High Guard is Here!

[EldritchFire]

Hello again EldritchFire,

…

The P-51 Mustang has three separately fixed 50 caliber machine guns installed in each wing. All the guns are sighted to concentrate their fire at a specific range. A single hit will not take all six out of action since they are in separate mounts and on two different sides of the aircraft.

The P-51 isn't made using the starship rules, though, so I don't think it's a good example. When the vehicle rules come out I'm sure we can try to make a P-51 ^_^

Unless, of course, I'm missing something and two different weapons on two different mountings can benefit from the 'same type = bonus damage' rule. But even then, the rules wouldn't support Stargate's F-302 with two railguns and 4 missiles. Or Star Wars' Y-wing with dual blaster cannons, dual ion cannons (no turret ions, to boot), and two proton torpedo launchers. Maybe Star Wars is a bad example, since almost all weapons are either dual- or quad-linked anyway.

Because of this, I assume that one firmpoint is one weapon system. Either one weapon, dual-linked or tri-linked (the latter case can be seen in Robotech's Zentradi fighters with a triple-laster cannon on the nose).

HG 2e p. 24 "If two or more weapons are of the same type, they may be fired together. One attack roll is made for all weapons being fired, but each additional weapon adds +1 per damage dice to the final damage total."

Two single laser turrets target the same ship per the above rule they are fired together and would receive the bonus.

Two single fixed mounted lasers, based the real world, are designed to fire at the same time and sighted so that their beams merge at the same spot on a target. They get the bonus too.

If both the weapons on mounted on the same side of the aircraft, aerospace fighter, or whatever I agree that the two weapons could be on the same fixed mount. They are still going to be sighted so that their slugs, energy, or whatever hits the target at the same spot.

I thought that was specific to the 'multiple weapons in one HP/FP/turret thing, since it follows that paragraph. But if multiple weapons from multiple mounts can use that rule, it makes things a lot easier.

In CT LBB5 HG 2e 1980 small craft are limited to a maximum three weapons which are assumed for combat purposes to be in the appropriately sized turret. The rules also state the weapons are probably fixed mounted.

I'm talking about the most recent Highguard book. I learned a long time ago that relying on older editions to 'translate' newer ones is just asking for a headach.

The fighters in the short lived TV show Space Above and Beyond, Babylon 5, or any number of real world aircraft cannot be designed in MgT because they have more than three fixed mounting points.

Would you be able to do so if you could have more than 1 weapon per firmpoint? I'm not familiar with either of those shows you mentioned, so it's out of my experience. But a quick browse through the B5 wikia looks like multiple weapons per FP would allow most of them to be done. The SAAB wikia, though, seems very barren of any content whatsoever.

I am, after some pondering, leaning towards being able to mount three weapons per small craft firmpoint (fixed mount) since that would allow, in my opinion, a more real world feel to their armament.

In my mind, it makes things a heck of a lot easier to let a firmpoint mount multiple weapons. It allows us to make more types of fightercraft we see in popular media.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But using dual weapons requires "weapons that can reasonably be used in a single hand each", and mounted weapons don't meet that criteria. As for the auto trait, that's still attacking with one weapon, just multiple times. But it's still only one weapon used.

I meant that p75 have already established that one attack action can contain several attack rolls. Attacking with several fixed mounts would be another case of that, not that it would be the same as firing two handguns.

I imagine it would be like a WWII single seat fighter with a single trigger for all machine guns and/or auto-cannons. You aim the craft at the enemy, press the trigger, and all selected weapons fire.

I guess we have to live with different interpretations until a clarification is issued.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

HG 2e p. 24 "If two or more weapons are of the same type, they may be fired together. One attack roll is made for all weapons being fired, but each additional weapon adds +1 per damage dice to the final damage total."

Two single laser turrets target the same ship per the above rule they are fired together and would receive the bonus.

TURRETS AND FIXED MOUNTS
Turrets and fixed mounts use the same type of weapons ...

Up to three weapons may be mounted on a fixed mount (small craft have additional limitations), while turrets can mount one, two or three weapons, depending on their type. These weapons need not be of the same type but only one type may be used in the same attack.

