Fire Control

[phavoc]

Some space for missiles seems to be included in the turrets themselves these days though, 12 missiles per launcher.

Is it just me missing something, or does the Patrol Corvette not have any regular airlocks? At all? It was the same with the current version, from Traders & Gunboats IIRC.

This has been an ongoing issue (i.e. how many missiles are stored in a turret). The book says 1 ton is set aside for fire control, so in theory that 1 ton for the hardpoint is already used up. And 12 missiles = 1 ton, so unless there is a mysterious bag of holding accomodating all those 1 ton requirements AND the actual launching mechanism/laser/sandcaster launcher... we have a space problem Houston.

I do hope they actually fix this in the description.

 

[AndrewW]

The book says 1 ton is set aside for fire control, so in theory that 1 ton for the hardpoint is already used up.

Where does it say that¿

 

[phavoc]

The book says 1 ton is set aside for fire control, so in theory that 1 ton for the hardpoint is already used up.

Where does it say that¿

It is stated in High Guard (in detail, pg 61, with a reference back to pg 111 in the Core Rulebook for the one ton). This concept has been the same in all previous versions.

Now, if you are going to say "That's not true" because the CRB 2.0 doesn't specifically state that, you would be factually correct. But since it was missed in CRB 1.0 and clarified in HG, I think it's safe to assume this has not changed.

Unless of course you want to go by what's in the CRB 1.0. And then you will have a problem because using the STATED information, a Beam laser takes up 1Dton. So THREE lasers would, using the information provided, require THREE tons.

So which is it? Is the book right, and 3 weapons take 3 tons, or the explanation that runs through all the version of Traveller, that 1 ton must be set aside for fire control PER TURRET and the weapons take up no additional space?

 

[AndrewW]

It is stated in High Guard (in detail, pg 61, with a reference back to pg 111 in the Core Rulebook for the one ton). This concept has been the same in all previous versions.

Old material, I was referring to where this is stated in this version of the core rulebook.

So which is it? Is the book right, and 3 weapons take 3 tons, or the explanation that runs through all the version of Traveller, that 1 ton must be set aside for fire control PER TURRET and the weapons take up no additional space?

The turret takes up 1 ton, not the weapons installed within the turret.

 

[phavoc]

It is stated in High Guard (in detail, pg 61, with a reference back to pg 111 in the Core Rulebook for the one ton). This concept has been the same in all previous versions.

Old material, I was referring to where this is stated in this version of the core rulebook.

So which is it? Is the book right, and 3 weapons take 3 tons, or the explanation that runs through all the version of Traveller, that 1 ton must be set aside for fire control PER TURRET and the weapons take up no additional space?

The turret takes up 1 ton, not the weapons installed within the turret.

Yes, and it looks like the same semantical miss is being repeated. In the original CRB it's not clearly stated. In HG it was. So since you have seen HG and the rest of us have not, is it also stated that one ton is set aside for fire control? And if it's the turret, then we should assume then that when barbettes (assuming the are) are introduced, they will take up additional space, or they will be larger and take up the same space as a turret?

So maybe the advertising tagline for Trav 2.0 should be "kinda sorta your old Traveller, but lots of numerous small changes so it really isn't"? It seems the deeper that we go it's not a streamlined version, or even an improved version, but just a "different" one. Different can be good if it makes sense and adds to the game. But a sideways different makes no sense except to sell the same, but different, gaming system again.

 

[AndrewW]

Yes, and it looks like the same semantical miss is being repeated. In the original CRB it's not clearly stated. In HG it was. So since you have seen HG and the rest of us have not, is it also stated that one ton is set aside for fire control? And if it's the turret, then we should assume then that when barbettes (assuming the are) are introduced, they will take up additional space, or they will be larger and take up the same space as a turret?

No this is not in High Guard either.

So maybe the advertising tagline for Trav 2.0 should be "kinda sorta your old Traveller, but lots of numerous small changes so it really isn't"? It seems the deeper that we go it's not a streamlined version, or even an improved version, but just a "different" one. Different can be good if it makes sense and adds to the game. But a sideways different makes no sense except to sell the same, but different, gaming system again.

It's a simplification, incorporating fire control directly into the weapon system rather then being a separate add on item.

 

[phavoc]

Yes, and it looks like the same semantical miss is being repeated. In the original CRB it's not clearly stated. In HG it was. So since you have seen HG and the rest of us have not, is it also stated that one ton is set aside for fire control? And if it's the turret, then we should assume then that when barbettes (assuming the are) are introduced, they will take up additional space, or they will be larger and take up the same space as a turret?

No this is not in High Guard either.

So maybe the advertising tagline for Trav 2.0 should be "kinda sorta your old Traveller, but lots of numerous small changes so it really isn't"? It seems the deeper that we go it's not a streamlined version, or even an improved version, but just a "different" one. Different can be good if it makes sense and adds to the game. But a sideways different makes no sense except to sell the same, but different, gaming system again.

