CT Only: Fixed Weapon mounts

[McPerth]

NOTE: This is a spin off of this thread, to avoid such a side detail to monopolize it:

According AM6:Solomani, fixed weapon mounts can be mounted on a ship:

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 (Model/2 computer allows two hardpoints to have fixed weapons mounts)

So, at two weapons per HP (while in most cases you can have 2 energy weapons or 3 laser/missile/sandcasters per HP in turrets) and a -2 to hit, what it's their advantage over turrets (unless you're mounting PAs on them)?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

No turret, no tonnage.

All fixed mounts fired by a single gunner on the bridge, so less staterooms needed.


Two "weapons" includes sandcasters, so a Fixed Mount is equal to a double turret.

LBB2'81, p16:
WEAPONRY
The four commonly available weapons types are pulse lasers, beam lasers, missile launchers, and sandcasters.

 

[McPerth]

Two "weapons" includes sandcasters, so a Fixed Mount is equal to a double turret.

But with a -2 to hit...

 

[Condottiere]

I think it was an attempt to differentiate them from the Imperium.

Free space.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But with a -2 to hit...

Agreed, but usable as emergency weapons taking up as little space as possible.

 

[Condottiere]

You have full range, which allows stand off.

Also, it would depend on how you calculate missile hits.

 

[McPerth]

In any case, this surprises me (I've always (mis)understood their advantage was to allow double weapons as a turret), as, taken literally (as it ways two weapons, regardless which ones), it could allow for a fighter to have two turret rated PAs, just to give you an example...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In any case, this surprises me (I've always (mis)understood their advantage was to allow double weapons as a turret), as, taken literally (as it ways two weapons, regardless which ones), it could allow for a fighter to have two turret rated PAs, just to give you an example...

The AM6 rule is written for the LBB2 system, as the rest of AM6.

Using it with LBB5 requires a bit of adjusting (or house ruling if you wish).

AM6:
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.

LBB5'80, p30:
Turrets are installed on hardpoints with single, dual, and triple configurations, and allow the mounting of lasers (beam or pulse), energy weapons (plasma or fusion guns), sandcasters, particle accelerators, and missile racks. Lasers, sandcasters, and missile racks may be mounted in any turret; energy weapons may be mounted in single or dual turrets; particle accelerators may only be mounted in single turrets. [snip...]
Particle accelerators are also available in barbettes. A barbette is similar to a turret, but larger.

I allow Solomani fixed mounts with LBB5, but say that "particle accelerators may only be mounted in single turrets" would apply per hardpoint, so only one PA per fixed mount, but I can't pretend that is anything other than my house rule...



I can't really see why anyone would want two turret PA weapons @ 10 EP (=10Dt&MCr30@TL15) and factor-3 in a small craft, when a regular turret laser would be factor-4 and 3 EP, hence much better at hitting. Even a pulse laser factor-3 would hit better, and do more damage to heavily armoured targets.

Neither is much use, militarily.

 

[McPerth]

I allow Solomani fixed mounts with LBB5, but say that "particle accelerators may only be mounted in single turrets" would apply per hardpoint, so only one PA per fixed mount, but I can't pretend that is anything other than my house rule...

But, following RAW, you could mount a fusion gun (factor 5 battery) and a turret sized PA (factor 2 battery) on a fighter. añbeit at -2 to hit each...

I can't really see why anyone would want two turret PA weapons @ 10 EP (=10Dt&MCr30@TL15) and factor-3 in a small craft, when a regular turret laser would be factor-4 and 3 EP, hence much better at hitting. Even a pulse laser factor-3 would hit better, and do more damage to heavily armoured targets.

Neither is much use, militarily.

Tell the designers of the Gazelle ...

See that those PAs could fire as two different single weapon batteries, and the damage they may do to soft skinned ships is considerable, as they roll on both, Surface Explosion and Radiation.

If you owned a Corsair or Broadsword ship (so, unarmored but large enough for the factor 4 weapon not to produce auto-criticals), which one would you prefer to confront? a factor 4 laser of 2 factor 2 PAs?

Not to say ground support on an athmosphereless planet...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But, following RAW, you could mount a fusion gun (factor 5 battery) and a turret sized PA (factor 2 battery) on a fighter. añbeit at -2 to hit each...

Well, I'd call it a house rule to use it with LBB5 at all, and rule no. A PA would take the entire fixed mount IMTU. A fusion gun would combine with any other turret weapon, like a double turret IMTU.

Tell the designers of the Gazelle ...

The Gazelle (JTAS#4) was a proper little warship under LBB5'79 albeit house-ruled, I believe.
The later conversion to LBB5'80 is just a mess...

See that those PAs could fire as two different single weapon batteries,

By RAW not:

LBB5'80, p29:
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).
...
On ships 1000 tons and under, mixed turrets (weapons of different types in the same turret) are allowed; in such cases, each weapon is a battery.

Two PA:s in a single mount isn't a mixed turret, hence one battery?

... and the damage they may do to soft skinned ships is considerable, as they roll on both, Surface Explosion and Radiation.

Against an unarmored victim, sure, anything would...
A bigger computer would probably be a better investment for a medium fighter.

A MCr 200 heavy fighter is a bit overkill to slaughter unarmed civilians?

FH-0106Z91-000000-00300-0        MCr 190          65 Dton
bearing             1                              Crew=1
batteries           1                               TL=15
                           Cargo=0 Fuel=1 EP=26 Agility=6

Spoiler:

Dual Occupancy                                        1       238
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             0             65         
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                        8
                                                                
Manoeuvre D                            6    1        11         6
Power Plant                           40    1        26        78
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-0, 0,15 weeks                   1         
                                                                
Bridge                                      1        13         0
Computer            m/9                9    1        13       140
                                                                
Cargo                                                 1         
                                                                
Fixed Mount         -1 free, DM -2          1                   
  Weapon            Particle           3    2                   6
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 237,65           Sum:         1       238
Class Cost          MCr  49,91          Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 190,12

 

[McPerth]

Two PA:s in a single mount isn't a mixed turret, hence one battery?

In fact, it's not a turret, and how to use them as batteries is not stated (as you say, they are not for HG and so should be house ruled).

I'd probably go with you on this, but then it would be a factor 3 (2 weapons), that it's neither too bad against unarmored or lightly armored ship (even against a Gazelle, to put an example)

And don't forget: unlike lasers, missiles or even high energy weapons or MG, it cannot be stopped by defenses (armor aside). A hit is a hit with PAs (one of their main advantages)

 

[bookwyrm]

I think the reason there is a -2 to hit is because the Pilot has to line the ship up with the target (or where the target is going to be if at farther ranges) while the gunner has to time the shot just right. May as well have the Pilot also be the gunner when firing the fixed weapon mounts, unless there is some reason to not have the Pilot in charge of shooting the fixed weapons.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In fact, it's not a turret, and how to use them as batteries is not stated (as you say, they are not for HG and so should be house ruled).

Agreed, it requires some house-rule, and any house-rule is as good as any other...

I'd probably go with you on this, but then it would be a factor 3 (2 weapons), that it's neither too bad against unarmored or lightly armored ship (even against a Gazelle, to put an example)

Agreed, but a single fusion gun is almost as good (better against small targets due to size crits), and much cheaper. The fusion gun (or a triple laser) is +3 (+1 for factor and +2 for fixed mount) to hit compared to a fixed mount PA.

And don't forget: unlike lasers, missiles or even high energy weapons or MG, it cannot be stopped by defenses (armor aside). A hit is a hit with PAs (one of their main advantages)

Agreed, a hit is two damage rolls with PAs, but only large factor PAs have good to hit.

Energy weapons and lasers can only be stopped by sandcasters.
If you have a decent to hit chance, you have a good chance to penetrate, e.g. a single factor-5 fusion gun needs a 3+ to penetrate against a full sand-caster turret. With a computer advantage you have an even better chance.

So, IMHO a fusion gun (or laser turret) plus a bigger computer is a better choice than a PA with a massive power plant.

 

[McPerth]

The fusion gun (or a triple laser) is +3 (+1 for factor and +2 for fixed mount) to hit compared to a fixed mount PA.

OTOH, a FG, as high energy weapon, can only attack at close range...

If combat is at long range, it can only be used on anti-missile role

 

[mike wightman]

Fixed mount is -2 not +2
"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 (Model/2 computer allows two hardpoints to have fixed weapons mounts)."

 

[kilemall]

From a minis style type maneuver perspective, IMTU fixed mounts on a small craft gets treated like spinal mounts- can fire in a any direction as long as the ship/craft has a minimum of agility 1 allocated.

In context acceleration is a separate allocation, so a vessel can put all to acceleration and have no agility DM, or all agility and no thrust in any direction.

If a ship/craft has full acceleration and no agility, it can only fire its spinal/fixed energy weapons in a forward arc.

From a general arc vs hardpoint build perspective, the LBB5 HP per 100 tons still applies, with up to 10 tons per HP for bays and spinals.

Turrets are usually turrets, although I like the no FC ton for fixed mounts idea. What is different is arc treatment-arc is more a function of percentage of hull rather than weapon type.

If the weapon is 5% or more of the hull, it is fixed/spinal and only has a forward 30 degree firing arc under full acceleration.

If the weapon is 3-4% of the hull, it has a barbette type arc, forward firing arc 90 degree firing arc.

If 2% or less, the weapon has a 360 degree arc, although the battery bearing rule applies to turret battery potential.

Example, a 1 ton turret on a 10 ton fighter is 10% of the hull and thus only fixed. The same turret on a 30 ton hull is a barbette arc, and on a 50 ton hull is a full turret arc.

Note this works in reverse, a 3000 ton spinal weapon is spinal arc on a 30000 ton hull, barbette arc on a 75000 ton hull, and turret arc on 150000 tons.

Note this is all predicated on a different paradigm, each roll is a single shot rather than an aggregation of continuous fire over the full turn.

 

[McPerth]

Example, a 1 ton turret on a 10 ton fighter is 10% of the hull and thus only fixed. The same turret on a 30 ton hull is a barbette arc, and on a 50 ton hull is a full turret arc.

But if this fighter has two crewmen, it could be a full turret (as a Bulton Paul Definat WWII fighter), and so using turret rules, with no regard to firing arc, despite the fighter's size (as long as it can fit)...

Even a single seat fighter could do it, as long as it has enough computer as for the computer to handle the weapon(s)

 

[kilemall]

But if this fighter has two crewmen, it could be a full turret (as a Bulton Paul Definat WWII fighter), and so using turret rules, with no regard to firing arc, despite the fighter's size (as long as it can fit)...

Even a single seat fighter could do it, as long as it has enough computer as for the computer to handle the weapon(s)

Hmm, that’s more grav tank weapons than starship weapons. Like the difference between a 20mm air to air autocannon and the 30mm tank buster on an A10.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Fixed mount is -2 not +2

Quite, so the weapon in a regular turret has a +2 advantage to hit.

 

[mike wightman]

I misunderstood the point you were making, sorry for my confusion.