CommCaster and Virtual Battery Fire Question

[sporegnosis]

the paragraph states that all hits of the same type on the same target are summed if the ships involved use commcaster.

What if a lone ship has 4 lasers (10D) and no commcaster? are the hits from the lasers summed for a single ship? eg 4x10=40D

What if a lone ship has 4 lasers and a commcaster? can you sum the hits in this case?

Say you have 2 ships with 4 lasers 10D each with commcaster:
are the hits summed like 4 attacks of 2x10=20D each? or
1 attack of 2x4x10=80D?

 

[robject]

[p.388, p.408] CommCasters are for Multi-Ship Battery Fire.

What if a lone ship has 4 lasers and no commcaster? are the hits from the lasers summed for a single ship?

[p.388] Battery fire is a side-effect of a ship being a network of computing resources.

Thus, any ship can normally fire its own weapons as "batteries".

In your example, you could fire all four as a single battery, with one to-hit roll, and summed damage. Or you could fire them separately, with separate damage. Or in combinations.

Say you have 2 ships with 4 lasers with commcaster [...]?

CommCasters are for Multi-Ship Battery Fire.

If both of the ships have CommCasters, they can share sensor data for task purposes, and can attack with combined batteries.

In your example, if both ships have CommCasters, then they could fire a single attack against a target, if you like, and if it hits, the damage from all 8 lasers is summed. Essentially all 8 lasers become a pool of weapons from which you can conduct battery fire.

 

[robject]

This is an important topic, so I want to dwell on it a bit.

Example

500t Vargr Corsair with:

LR B1 Particle Accelerator. Range=9. Mod=+2. Damage=5D.
AR B1 Particle Accelerator. Range=7. Mod=+2. Damage=5D.
AR B2 Particle Accelerator. Range=7. Mod=+3. Damage=10D.
SR Bay Particle Accelerator. Range=5. Mod=+5. Damage=20D.
AR T1 CommCaster. Range=7.

This corsair may attack a target at Short Range with all four weapons. Firing as a battery, the corsair chooses the Bay weapon as the lead weapon. Thus the mod to hit is +5. If the battery hits, the damage inflicted is 5+5+10+20 = 40D. Typical damage is enough to penetrate AV 120.

If the target is at Attack Range, it cannot use the SR Bay PA. But it may attack with its other 3 weapons as a battery; choosing the AR B2 as the lead weapon, the mod is +3 to hit, with a damage inflicted of 10+5+5=20D.

If attacking at Long Range, it can only use its LR B1 PA.


When there are two such corsairs, and they're at most Range=7 separated, they may pool their resources. When attacking a target at Short Range, they may pool all of their PA weapons, with a total damage of 80D -- enough to typically penetrate AV 240.

When attacking at Attack Range, they can't use their Bay weapons, but they can pool the remaining weapons together.

 

[HG_B]

So, this rule is saying that all weapons are hitting the same exact spot on the targets hull? If damage is totaled before being applied that's what is implied.

 

[robject]

So, this rule is saying that all weapons are hitting the same exact spot on the targets hull? If damage is totaled before being applied that's what is implied.

Yes, that's exactly what battery fire is for. It's the rule that makes ACS "more" than just a restatement of Book 2.

You don't have to fire weapons in batteries. You can divide some or all of them between different targets, or simply fire them as independent shots. Battery fire makes sense in some cases, but not in all cases.

In some cases, you cannot fire weapons as batteries -- for example, when the ship's network is torn down. This is the value of a DataCaster: if you are concerned about battery fire, then you want a DataCaster as a threat, to force attackers to disable their network to protect the ship from it. Of course, the first thing they'll want to destroy is your DataCaster.

 

[HG_B]

Yes, that's exactly what battery fire is for. It's the rule that makes ACS "more" than just a restatement of Book 2.

At those ranges, having all weapons hit the EXACT same spot on the targets hull would be nigh impossible.

 

[robject]

At those ranges, having all weapons hit the EXACT same spot on the targets hull would be nigh impossible.

And all weapons (of a given type) fired from several ships ALL hitting the EXACT same spot is even more nigh impossible.

...without a CommCaster. Magic tech, I suppose.

Consider that this is exactly what High Guard battery factors are: groups of weapons slaved into batteries, all firing upon the same spot on the hull for maximum penetration/damage.

 

[HG_B]

Consider that this is exactly what High Guard battery factors are: groups of weapons slaved into batteries, all firing upon the same spot on the hull for maximum penetration/damage.

Which is why I don't use the rule...

 

[robject]

Which is why I don't use the rule...

You don't use battery factors in High Guard? That's tantamount to just sticking with Book 2, isn't it?

I'll bet even TNE had battery fire, and it was a stickler, relatively speaking, with realism.

Besides, you can handwave it all away: space combat was always 20 to 30 minutes per round, and so weapon fire in space has always been about volume saturation rather than single volleys.

 

[HG_B]

You don't use battery factors in High Guard? That's tantamount to just sticking with Book 2, isn't it?

I don't use CT. The "fleet combat" rules there are beyond nuts.

 

[Reban]

At those ranges, having all weapons hit the EXACT same spot on the targets hull would be nigh impossible.

Well hang on a second, the EXACT same spot might be an overstatement. What you are aiming at is any compartment, hot spot, center of the ship, firing weapon or operating sensor. Thats not the same as other systems 1cm square point where lasers and particle beams hit on the hull, its actually pretty big chunks of the ship that you are concentrating all your firepower in a battery against.

A 100ton Scout has five 20ton compartments.

Once you hit a compartment you determine if you penetrate armor and then assign the damage to whatever is in the compartment.

