ANY non simultaneous hits.
CommCaster and Virtual Battery Fire Question
- Thread starter sporegnosis
- Start date
ANY non simultaneous hits.
OK, I understand. But I'm serious about the thread topic. Start a new thread about this in Lone Star so you can get input from the Traveller community as a whole. This is a Traveller basic assumption, and isn't T5 CommCaster or Virtual Battery errata.
While battery fire is a Traveller-wide assumption, it is worth noting that it often has a bit of a diminishing returns effect, or at least it does in High Guard and MT. Whereas T5 keeps the full strength of all the weapons combined. So it might be possible to discuss the T5 batteries separately from the rest. For instance, for the purposes of balance, I think the battery fire needs some sort of additional limiting factor in T5, but that's the sort of thing that would take multiple battles, quite possibly with bigger ships, to confirm.
No, it is specific to T5 ship weapons.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Agreed. T5 is the first mention of "CommCaster or Virtual Battery". Also, while JTAS had some thoughts as to combining batteries for fighters, they were refused sanction.
So, yes, this very T5!
I do like the idea of the separate thread for the non CommCaster or Virtual Battery thoughts.
Yes, that is what I am suggesting.
Then start one. I want to discuss T5 weapons.
Okay, good, let's get back to the point of the thread; namely, disentangling Battery Fire from Virtual Battery Fire.
Essentially, any ship may fire weapons of the same kind as a battery. Pick a lead weapon, which makes the to-hit roll, and damage is summed.
To me, this looks like the Traveller5 answer to High Guard's "Battery Factors". Rather than buy a battery pre-built, you select which weapons to fire as a battery.
Virtual batteries are new to T5. In order to have a virtual battery, your participating ships need CommCasters. The current draft has a line that seems to indicate only one ship needs the CommCaster, making the device very powerful. I am not sure if this is an error or not.
If your ships are networked via CommCaster, then weapons of the same type may fire as a single battery. The lead ship chooses a lead weapon for the attack task. A success sums all hits.
The rules also state that uncrewed smallcraft can be slaved to a ship which has a CommCaster. Presumably, this means they can be controlled by the lead ship, including weapons. In this way, a fighter wing might be able to pool all of its weapons of one type into a single massed attack. However, I am not sure..
Essentially, any ship may fire weapons of the same kind as a battery. Pick a lead weapon, which makes the to-hit roll, and damage is summed.
To me, this looks like the Traveller5 answer to High Guard's "Battery Factors". Rather than buy a battery pre-built, you select which weapons to fire as a battery.
Virtual batteries are new to T5. In order to have a virtual battery, your participating ships need CommCasters. The current draft has a line that seems to indicate only one ship needs the CommCaster, making the device very powerful. I am not sure if this is an error or not.
If your ships are networked via CommCaster, then weapons of the same type may fire as a single battery. The lead ship chooses a lead weapon for the attack task. A success sums all hits.
The rules also state that uncrewed smallcraft can be slaved to a ship which has a CommCaster. Presumably, this means they can be controlled by the lead ship, including weapons. In this way, a fighter wing might be able to pool all of its weapons of one type into a single massed attack. However, I am not sure..
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I'm game. Let's give it a try.
Hmmmm Maybe, I see the game need but disagree that its reasonably possible.
Also, tertiary batteries might upset play (HG Pulse Lasers). Not sure yet what the outcome would be but you'd get a lot more damage. This could be an effective way to get escorts back into the game.
Agreed and long overdue!
I can see that since one ship is sending targeting data, but, I don't like it. I'd rather see all ships acting in unison required to have a functioning CommCaster (Only LOWEST level to be used). This should better allow every ship to have its sensor input on a firing solution. Also I would think it would better balance play.
Summing hits is pointless unless damages are increased. Otherwise you also sum the misses.
About darned time too!
Essentially a CommCaster is a datalink and its a pity a made up name was used for it. I think the line indicating only the lead ship needs a CommCaster is an error. Page 388 How Weapons Work requires that both ships have CommCasters to share sensor data and conduct Virtual Battery Fire.
My interpretation is that the level of data being exchanged goes beyond what could be passed by normal Comms. I think the CommCaster gives the lead ship access to the raw data from the sensors and the targeting apperatus aboard the other ship.
Two things
1). Maybe this only applies to vehicles with the Slave option from VehicleMaker. This option increases TL +1 and reduces tonnage by one ton, presumably by eliminating some crew accommodations. It might also apply to missiles used as drones (I'm thinking here of Size 6 Smallcraft and Size 7 ACS sized missiles).
2). Robject you listed some interesting uses such as space traffic control for normal crewed ships. There are also applications for rescuing craft in distress, piracy (using the CommCaster to take control of the target ship). It would also be useful for sending the uncrewed ship's boat down to the planet to collect crew, or samples, while controlling it from the mothership.
It makes sense for a squadron or wing of fighters to have the capacity to network their attacks but I think each fighter should have a CommCaster.
We used to do this in MT. Fighter wings combined weapons to get weapon factor. Also did the virtual battery thing for ships. Good to see House rules turned into RAW.
I don't know how it would work in practice (rules-wise), but I can see both options being used, where only the lead ship uses the CommCaster, or both/all ships do. If the former, then only the lead ship's sensor data could be used, which may give some kind of penalty on the to-hit roll? Alternatively, where all ships use them, they all get to share sensor data, possibly giving a bonus to the to-hit roll (and maybe even detection rolls, at the very least increasing the effective distance from other ships). Is this useful to even think about at this stage?
This is all worth kicking around. As far as I am concerned, either option may be correct, and possibly both, depending on what the rules are trying to do. There are rationalizations available to either.
What I want to know, is what is the intended purpose, aside from creating a super-network of weapons from a number of ships? Is this intended to be the function of a logistical controller, sort of like how you'd have a Big Fat Logistics Carrier in the center of things, directing fire from a pile of ships toward the biggest threat? Or is this intended to be a "pack hunting" kind of ability, where a team of similarly matched ships, like Sloans, work together to take down a bigger foe?
If Marc has a specific purpose, then that purpose drives the text. If he is open to suggestions, then he still needs to clarify and nail down the options. Either way, there is errata here.
What I want to know, is what is the intended purpose, aside from creating a super-network of weapons from a number of ships? Is this intended to be the function of a logistical controller, sort of like how you'd have a Big Fat Logistics Carrier in the center of things, directing fire from a pile of ships toward the biggest threat? Or is this intended to be a "pack hunting" kind of ability, where a team of similarly matched ships, like Sloans, work together to take down a bigger foe?
If Marc has a specific purpose, then that purpose drives the text. If he is open to suggestions, then he still needs to clarify and nail down the options. Either way, there is errata here.
There is another use: customs patrols can order a ship to surrender the helm for boarding and inspection. Failure to comply within some reasonable amount of time could be justifiably considered hostile intent.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I'm hoping/leaning toward pack hunting. HG didn't/doesn't need a controller for large Line Of Battle ship. It does need it to make smaller Escorts viable and needed.
T5 also seems geared toward a SSU at least so far. In that case either/or or both.
Similar threads
