed Turret rules, which appear to be presented as a 'special exception'.

A Scout Ship with a triple beam turret would not be allowed in HG to create 3 x Factor 1 batteries from it since "a battery may be as few as one turret ...".

The only ways to create a single weapon battery (from turret weapons) is with the Mixed Turret exception or a single turret (as oposed to a double or triple turret).

 

[mike wightman]

"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."

Pretty clear to me - if you have 10 or less beam lasers you can choose to fire them as individual weapons.

 

[BillDowns]

Going back to Don's original post - I think you see all the controversy, now

 

[dean]

DON M. I think this post is really what it is all about

"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."

Pretty clear to me - if you have 10 or less beam lasers you can choose to fire them as individual weapons.

That literally says you can choose to not organize them into batteries. It doesn't say anything about how you can employ them in combat.

Book 5 combat rules on page 40 talk about the A. thru E. combat steps; they are refer to battery fire. Nothing there about individual weapon fire.

So if indeed you choose not to do so, AND you then make that leap of faith that since we aren't grouping them then we must be using them as individual weapons, then you then would be using them as x number of factor one "batteries", and that (once again) totally invalidates the purpose of the last phrase of the mixed turret rule (" ... in this case each weapon is a battery."), because if you are allowed to use weapons individually THEN the phrase is unnecessary for inclusion in the rule at all!

So the rules are self-contradictory there.. BUT ONLY IF YOU ALLOW "UNGROUPED" WEAPONS TO BE FIRED AS INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS.

And BY RULE, you cannot group them into smaller than turret sized units, because grouping them is making a battery, and a battery has to be at least ONE TURRET.

So it seems to me if you CHOOSE not to group them into legal batteries you are choosing to use Book 2 combat rules, so it doesn't matter what you do under book 5.

And Book 5 is intended for use to formalize engagements between large fleets and navies of the Traveller sort. So while it is possible to design an adventurer craft, it really isn't the stated purpose of the rules. So ships designed under book 5 ought to be able to be used under the book 5 combat rules. And therefore should be organized into batteries.

Since the rules provide so many explicit limitations on batteries, and since the 'non battery' rule speaks to adventurer sized ships, ships that "need" to have batteries organized in less-than turret sized groups ought to be rare anyway.

I guess by rule I could make a 2700 ton ship with 9 turrets of each of the three primary weapons (laser, missile, sand) and no bays, and say I "needed" to group them individually, but that sure sounds like a weak, ill-conceived, piss-poor design to me. So why do it? It's an invitation to defeat.

Alas, perhaps due to the use of the word "MAY" in that one place, you guys are right. BUT ALL the other rules (design and combat) and tables make it pretty damn clear that in HG, weapons are INTENDED to be grouped into batteries.

But I think that word was used because the author wanted to allow backwards compatibility (and actually directly says so in the Ships section intro), so that's why it is there. It's not to make it so the rest of the rules pertaining to large ships and fleets are invalidated - which quite frankly is the "fix" Matt is proposing.

However, for all practical purposes, and the way ALL the rest of the rules are written, with all the examples we have seen that DO support the turret = mount (which really is what this is all about), and don't exclusively support turret = weapon (which is to say all the examples Matt cites that turret=weapon ALSO work equally well for turret = mount, AND the references I cite DO support turret = mount exclusively), FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE HG DESIGNERS INTENDED, and not small or adventurer type ships.

If mount=turret then everything just flows.
If mount=weapon then everything is broken.

Once again, which of these two statements more likely reflects the author's intent?

 

[pendragonman]

Dean, do you ever get the idea that Matt is being this obstinate for the sole reason of causing more argument?