Fixed-Mount Craft Weaponry

[Major B]

I'm probably just missing it, but I can't find any mention of fixed-mount weaponry in the MT RM design sequence.

Well, I found the mention of fixed-mount vehicle weapons, but nothing for craft weapons such as for a fighter.

Also, the turret weapon tables do not have the volume required for an individual fixed-mount weapon, as the rules allow multiple weapons to be installed in a turret, and the volumes for the turrets are provided.

Any help on finding out what penalty to the UCP a fixed mount weapon gets (IIRC it is -1 to the UCP factor but can't find the governing rule) and on finding the volumes for turret-mounted weaponry?

 

[far-trader]

There's the note on page 71 MT RM under step 1 (which I'm guessing is where you found the mention) that seems to imply small fixed mounts use the same rule as spinal mounts on page 94 MT RM under Special Rules. But nothing I recall about actual differences between small fixed mounts and turrets. As in cheaper, smaller or anything like the trade-offs from the CT fixed mount rule.

There is no volume given for turret mounted weaponry, you get the whole turret (volumes listed by each type) and how many weapons it can have (again by each type) leading me to (once upon a time) understand that (as per the rules) you can't mix weapons that require different turret sizes. However DonM recently said that was errata and you can mix them. iirc...

EDIT: ...ack, see, I didn't recall correctly The bit DonM corrected me on, errata wise, had to do with Plasma and Fusion only being single mounts in the rules. The errata makes them single or double again, just like HG. The mixed turret related bit is that of course when MT had it that you could only have multiples of the basic turret weapons there was no confusion about sizes and such. Anyway...

...maybe there was something in the Solomani alien book? Like (because) it was that way in CT? I think I had Solomani and Aslan and sold it years ago, but don't recall the fixed mount rules being in there.

 

[Major B]

There's the note on page 71 MT RM under step 1 (which I'm guessing is where you found the mention) that seems to imply small fixed mounts use the same rule as spinal mounts on page 94 MT RM under Special Rules. But nothing I recall about actual differences between small fixed mounts and turrets. As in cheaper, smaller or anything like the trade-offs from the CT fixed mount rule.

Its the 'optional' part of the special rule on page 95 that confused me. If that rule was not optional, I would think that it would replace the -1 UCP penalty that I remember from somewhere (must be from CT).

Maybe the problem is that my low caffeine light is blinking. Let me go take care of that and see what I can remember after ...

 

[sabredog]

I dunno if this will help, the CT Aliens: Solomani has this to say about designing fixed mounts in ships. I know MT is a little different in some things (but I'ver never looked at it hard enough to know all), but I think it might help?

"Fixed Weapons Mounts: Solomani ships may have fixed
weapons mounts (as opposed to turret mounted weapons).
Fixed weapons mounts allow up to two weapons to be attached
per each hardpoint on the ship and do not require fire control
tonnage or a turret. Weapons in fixed weapons mounts are
operated by a gunner on the bridge and are subject to an attacker's
DM - 2 in space combat. A ship is allowed fixed
weapons mounts equal to the model number of the computer
installed on the ship (Model12 computer allows two hardpoints
to have fixed weapons mounts)."

 

[far-trader]

Just one thing, you gotta watch when cut and pasting from the PDFs This bit...

"(Model12 computer allows two hardpoints
to have fixed weapons mounts)."

...should read "(Model / 2 computer allows two hardpoints
to have fixed weapons mounts)."

 

[sabredog]

Curses, foiled by laziness again!

 

[Major B]

Has anyone heard of something canonical that provides the volume of the weaponry that goes inside a turret on a starship?

Any if canon doesn't define it, has anyone created a house rule for this?

 

[far-trader]

Not sure about canon (before TNE which detailed it), but a long time house rule for CT based on my 50/50 deckplan (house) rule (evolved from the canon stateroom tonnage) follows:

1ton turret includes:

One gunner control station (small acceleration couch/control station) of 0.5tons (500kg) which includes limited life support.

Three weapon racks of 0.15tons (150kg) capacity each, allowing up to three separate standard weapons to be mounted.

The remaining 0.05tons (50kg) is turret tracking and weapon mount aiming systems.

A standard laser weapon includes all laser components and a capacitor for one turn of fire totaling 150kg. Power input is required.

A standard missile launcher is a small magazine holding 3 standard missiles of 50kg each (or optionally, imtu, 1 standard torpedo of 150kg).