It's a simplification, incorporating fire control directly into the weapon system rather then being a separate add on item.

So are hardpoints going away as well? No mention of hardpoints is in the CRB 2.0, just that you can have one turret per 100 tons. And when you built a ship the hardpoint had to be installed (and the 1 ton installed, but no turret) and 1 ton allocated for the hardpoint. And it takes 2 tech levels to figure out how to cram 3 weapons in the same turret when a particle beam appears 1 TL lower than a triple turret. Huh, go figure.

So now we'll have three sizes of turrets, each one a 100% increase in weapon capability, but all taking up the same amount of space, with the costs different. So, umm, how do you justify that? Just a wave of the hand I suppose?

I have no issue with tweaks, but this tweak seems much the same as the concept of jump bubbles replacing the lanthanum jump grid built into the ship. It's similar, but not quite the same. Nothing was ever done with the idea to justify the difference, so it became a needless change that contributed nothing, just a difference. More of "kinda sorta the same" The turret (and how the turrets are split up TL wise) vs. hardpoint seems to be the same thing. It's not simplifying the game at all.

 

[AndrewW]

So are hardpoints going away as well? No mention of hardpoints is in the CRB 2.0, just that you can have one turret per 100 tons. And when you built a ship the hardpoint had to be installed (and the 1 ton installed, but no turret) and 1 ton allocated for the hardpoint. And it takes 2 tech levels to figure out how to cram 3 weapons in the same turret when a particle beam appears 1 TL lower than a triple turret. Huh, go figure.

Hardpoints haven't changed.

So now we'll have three sizes of turrets, each one a 100% increase in weapon capability, but all taking up the same amount of space, with the costs different. So, umm, how do you justify that? Just a wave of the hand I suppose?

That isn't a change, the current rules have 3 turrets, all taking 1 ton of fire control. Weapons in turrets are externally mounted so don't take up the internal space.

I have no issue with tweaks, but this tweak seems much the same as the concept of jump bubbles replacing the lanthanum jump grid built into the ship. It's similar, but not quite the same. Nothing was ever done with the idea to justify the difference, so it became a needless change that contributed nothing, just a difference. More of "kinda sorta the same" The turret (and how the turrets are split up TL wise) vs. hardpoint seems to be the same thing. It's not simplifying the game at all.

The only change is the separate but required fire control, rather then being a separate system that was mandatory is being incorporated directly into the weapon system. Having seen enough ship designs that neglected to add the fire control to a bay weapon, yes this removes an extra step.

 

[Condottiere]

Fire control should depend on allocated batteries, and be remote from the actual barbettes and turrets.

It seems to be attached to bays.

 

[AndrewW]

Fire control should depend on allocated batteries, and be remote from the actual barbettes and turrets.

It seems to be attached to bays.

It hasn't been shown separately from the weapons system in deck plans, but you are free to put it wherever you wish.

 

[phavoc]

The book says 1 ton is set aside for fire control, so in theory that 1 ton for the hardpoint is already used up.

Where does it say that¿

That isn't a change, the current rules have 3 turrets, all taking 1 ton of fire control. Weapons in turrets are externally mounted so don't take up the internal space.

Now my head is spinning. I first said that 1 ton was already taken up with fire control in regards to the inside of the turret. You said "where does it say that?". The book just says a turret takes 1 ton. Now you are saying there is fire control.

The only change is the separate but required fire control, rather then being a separate system that was mandatory is being incorporated directly into the weapon system. Having seen enough ship designs that neglected to add the fire control to a bay weapon, yes this removes an extra step.

Why? Oh why the change? Is this being done because both players and the published designs struggled with remembering to allocate the 1 ton per hardpoint? The concept of turrets being external holding the weapons with the 1 ton allocated internally has been an accepted part of the game since, well, the beginning. That's what allowed you to mount whatever size turret you wanted and still keep to the 1 ton allocated for fire control per hardpoint.

As far as bay weapons go, jeezus, the systems have space to burn for what they do. Unless they are going to actually put down how much space the system dedicates to ammunition storage, there's tons of room in a bay compared to what the turret weapon systems are for. If anything a bay weapon should take up more space internally (assuming it's a turret and not an actual bay... oy... the poor word choice here!).

If you are trying to make the rules as simple as possible, why bother with double or triple turrets? Just have one weapon per turret. It takes up 1 ton. It's simple. Instead it looks like the choice is a mish-mash of ideas, changing things, but not, making them simpler, but not.

We really should take this to a new thread. It stopped being about the patrol corvette a long time ago.

 

[AndrewW]

Why? Oh why the change? Is this being done because both players and the published designs struggled with remembering to allocate the 1 ton per hardpoint? The concept of turrets being external holding the weapons with the 1 ton allocated internally has been an accepted part of the game since, well, the beginning. That's what allowed you to mount whatever size turret you wanted and still keep to the 1 ton allocated for fire control per hardpoint.

Mechanically this does not change anything. So why have the extra step? Would you be purchasing a sword blade then have to purchase the hilt separately?