 

[Murdoc]

In some cases, you cannot fire weapons as batteries -- for example, when the ship's network is torn down. This is the value of a DataCaster: if you are concerned about battery fire, then you want a DataCaster as a threat, to force attackers to disable their network to protect the ship from it. Of course, the first thing they'll want to destroy is your DataCaster.

Another is a case I thought of looking at your twin corsair example, being that they are (potentially) farther from each other (7) than their target (5), meaning they could be on opposite sides of the target vessel, and thus can't hit the same spot. Just something else to think about.

 

[sporegnosis]

p.408 states that only one ship has to be equipped with a commcaster

p.388 states under virtual battery fire that both ships need a commcaster.

that's a contradiction. What about small/fighter craft? do they need commcasters? if they don't (as in p.408) then "slave" ships also don't need one, and p388 is wrong.

The mention of Battery fire under the title "commcasters and battery fire" in p.408 is confusing. Can a ship without a commcaster utilize battery fire? it's not clear afaik.

 

[HG_B]

Well hang on a second, the EXACT same spot might be an overstatement. What you are aiming at is any compartment, hot spot, center of the ship,

Nope. In order to ADD weapon damage together (to penetrate armour for instance) it must be the exact same spot. Example, a .30 cal MG won't go through an M1A1 MBT armour. This rule allows one to fire many .30 cal MGs at the tank, add their damage together and thus, penetrate the armour.

Logic DEMANDS that the bullets are hitting the EXACT same spot on the armour or, no damage.

 

[Vladika]

Logic DEMANDS that the bullets are hitting the EXACT same spot on the armour or, no damage.

I find myself agreeing with HG_B on this. I could see one combined "to hit" but not for damage, unless it was contact detonation for nuclear warheads. Then even one of those in this T5 SSU would spin that ship off into oblivion even IF you claimed it wouldn't penetrate whatever magic armor you use.

Armor takes force to penetrate. If that force isn't applied at the same time and place, it isn't additive,

 

[HG_B]

I find myself agreeing with HG_B on this. I could see one combined "to hit" but not for damage, unless it was contact detonation for nuclear warheads. Then even one of those in this T5 SSU would spin that ship off into oblivion even IF you claimed it wouldn't penetrate whatever magic armor you use.

Armor takes force to penetrate. If that force isn't applied at the same time and place, it isn't additive,

Yeah, an actual nuke going off against a ship has to go through. I consider the listed damage as a small nuke going off at a distance. There being no atmosphere to contribute to a shock wave & heat propagation.

 

[Reban]

Logic DEMANDS that the bullets are hitting the EXACT same spot on the armour or, no damage.

Okay I acknowledge your point. But would subjecting a panel of armor on a starship hull to large amounts of energy weaken it to the point where some of that energy could breach it?

Maybe the rule isn't an accurate depiction of the physics of penetration but is it a fair mechanism for subjecting a hull to large amounts of punishment over the course of 20 minutes? Relentless dumping of energy into a relatively small area of hull surface over 20 minutes but none is transmitted to the interior unless it all hits the exact same spot, is that also logical?

[EDIT]Perhaps the fault lies in the use of the word Penetrate rather than Breach? Penetrate implies knocking a big hole in the armor, but breach implies transmission of the energy of an attack.

 

[robject]

Battery Fire in General

I suggest that someone add to the errata: we need clarifying text on battery fire, separate from CommCasters.

Battery fire uses the ship's computers to concentrate a saturation attack. Any ship can do this, unless its ship's computer is disconnected (for example, due to battle damage, or sabotage, or to defend against DataCaster attacks).

Discussion on whether battery fire is reasonable or not is better served in a Lone Star thread -- because the topic of battery fire and CommCasters in T5 is important and under-served in the master text, and we really need to get it straight and in the errata pile... I don't want distractions.


Using CommCasters

Errata and clarifying text missing.

CommCasters are dedicated information and communications links between the ships.

One ship must have a Comcaster and it has the Lead Weapon. Any other ships in the same Range Band may slave their weapons of the same type to the CommCaster.

...

Uncrewed Small Craft can be slaved to a Ship with a CommCaster.

(Previously (the "old draft"), a DataCaster was required to operate uncrewed small craft.)

The intent for sharing weapons and sensors was to require each communicating ship to have a CommCaster.

Page 408 changes that, and the caveat there is that the ship with the CommCaster is the ship with the Lead Weapon. So, it's better if you've also got the best chance of hitting.

The text on page 408 was deliberately changed between the "old draft" on the CD and the final text. Therefore, I suggest that Marc had changed his mind to make CommCasters more generally powerful. He needs to propagate this change back to page 388.

The next unanswered question is: can a ship be slaved to another ship with a CommCaster? This would allow for some reasonable extensions, such as Port Control at starports requiring ships to slave themselves to the starport CommCaster array for final approach.

 

[HG_B]

Okay I acknowledge your point. But would subjecting a panel of armor on a starship hull to large amounts of energy weaken it to the point where some of that energy could breach it?

No, not according to how armour works in Trav. Otherwise, SUCCESSIVE hits on the armour would weaken it and cause damage even if the shots didn't "penetrate" it.

So, short answer to your question is, no.

This is why there is play testing of rules. To cull out the inconsistencies.

 

[robject]

No, not according to how armour works in Trav. Otherwise, SUCCESSIVE hits on the armour would weaken it and cause damage even if the shots didn't "penetrate" it.

Successive hits beyond the combat round, that is.

This particular subject - weapon batteries in Traveller - really belongs in its own thread in Lone Star.