A standard sand caster is a small magazine holding 3 canisters of sand of 50kg each.

 

[Major B]

1ton turret includes:

Dan, this is incredibly helpful - thanks.

Not sure about canon (before TNE which detailed it), but a long time house rule for CT based on my 50/50 deckplan (house) rule (evolved from the canon stateroom tonnage) follows:

Does TNE give similar volumes and weights to what you posted?

If you can provide the title of the reference, I'll pick up a .pdf copy from DriveThru.

 

[far-trader]

Dan, this is incredibly helpful - thanks.

You're welcome

I think MT changed the number of missile and sand rounds in a turret though didn't they? From 3 per launcher (9 in a triple turret) to 3 times that or something? Or was that a later rules set? So that would upset my calculations as it's what they were largely based on.

Does TNE give similar volumes and weights to what you posted?

Not really. First they upped the standard turret tonnage to 3dtons but the weapon capabilities were still comparable. And TNE weights didn't equal dtons on a 1000kg to 1dton the way CT implies (and states in some instances). It varied widely depending on the power and density of the material/equipment installed, which varied with the TL. The standard turrets were between 55 and 68 mass tonnes for 3dtons for lasers.

If you can provide the title of the reference, I'll pick up a .pdf copy from DriveThru.

FF&S (1st ed) mostly. "Fire, Fusion, & Steel" Technical Architecture for TNE by GDW gives all the build bits. The main TNE rulebook and Brilliant Lances has some basic turret info too. FF&S comes down to one page in the appendix of standard weapon installations. The other bits of the book will let you custom build but it's not easy and the times I tried to come up with the examples to figure out how to build some, they didn't work.

I'm not sure it would be of much help or use for MT and don't think I'd recommend it for that. It might provide some ideas but would need work to convert.

 

[aramis]

No, TNE does not, Major. TNE uses a 3Td (3 Displacement ton) turret. CT and MT both use a standard 1Td can...

Note that a standard turret weapon, with MT Pen, designed under Striker comes out to just over a displacement ton, for JUST the 250MW laser. IIRC, 16 cubic meters.

The standard CT turret can hold rounds in the turret that are not loaded into the 3 round launcher.

 

[Major B]

Dan and aramis, thanks again.

I think MT changed the number of missile and sand rounds in a turret though didn't they? From 3 per launcher (9 in a triple turret) to 3 times that or something? Or was that a later rules set?

I don't recall anything specifying how many rounds fit in the turret itself, but MT does provide the volume and weights to customize the size magazine you want to create for missiles, and Don's errata updates that for sand so you can create sandcaster magazines too.

Note that a standard turret weapon, with MT Pen, designed under Striker comes out to just over a displacement ton, for JUST the 250MW laser. IIRC, 16 cubic meters.

That is interesting. I found a reference somewhere on the web that provides the MT penetration data for starship lasers. I don't recall the url, but have a printout I can look for when I get home. Maybe that will also have the system volume. I'll post an update when I find the printout. Thanks for jogging my memory and for directing me back to Striker.

 

[aramis]

The MT Pen data for lasers is in the MT PM, page 80.

My website extrapolates out the progressions.

 

[Major B]

The MT Pen data for lasers is in the MT PM, page 80.

True, but there is nothing there on the volume and weight of the systems.

 

[aramis]

True, but there is nothing there on the volume and weight of the systems.

Right you are, that's in the Ref's Manual.

And the volume won't match if you design it with striker Bk 3 (which has the same scale for Pen.)

 

[sabredog]

There is also the discrepancy in what a turret volume is depending on Book 2 vs. HG.

In Book 2 1 ton per hardpoint is set aside for fire control, but it doesn't specify if the turret uses that, or if the turret is on top of that. I have always assumed the latter IMTU, having the FC be incorporated into the ship's sensor and avionics suite. Since the turret is mainly attached to the outside of the ship I figure some fudge factor is allowed for it's total volume.

Aramis is right about the Striker numbers - I tried to figure it all out myself once and then decided to never try that sort of thing again lest I lose sanity.

In HG a turret takes 1 ton and no mention is made of tonnage allocated to fire control. So, the question of exactly how much volume the turret takes, including FC, traversing gear, weapons, and where the gunner goes....is all left hanging.

And of course this all begs the question of the volume differences in single, double, or triple turrets.

 

[far-trader]

There is also the discrepancy in what a turret volume is depending on Book 2 vs. HG.

In Book 2 1 ton per hardpoint is set aside for fire control, but it doesn't specify if the turret uses that, or if the turret is on top of that. I have always assumed the latter IMTU, having the FC be incorporated into the ship's sensor and avionics suite. Since the turret is mainly attached to the outside of the ship I figure some fudge factor is allowed for it's total volume.

In HG a turret takes 1 ton and no mention is made of tonnage allocated to fire control. So, the question of exactly how much volume the turret takes, including FC, traversing gear, weapons, and where the gunner goes....is all left hanging.

True to a point, but we have to go with what we know from the design rules. And that is that the 1ton turrets in HG are the same as the turrets in Book 2 and you only have the hull tonnage to work with so there's no room to fudge a turret blister outside that. It has to be included in the total. Of course I fudge when deckplanning*, that's explicitly allowed, just not actual design tonnage. So it is in the deckplanning phase that the blister and some extra bits appear. More on that in a moment.

* comes to about 2 tons actually, so I'm over the fudge allowance but I ignore it since I'm typically well under everywhere else the way I tend to draw deckplans, see below for description

Whether you call it fire control (in the same way the bridge is more than a place to sit) or don't name it at all that one ton is the weapons, gunner (per turret as required in Book 2, optional in Book 5 if you choose to group as batteries), and gear to make it work. A lot to ask of 1ton but doable (though my deckplan fudge shows 2tons would be fine).

And of course this all begs the question of the volume differences in single, double, or triple turrets.

Which I also neatly (imo) addressed early on in CT for MTU. It all hangs together (even if I don't always do a good job of describing it in one palce).

The way I handle that (and the blister et al) is:

The MCr0.1 for the hardpoint (an ommission in HG I'm convinced) is the basic empty turret with gunner workstation and tracking gear. On the deckplan this gets you two half ton squares, one is the seat the other is empty, inside a 3m diameter ring to allow full rotation of the whole turret. The bits of the circle not part of the squares is the tracking gears and such. On a flat layout (as described) the turret blister sticks out the top or bottom of the hull about 1.5m and access is via a hatch behind the seat for the gunner, and across from that on the other side for reloading and maintenance of the weapons. I try to avoid mounting turrets that stick out the side of the hull because of the complication (usually) of the 90 deg offset of the ship gravity to the gunner orientation.

The turret cost (MCr1 for triple, MCr0.5 for double, MCr0.2 for single) is the installation cost for that number of weapons. So there are no single, double or triple turrets except as a definition of the number of weapons installed. All turrets (the above MCr0.1 cost) have three racks ready for installation of any standard turret weapon. The difference in the cost is the extra cost to upgrade if desired.

For example:

A Free-Trader just off the assembly line has two hardpoints costing MCr0.2 and each hardpoint comes with a gunner workstation and 3 empty racks. It can be used in this state for simulation practice, or even carrying half a ton of whatever cramed in the weapon rack space. It's also a nice quiet place of solitude for a crewman with the access to hide out for a while.

Soon after launching the Captain decides a little kick might be handy, but he's short on cash so all he can afford is a Sand Caster and Two Pulse Lasers. That sets him back MCr1.25 and installing the Sand Caster in one turret costs MCr0.2 and the two Pulse Lasers installed in the other turret cost MCr0.5 for a total layout of MCr1.95.

Later he has enough saved to upgrade and decides to add two Missile Launchers to the Sand Caster turret, and another Sand Caster to the two Pulse Laser turret. The weapons cost a total of MCr1.75 and the install of two Missile Launchers beside the Sand Caster costs MCr0.8 (difference between triple install of MCr1.0 and single install of MCr0.2) while the install of the single Sand Caster between the two Pulse Lasers costs MCr0.5 (the difference between double install of MCr0.5 and triple install of MCr1.0).

No cost for removal of weapons (and trade in value allowed on the weapon) but install of replacements is the same as new as outlined above.

 

[atpollard]

And that is that the 1ton turrets in HG are the same as the turrets in Book 2 and you only have the hull tonnage to work with so there's no room to fudge a turret blister outside that. It has to be included in the total.

While perfectly logical, I am not sure that the rules actually state this.

Imagine, for example three Type S couriers. Courier-1 has no turret (only a hardpoint). Courier-2 has a triple missile turret (1 ton turret per HG or 1 ton fire control per LBB2). Courier-3 has a PA Barbette (5 tons per High Guard).

If the turrets must be included in the total tonnage, then Courier-1 is 99 tons (cannot jump), Courier-2 is 100 tons, Courier-3 is 104 tons (1 G max.).

Do you differentiate starship performance based on empty hardpoints vs. turrets vs. barbettes? [I never bothered with that level of detail, I just reserve the 1 ton for fire control.]

 

[far-trader]

While perfectly logical, I am not sure that the rules actually state this.

I probably muddied up the explanation somewhere. Which part specifically? That the standard 1ton turrets are identical between B2 and B5, or that ship tonnage is all inclusive?

Imagine, for example three Type S couriers...

You're looking at it backwards. All three Type S Couriers are 100ton hulls. All components must fit within that hull* to be properly designed.

So Courier-1 has no turret (only a hardpoint) but imo has to have tonnage set aside for the turret it is intended to mount. Courier-1 is 100tons (and probably has 1ton set aside for the turret, though it could have more designated).

And Courier-2 has a triple missile turret actually installed on the hardpoint. Courier-2 is also 100tons (and has 1ton of that as a turret installed). Whether that 1 ton weapon installation is called a turret per B5 or fire control per B2 they are clearly identical in form and function.

Courier-3 has a PA Barbette actually installed on the hardpoint. Courier-3 is also 100ton (but has 5 tons of that as a barbette installed).

Do you differentiate starship performance based on empty hardpoints vs. turrets vs. barbettes?

Nope, because the turrets are not external to the ship design tonnage. They are part of the tonnage, whether a weapon is actually installed or not. Whether it's called fire control or turret. Whether it's 1ton, 3tons, or 5tons, unarmed or armed, it all has to fit within the designated hull displacement.

I hope that clears up my take on it but if I'm still not clear (or worse, made it muddier) just ask where I've missed the mark and I'll try to clarify.

EDIT: A thought occurs to me that I might append here, related as it is to the above and the original question of the thread, fixed mounts. They throw a bit of a wrench into the system since (in CT B2 builds) they:

"allow up to two weapons to be attached per each hardpoint on the ship and do not require fire control tonnage or a turret"

Personally I've just presumed the weapons are still within the designated tonnage allowance of the ship and part of the deckplan slop, and since per my interpretation it would be at most 0.3% of the displacement that seems reasonable. Especially given the tradeoffs made - fewer weapons, limited by computer control, aiming penalty for lack of turret (and in MTU no access from within the ship, say for reloading or repairing, meaning an EVA or landing to do it).

EDIT DEUX: I've been thinking I should also add the caveat that much (if not all) of what I've been posting here is not exactly MT specific, mostly CT derived, but largely MT applicable with little or no work, though I suspect that's all pretty obvious

 

[Major B]

Nope, because the turrets are not external to the ship design tonnage. They are part of the tonnage, whether a weapon is actually installed or not. Whether it's called fire control or turret. Whether it's 1ton, 3tons, or 5tons, unarmed or armed, it all has to fit within the designated hull displacement.

Actually, this presents a new problem for me. In the designs I've done up to now, I deduct the volume for the type of turret installed but I don't leave any unused volume other than for cargo. So, for my ships turrets really aren't interchangeable except that different weapons can be fitted within the turret there. I never thought through the problems presented by trying to mount a FG turret where a BLaser turret used to be - can't be done unless the original design dedicates the free space to allow it or if the components nearby can be relocated to another area of the ship.

EDIT: A thought occurs to me that I might append here, related as it is to the above and the original question of the thread, fixed mounts. They throw a bit of a wrench into the system since (in CT B2 builds) they:

"allow up to two weapons to be attached per each hardpoint on the ship and do not require fire control tonnage or a turret"

Personally I've just presumed the weapons are still within the designated tonnage allowance of the ship and part of the deckplan slop, and since per my interpretation it would be at most 0.3% of the displacement that seems reasonable. Especially given the tradeoffs made - fewer weapons, limited by computer control, aiming penalty for lack of turret (and in MTU no access from within the ship, say for reloading or repairing, meaning an EVA or landing to do it).

Based on your earlier post, this was what I intended to extrapolate volumes from - at least for those that can fit up to three per turret and following similar logic for those that only fit two or one per turret (or barbette). But your penalties are right in line for what I was looking for in the OP.

Please expand on that if you can.

Fewer weapons meaning only two per hardpoint rather than the three allowed for some systems?

Limited by computer control meaning no DM for gunnery skill?

Aiming penalty?

I like the idea on no internal access. Consider that one stolen first.