If two or more weapons are of the same type, they may be fired together. One attack roll is made for all weapons being fired, but each additional weapon adds +1 per damage dice to the final damage total.

This is specifically a property of a single mount. Two turrets cannot fire together.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In my mind, it makes things a heck of a lot easier to let a firmpoint mount multiple weapons. It allows us to make more types of fightercraft we see in popular media.

Just reskin the single pulse laser as two smaller "blasters" (or whatever) doing 2D damage together?

 

[phavoc]

In my mind, it makes things a heck of a lot easier to let a firmpoint mount multiple weapons. It allows us to make more types of fightercraft we see in popular media.

Just reskin the single pulse laser as two smaller "blasters" (or whatever) doing 2D damage together?

This would be a prime example of increasing the options with laser weapons by introducing a 'light' laser, and a 'heavy' laser (or laser cannon). Lasers right now are analagous to say a 5" naval gun. A light laser might be considered a 3" naval gun, and heavy an 8" naval gun. I think the limitation on smaller ships is going to be power production. A starship is going to have a much more powerful and robust power plant than a small craft - whose power plants will obviously be reduced in power and size to accomodate a much smaller footprint.

Though I've never much liked the idea of the new weapons restrictions, or making so that you can't link-fire multiple turrets.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello EldricthFire,

Hello again EldritchFire,

…

The P-51 Mustang has three separately fixed 50 caliber machine guns installed in each wing. All the guns are sighted to concentrate their fire at a specific range. A single hit will not take all six out of action since they are in separate mounts and on two different sides of the aircraft.

The P-51 isn't made using the starship rules, though, so I don't think it's a good example. When the vehicle rules come out I'm sure we can try to make a P-51 ^_^

A fixed mount is a real world way to place a weapon on any vehicle. The only way to illustrate how fixed mounts work that I know of is to use real world example. Spacecraft are effectively very advanced real world aircraft and the science fiction ones for the most part are based on them too.

HG 2e p. 24 "If two or more weapons are of the same type, they may be fired together. One attack roll is made for all weapons being fired, but each additional weapon adds +1 per damage dice to the final damage total."

Two single laser turrets target the same ship per the above rule they are fired together and would receive the bonus.

Two single fixed mounted lasers, based the real world, are designed to fire at the same time and sighted so that their beams merge at the same spot on a target. They get the bonus too.

If both the weapons on mounted on the same side of the aircraft, aerospace fighter, or whatever I agree that the two weapons could be on the same fixed mount. They are still going to be sighted so that their slugs, energy, or whatever hits the target at the same spot.

I thought that was specific to the 'multiple weapons in one HP/FP/turret thing, since it follows that paragraph. But if multiple weapons from multiple mounts can use that rule, it makes things a lot easier.

In CT LBB5 HG 2e 1980 small craft are limited to a maximum three weapons which are assumed for combat purposes to be in the appropriately sized turret. The rules also state the weapons are probably fixed mounted.

I'm talking about the most recent Highguard book. I learned a long time ago that relying on older editions to 'translate' newer ones is just asking for a headach.

MgT is based on, at least from my understanding, on the older editions with the tweaks that Mongoose feels makes the game better.

MgT clearly states that small craft weapons are either on fixed mounts or in turrets, while CT LBB 5 HG 2e does not which makes the design work better in my opinion. I'm not happy that turrets are restricted to single weapons.

The fighters in the short lived TV show Space Above and Beyond, Babylon 5, or any number of real world aircraft cannot be designed in MgT because they have more than three fixed mounting points.

Would you be able to do so if you could have more than 1 weapon per firmpoint? I'm not familiar with either of those shows you mentioned, so it's out of my experience. But a quick browse through the B5 wikia looks like multiple weapons per FP would allow most of them to be done. The SAAB wikia, though, seems very barren of any content whatsoever.

In my opinion allowing more weapons per firmpoint/hardpoint/fixed mount would be more realistic. However, the downside is that in the real a single hit usually destroys all the weapons on the mounting point.

My apologies for how I'm linking to this web page, I can never seem to embedded them like you did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardpoint

I am, after some pondering, leaning towards being able to mount three weapons per small craft firmpoint (fixed mount) since that would allow, in my opinion, a more real world feel to their armament.

In my mind, it makes things a heck of a lot easier to let a firmpoint mount multiple weapons. It allows us to make more types of fightercraft we see in popular media.

I agree that by allowing a firmpoint/fixed mount to install multiple weapons gives you more options. I think I'll go back and modify the spreadsheet I'm creating to allow the three weapon you pointed out for fixed mounts.

 

[EldritchFire]

snrdg121408,

I find that trying to base comparisons between a game—a necessary abstraction—and the real world is just going to cause more problems then they solve. Same with trying to use logic from an older game.

I don't have any knowledge of either the older edition of Traveller or real-world physics/hard points, and yet I can still enjoy HG 2e.

As for the in-line links, you do it like this:

[url=http://www.example.com]Link text[/url]

 

[-Daniel-]

I find that trying to base comparisons between a game—a necessary abstraction—and the real world is just going to cause more problems then they solve.

I have had this conversation with folks many times. In games like Traveller or other modern to future games I see folks get angry at each other because they are trying to get the game to line up with real life. Sometimes you can, other times you get close, but some times the abstraction that allows game mechanics to be created make it just not able to be matched up to real life.

For me, it is often more important the game mechanic is consistent in how it works and I just accept that it is less than a match for real world.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In games like Traveller or other modern to future games I see folks get angry at each other because they are trying to get the game to line up with real life. Sometimes you can, other times you get close, but some times the abstraction that allows game mechanics to be created make it just not able to be matched up to real life.

I would not generally agree, but in the case of hard-/firm-points we have left reality far behind.

It's a game and we must simplify it so that is playable. The border between acceptable and non-acceptable simplification is probably rather personal.

 

[Reynard]

Trying to pack as much weaponry into a small vehicle by having a dozen minor variants of a weapon type sound like Battletech not Traveller.

 

[snrdg121408]

Morning 6:19 AM PDT,

I am going to apologized for letting my question about small craft armament on firmpoints from Wed Sep 07, 2016 6:24 pm get out of hand. I should have done one of two things the first was to thank you all for answering my questions or the second option would have moved the discussion out of High Guard is Here!

As far as I am concerned a firmpoint is the equivalent of a hardpoint based on the rules that require hardpoints on hulls that allow weapons to be installed in fixed mounts or in one of four types of turrets.

Next the sticking point is how many weapons can be mounted on a small craft firmpoint.

My example in the question was based on the rule that small craft can only install turrets with single weapons and had only one weapon per firmpont/hardpoint. The maximum of three single turrets is in keeping with the small craft rules in CT/MT/TNE/T4.

At this point I think the discussion should either end allowing others to use the High Guard is Here! to bring up errata, be moved into its own topic, or be discussed of the forum.

Finally thank you all for providing feedback and I am hoping that the Powers That Be get back to us with a determination on how many weapons a small craft's firmpoint fixed mount can hold.

Respectfully

 

[snrdg121408]

Possible additional errata for the Scout/Courier HG 2e p. 110

A double turret per the table at the top of the right hand column of p. 24 has a Power Point requirement of 1, which I can not seem to find mentioned.

 

[GarethL]

Possible additional errata for the Scout/Courier HG 2e p. 110

A double turret per the table at the top of the right hand column of p. 24 has a Power Point requirement of 1, which I can not seem to find mentioned.

A lot of ships don't include a "weapons" entry for power,

That said, the requirements are often fairly low when compared with the J-drive and m-drive's requirements - I suspect in most cases power is not going to be a big deal unless trying to prep for jump or suffering from heavy damage.

** edit** Also of note is the sensor suite which IIRC has a power requirement of 2 - I wrote up a type S for my players earlier this week so I checked it all, the type S has a maximum power drain of 63 and an output of 60.

 

[-Daniel-]

It's a game and we must simplify it so that is playable. The border between acceptable and non-acceptable simplification is probably rather personal.

I agree, often the need to remain playable drives a game designer to simplify a game mechanic. I would also agree the point of acceptable simplification falls 100% in the personal opinion zone. :mrgreen:

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello GarethL

Possible additional errata for the Scout/Courier HG 2e p. 110

A double turret per the table at the top of the right hand column of p. 24 has a Power Point requirement of 1, which I can not seem to find mentioned.

A lot of ships don't include a "weapons" entry for power,

That said, the requirements are often fairly low when compared with the J-drive and m-drive's requirements - I suspect in most cases power is not going to be a big deal unless trying to prep for jump or suffering from heavy damage.

** edit** Also of note is the sensor suite which IIRC has a power requirement of 2 - I wrote up a type S for my players earlier this week so I checked it all, the type S has a maximum power drain of 63 and an output of 60.

Thank you for the reply and my power point calculations so far include the following items which covers Steps 1 through 8 matched with the entries in the first ten blocks of the Ship Roster and the fuel processor the Systems block.

1. Basic Ship Systems per p. 15/PDF16: 0.2 x 100 = 20 power points

2. Maneuver Drive Thrust 2 p. 15/PDF 16: 2 x 0.1 x 100 = .2 x 100 = 20 power points

3. Jump Drive 2 p. 15/PDF 16: 2 x 0.1 x 100 = .2 x 100 = 20 power points

4. Empty Double Turret p. 24/PDF 25: 1 power point

5.Fuel Processor p. 37/PDF 38: refines 20 d-tons of fuel per ton process, requires 1 power point per ton. The Scout has a 2 d-ton fuel processor which requires 2 power points

6. Military Grade Sensors p. 56/PDF 57: 2 power points

20 + 20 + 20 + 1 + 2 + 2 = 65

Of course I may be incorrect, which would be a bummer.

Off-topic:

I seem to be experiencing a randomly appearing hick-up when posting replies. There are occasions when posting a reply when clicking on submit the post appears to go to the forum. Unfortunately the reply is in preview and the hick-up occurs when the forum notifies me that there is a new post. I think the web gremlins are picking on me.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Your power calculations seems correct, but there is rarely any need to operate all power consuming equipment simultaneously. If you have to you can power down half of Basic Systems for a short time (p16).

So the Scout has plenty of power.

 

[GarethL]

Aha, i had forgotten about the fuel processor, though it isn't likely to be on much when using the j-drive,

 

[Condottiere]

There's no air resistance in space; you just have to ensure the ordnance doesn't get torn off during high gee manoeuvres.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

Your power calculations seems correct, but there is rarely any need to operate all power consuming equipment simultaneously. If you have to you can power down half of Basic Systems for a short time (p16).

So the Scout has plenty of power.

Thank you for indicating that my math is correct.

Why bother to build a power plant capable of running two systems that by the rules can not be run at the same time. The maneuver drive can not be used in jump space without bad events happening. If he jump drive is engaged inside the D limit bad things happen. If the maneuver drive draws more power than the jump drive scale the power plant to the maneuver drive plus all the other systems installed using power. If the jump drive needs the most power then use the jump drive.

Technically, building a power plant with an output of 42 to 50 covers the power needed to run the ship.

Of course on some items of booking keeping, like d-tons, price, and power I prefer being as accurate as possible. I do not know if any of the other listed component for the scout require power, but what is currently shown is inaccurate.

Thank you again for the reply.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Garethl,

Aha, i had forgotten about the fuel processor, though it isn't likely to be on much when using the j-drive,

Neither is the maneuver drive, empty double turret or, sensor.

The j-drive is not being used when running around in normal space. The fuel processor would be running for long enough to refine fuel and powering an empty turret does not make any sense.

In some areas I'm a bit tight that the numbers match up in this case the rules have power requirements for systems that when totaled exceed the listed power plant power out. Calculating the power used based on whether the jump drive or maneuver drive would give a better picture.

Thank you for the reply.