As far as bay weapons go, jeezus, the systems have space to burn for what they do. Unless they are going to actually put down how much space the system dedicates to ammunition storage, there's tons of room in a bay compared to what the turret weapon systems are for. If anything a bay weapon should take up more space internally (assuming it's a turret and not an actual bay... oy... the poor word choice here!).

Ammunition storage for bay weapons is covered in High Guard.

If you are trying to make the rules as simple as possible, why bother with double or triple turrets? Just have one weapon per turret. It takes up 1 ton. It's simple. Instead it looks like the choice is a mish-mash of ideas, changing things, but not, making them simpler, but not.

Changing turrets to one weapon per turret would actually change the mechanics. Changing it so you no longer have a separate but required add on doesn't.

As a side note here don't go blaming Matthew for this one, I am the one that proposed the idea, was discussed and agreed upon. You don't agree and that is fine you have your opinion. It's possible it could get changed but based on one person not liking it it doesn't seem likely. There are always going to be those who don't like some of the changes (including me).

 

[Condottiere]

I'm not entirely clear on it, but a Tee Five firmpoint would take a smaller turret, that would contain only one weapon system that would normally fit three in a standard turret.

 

[phavoc]

Mechanically this does not change anything. So why have the extra step? Would you be purchasing a sword blade then have to purchase the hilt separately?

No, it doesn't change anything. But it's a change itself. So it's a sideways change. I've don't object to changes. But there needs to be a good reason to do so. To use your analogy, why add in the concept of buying a sword that is made up of two pieces when the idea that a sword was one piece was the accepted previous norm?

Ammunition storage for bay weapons is covered in High Guard.

Why then should anyone waste their time on making comments for CRB rules when half the responses are "It's in High Guard". But let's run with this one. So ammo storage is in HG for bay weapons. Ok. What about ammo storage for turrets. Since the change is 1 ton is for the turret, and the weapons go in the turret, and fire control goes in the turret, where in the hell does the ammo go? And just how much ammo can be stored at the hardpoint that's not labeled as a hardpoint (maybe the concept of hardpoints gets put back in with High Guard).

Changing turrets to one weapon per turret would actually change the mechanics. Changing it so you no longer have a separate but required add on doesn't.

As a side note here don't go blaming Matthew for this one, I am the one that proposed the idea, was discussed and agreed upon. You don't agree and that is fine you have your opinion. It's possible it could get changed but based on one person not liking it it doesn't seem likely. There are always going to be those who don't like some of the changes (including me).

Never laid blame for any comment at any person's feet. I'm assuming that the new CRB has been a collaborative effort amongst many individuals.

Yeah, I have an opinion. But you know what, why bother? It seems a lot of people have comments that are getting blown off. You asked people to PAY to help you proof your book. And we have. Now you don't like what we say. So be it.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I think that things just need to be cleared up.

A hardpoint is designated up to 1 per 100 tons and must include the allocation of 1 ton for fire control.

A turret is externally mounted on a hardpoint (weapons tonnage is not counted for internal tonnage) and may mount up to 3 weapons (see page xx for turret mounted weapons).

A Pop-Up turret can be hidden inside the hull, but otherwise functions as a turret. One ton per weapon mounted in the turret, as well as the Fire Control tonnage) must be allocated.

A Barbette is a larger version of a turret and takes up xx tons of internal space and may mount weapons per page yy. Fire Control is (is not) included in the Barbette tonnage (state which one and stick to it. Personally, I would INCLUDE fire control in the Barbette tonnage)

Weapons Bays may be mounted on hardpoints and take up xx tons, including all weapon systems and fire control. See page zz for bay weapons.

That is what I think it should say in HG and all ships designed accordingly.

 

[Bense]

Not quite the same kind of Fire Control, but my question is, can a Fire Control program use reactions?
Say I'm flying my Scout by myself and have a Fire Control/1 program "manning" the double turret for me (at an effective 0 skill). Can the Fire Control/1 program fire on an enemy ship during the Attack Step and then fire on incoming missiles as a reaction during the same round, suffering the normal reaction penalty on firing on multiple incoming missiles and during the next round? Or is it limited only to attacking enemy starships?

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I don't see that the rules say with way, but I would think it can do both; basically Fire Control acts like a Gunner. If a gunner can do it, so can the Fire Control software, within the limits of its programming

 

[Bense]

I don't see that the rules say with way, but I would think it can do both; basically Fire Control acts like a Gunner. If a gunner can do it, so can the Fire Control software, within the limits of its programming

That would be my assumption, but it's probably a good idea to state that in the rules too.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hold fire on this one chaps until you see High Guard - Hardpoints are still in, Fire Control tonnage has been folded in elsewhere. But all will become clear!

 

[Captain Jonah]

Hold fire on this one chaps until you see High Guard - Hardpoints are still in, Fire Control tonnage has been folded in elsewhere. But all will become clear!

We're waiting :lol: