Multiple Weapons, Single Turret

[vladthemad]

Alright, I'm trying to figure something out here. I understand with and agree that in a multi-weapon turret, each weapon that hits damages individually. That makes sense. What I'm not finding is an explanation as to how you determine if you actually hit. P. 147 of the core rules states "A gunner may fire any or all of the weapons in his turret or bay, but each turret or bay may only fire once per round." That's not very clear considering the rest of the rules for point defense and what have you, especially when you get into mixed turrets. I'm also not certain if firing with your turrets during the combat phase is separate from firing them (again) during the reaction phase.

For specific examples:
Triple Turret, 3 beam lasers:
If I fire all 3 lasers at the same target, do I roll to hit 3 times or once?
If I fire two lasers at a target during the combat phase, can I use the third for point defense during the reaction phase?
If I fire all three lasers at a target during the combat phase, can I use them again for point defense during the reaction phase?
Can I fire one laser at each of three separate targets?

Triple Turret, beam laser/sand caster/missile launcher
If I fire laser and missile at the same target, one to hit roll or two?
If I fire the laser at one target, can I fire the missile at another, and use sand in the reaction phase on a third target?

Granted I hope my players never foolishly get themselves into a firefight with three vessels at the same time, but answers to those questions should fill in any questions we might have during play.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Ah the age old questions...

It depends on how you want to interpret the rules for your game. If you want to let a turret fire in each phase, go for it. If you only want it to fire once, then the Gunner has to decide if a weapon is fired in the Attack Phase or the Point Defense Phase (my personal preference as it makes for a better roleplaying scenario).

Regarding rolling to hit, that is another one that has been bantered back and forth quite a bit with no clear resolution in the rules. Personally, I let a Gunner roll for each weapon separately, BUT, if it gets very cumbersome, then I switch over to the BARRAGE rules from HG. There, you make one roll for all the weapons that are aimed at the same target, so it can save a lot of time. That is the big deciding factor: how much time does it take to roll every single weapon. Some people allow all weapons from a single turret to be fired with 1 to hit roll, others don't. The rules are vague enough that you can go either way (as you have noticed). Of course all of this only applies to weapons of the same type. If you have a mixed turret, you have to roll separately, because the DMs will likely be different (range penalties are weapons based for example).

Sorry there isn't a better answer. But the rules are vague (perhaps deliberately) and you can interpret them however you like for your game.

 

[dragoner]

Generally I have the player roll for each weapon in the turret.

 

[CosmicGamer]

To me, seams like a malfunction and maintenance is required to fix the problem if one weapon could hit and other not with the same weapon type fired from the same turret at the same time. So for me, only one roll for this in normal situations.

 

[atpollard]

A Combat turn is 6 minutes ... three shots (one per weapon in a triple turret) at 2 minutes to flip a selector, aim and fire seems reasonable to me.
Isn't that close to the rate of fire to reload, aim and fire a flintlock musket?
Starship lasers are not slower than a flintlock, are they?

 

[phavoc]

Point-defense is a last-ditch attempt at close range, so it's reasonable to assume your lasers could fire twice in a six-minute period (capacitors!). That gives you both an offensive attack and defensive in the same round. But you are correct, the rules don't specifically state if a player has to reserve their fire for incoming missile defense.

If I fire all 3 lasers at the same target, do I roll to hit 3 times or once? - The rules have you roll separately, but I've done it with you roll once per turret, as the weapons are only inches apart, so it's likely they'll all hit or all miss. Then you can roll damage individually.

If I fire two lasers at a target during the combat phase, can I use the third for point defense during the reaction phase? See above.

If I fire all three lasers at a target during the combat phase, can I use them again for point defense during the reaction phase? See above

Can I fire one laser at each of three separate targets? Meh, this is really Referee's call. IF all the targets are in the same quadrant, then yes, I'd allow targeting three separate targets in one round. But, if a target is port, one starboard, and one aft, I would say no. Pick one general quadrant to attack, but not all of them. Granted Traveller doesn't have weapons arcs, but as a ref you kind of layout how your ships are approaching (mini's work great for this).

If I fire laser and missile at the same target, one to hit roll or two? Definitely two rolls because they are totally different weapon systems. One is speed of light attack, the other must physically close the distance.

If I fire the laser at one target, can I fire the missile at another, and use sand in the reaction phase on a third target? I would say yes. Missiles maneuver, so firing them off-bore is no issue. Well, I should qualify that yes. IF you are firing sand in a defensive manner, then yes, no problem. But, if you are firing say a pebble at another ship, then I would fall back on the idea of quadrants and require the targets be in the same general vicinity in order to engage them separately. The missile should always be targeted at whatever you want.

 

[wbnc]

A Combat turn is 6 minutes ... three shots (one per weapon in a triple turret) at 2 minutes to flip a selector, aim and fire seems reasonable to me.
Isn't that close to the rate of fire to reload, aim and fire a flintlock musket?
Starship lasers are not slower than a flintlock, are they?

not if you assume that in that six minutes you are firing multiple times, with the weapons cycling rapidly to lay down a pattern of fire to try and hit a rapidly maneuvering target thousands of kliks away.

the original version was probably intended to be a lot like the old DnD approach..., you make numerous strikes, and parries, the die roll is to determine if you affect the target. Most games have moved to the very short turn, with each individual roll being a discrete attack. while Traveller stays with the more amorphous, less concrete vision of combat.

so each attack check is really just to check and see if any of you succeed in affecting the target, or have an opportunity to affect the target in your six minutes of frantic fire and maneuver.

Personally I am torn over the long six minute turn, and a shorter more concise, turn with each shot grom your gun being a single pulse, or shot....and the longer more abstract turn, where you narrate the action based on the results of the die, and you may fire a dozen, or hundreds of times ( for rapid fire and pulse weapons) in a single round...

Both have virtues and vices. One allows for more free flow narrative, while the other makes each roll of the dice more important, and allows for more tactical combat.

Example: this could fit both scenarios...but fits better with abstract rules.
The Solomani vessel evades madly as you fire off pulse after pulse of laser fire, and a salvo of missiles in you attempt to disable the fleeing intruder. Your pilot, and the Solomani are well matched but your pilot gains the initiative and can hold steady for a few moments before having to evade incoming missiles again.
for several minutes the enemy pilot avoids your missiles and jinks out of the line of fire. Until you strafe a burst of fire across his hull. At this distance it's hard to tell, but he is maneuvering more slowly. You can barely detect plasma leaking from near a portion of his hull that glows red hot on your thermal imager, a sure sign that one of your bolts found a vital system.

 

[vladthemad]

Alright, I was leaning towards separate rolls for each weapon, and I think even with all the same weapons I'll still have separate rolls. One, it's easier if the rules match, no matter the type of turret, and two from a game stand point you're less likely to get completely screwed by a bad roll!

Dammit mongoose...why must you be so vague?! Here's another wrench in the works that I didn't think about. Rules, as noted in my first post, state each turret or bay can only fire once per round. Then, under point defense reaction, it states a gunner can keep firing on individual missiles until he misses one.

As I'm finding out with a lot of rules, I have to figure out what the actual intent was as the rules aren't clear. While I'm not sure if this is the intent, with a lot of thought about it today I think I know what I'm going to go with.

Sure, lasers don't take six minutes to fire, but this is a bit harder science than most scifi. I guess what they were driving at is that during that six minutes of turn time the laser stays on point for most of it to actually burn enough hull to cause damage. It's not pew pew for one second during the six minutes and then recharge the capacitors, its more bzzzzzzt for five minutes. Even with multiple weapons of the same type in one turret, this could be used to explain the need for separate rolls. Focusing three lasers on the same ship at 50000km and keeping them focused on the same spot for minutes at a time during combat would make individuals rolls make sense.

Then we come to one laser shooting down multiple missiles at a time in point defense. It doesn't take the powerful laser long to burn through the tin can thick surface of a missile and fry some guidance electronics to send it off course. So what I think Mongoose was driving at is that the gunner is walking a continuous beam from one missile to the other, burning each up quickly with a small amount of on point time.

Also, if the lasers take a long time to cause actual damage to a ship's hull, this would explain how sand casters can be used to block some of the damage. You detect the laser starting to burn your hull, fire sand to block some of it before it causes significant damage. It also explains how you can dodge them. Hmm...not sure if that's what they intended, but it makes sense to me and makes it easy explain the rules to my players...well, until I find another question that completely negates everything I just noted. :/

 

[dragoner]

Those are good explanations, I might use them as well, they make sense.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Those are good explanations

+1

 

[phavoc]

Starship combat in Traveller has always been relatively amorphous and vague. It's fine for very generalized combat, but if you delve beneath the surface all kinds of things start to fall apart.

From a weapon perspective it's not practical to assume the laser is being kept on a single spot to burn through the hull. If that was required, all an opposing ship need to do is 'waggle' so that your lasers could not physically target the same spot continuously. I've always thought of beam lasers as how they do it in say Babylon 5 (the tv series). You see the beam weapon fire and it's walked across the ship (sometimes), and then goes out. And the pulse laser fires multiple bursts, kind of like in Star Wars, in order to bracket the target and hopefully hit it.

Which, in a point defense role, pulse lasers seem like they could be converted to anti-fighter or anti-missile defense by a software tweak that lowers the energy output but increases the firing rate (or maybe there is a barrel change that changes the focusing array to a more rapid-pulse version). Beam weapons would be less able to shoot down a missile since they are meant for anti-shipping.

In any version you just need to come up with an explanation (or not) that you like. Just don't go too far into the ship intercept aspect... Two ships passing in the night who have been boosting for hour and hours shouldn't have a very long engagement window... but don't go there! It burns! It burns!!!

 

[wbnc]

Which, in a point defense role, pulse lasers seem like they could be converted to anti-fighter or anti-missile defense by a software tweak that lowers the energy output but increases the firing rate (or maybe there is a barrel change that changes the focusing array to a more rapid-pulse version). Beam weapons would be less able to shoot down a missile since they are meant for anti-shipping.

In any version you just need to come up with an explanation (or not) that you like. Just don't go too far into the ship intercept aspect... Two ships passing in the night who have been boosting for hour and hours shouldn't have a very long engagement window... but don't go there! It burns! It burns!!!

At 40k MPH(64K Kph) which is about the minimum for interplanetary travel, your closure rate is over 80,000 miles per hour. in one second the target changes position by 22 miles. so a quarter second miscalculation in firing times is a miss by five a miscalculation by 1000th of a second is 117 feet. (if my math holds up before a second cup of coffee.)

that alone is enough to force a very abstract combat system. If you start looking to closely at the entire concept of space combat you rapidly decide it's not at all feasible unless you have microscopic accuracy, and super computer timing....but people like space combat so designers have to fudge a bit to make it possible without the crew setting in the lounge while the computers do the fighting.

 

[phavoc]

At 40k MPH(64K Kph) which is about the minimum for interplanetary travel, your closure rate is over 80,000 miles per hour. in one second the target changes position by 22 miles. so a quarter second miscalculation in firing times is a miss by five a miscalculation by 1000th of a second is 117 feet. (if my math holds up before a second cup of coffee.)

that alone is enough to force a very abstract combat system. If you start looking to closely at the entire concept of space combat you rapidly decide it's not at all feasible unless you have microscopic accuracy, and super computer timing....but people like space combat so designers have to fudge a bit to make it possible without the crew setting in the lounge while the computers do the fighting.

Yeah, and this doesn't even take into account different vectors and what not. I forget the starship combat system that tried to model all this with proper physics, though I suspect it took some of the fun out of it.

I used to play Renegade Legion Interceptor, Starfire and Star Fleet Battles... yay for the joy of reactionless and inertialess drives!

 

[vladthemad]

Starship combat in Traveller has always been relatively amorphous and vague. It's fine for very generalized combat, but if you delve beneath the surface all kinds of things start to fall apart.

From a weapon perspective it's not practical to assume the laser is being kept on a single spot to burn through the hull. If that was required, all an opposing ship need to do is 'waggle' so that your lasers could not physically target the same spot continuously. I've always thought of beam lasers as how they do it in say Babylon 5 (the tv series). You see the beam weapon fire and it's walked across the ship (sometimes), and then goes out. And the pulse laser fires multiple bursts, kind of like in Star Wars, in order to bracket the target and hopefully hit it.

Which, in a point defense role, pulse lasers seem like they could be converted to anti-fighter or anti-missile defense by a software tweak that lowers the energy output but increases the firing rate (or maybe there is a barrel change that changes the focusing array to a more rapid-pulse version). Beam weapons would be less able to shoot down a missile since they are meant for anti-shipping.

In any version you just need to come up with an explanation (or not) that you like. Just don't go too far into the ship intercept aspect... Two ships passing in the night who have been boosting for hour and hours shouldn't have a very long engagement window... but don't go there! It burns! It burns!!!

I have no problem with generalized combat, the issue is more with vague and contradictory rules, and being unable to explain them in easy to understand terms to players. "Because REASONS." isn't really an acceptable answer.

Using pulse lasers for point defense are problematic, because they have a -2 to hit.

Regarding your waggle theory, I'd just counter your waggle with a waggle of my own. I'd assume that a 400dTon ship is going to maneuver a lot slower than a laser in a turret. Also my turret only needs to move a fraction of a hair to compensate for your wildest movements to keep the beam on point. If I was to add this to my explanation I'd say the variances in your waggle vs. my waggle will account for some of the differences in damage from one shot to the next. Now the real thing to do would be to roll your ship to force me off target, but as Mongoose doesn't have a mechanic for that I won't need to come up with an explanation for that.

If I really wanted to open up a can of worms I'd start a thread about how the rules don't accurately represent orbital mechanics and start explaining why

At 40k MPH(64K Kph) which is about the minimum for interplanetary travel, your closure rate is over 80,000 miles per hour. in one second the target changes position by 22 miles. so a quarter second miscalculation in firing times is a miss by five a miscalculation by 1000th of a second is 117 feet. (if my math holds up before a second cup of coffee.)

that alone is enough to force a very abstract combat system. If you start looking to closely at the entire concept of space combat you rapidly decide it's not at all feasible unless you have microscopic accuracy, and super computer timing....but people like space combat so designers have to fudge a bit to make it possible without the crew setting in the lounge while the computers do the fighting.

Well considering the size of Traveller ship computers and the rate at which we are miniaturizing today, I'd say pin point accuracy at just about any reasonable speed or distance is well within the possibility of the Traveller future. You just came up with the reason for why the computers are so ridiculously large. Man, we are answering all the age old questions!

 

[wbnc]

Now, to further increase the ridiculous difficulties of tracking and hitting targets. A slight, .01 degree shift in the path of the laser will throw the beam off wildly at a few thousand kilometers. Ship vibrations. irregular thrust in the drive systems, a bit of dirt or dust on the traverse mechanism of the weapon mount anything can create that sort of deviation.

to compensate some sort of dynamic focusing, either by gravitic lensing, or deformble mirror/lens has to compensate for that shift and bring the laser back on target.which means the fir control software, and hardware have to compensate in milli/nano seconds to avoid spraying angry photons wildly cross space.

While mongoose dropped the Tonnage requirements for computers it's still a good bet the ships computer is bigger than your typical desktop with enough cooling hardware to flash freeze your beverage of choice. While the gunner sets at his controls watching the targeting reticle track and lock onto his target then give him the go ahead to shoot the computer is cycling millions of computations per second.

when he gets the lovely growl ro his system to tel him the computer has lock, and calculated a firing solution he hits the button and sends enough energy to light up the Las Vegas strip downrange.

now imagine trying this with three lasers at once....which might justify the rules limiting the number of opportunities to inflict damage on a target using a single weapons mount....

the poor computer is having a nervous breakdown, the coolant system is whistling like a tea pot, the ships power conduits are overheating, and the turret sounds like someone is flushing a hundred toilets at once as the ships systems try to keep the lasers cooled to operating level while pumping out as much power as the Hoover dam...

 

[AndrewW]

While mongoose dropped the Tonnage requirements for computers it's still a good bet the ships computer is bigger than your typical desktop with enough cooling hardware to flash freeze your beverage of choice. While the gunner sets at his controls watching the targeting reticle track and lock onto his target then give him the go ahead to shoot the computer is cycling millions of computations per second.

Not entirely dropped, just included within the bridge tonnage.

 

[Mytholder]

There's an argument to be made that Traveller needs two space combat systems. There are two sorts of engagements: there are close-range, cinematic fights ala Star Wars, where the PCs get into trouble while they're trying to loot a wrecked starship, or they're racing ahead of a System Defence Boat to get to the jump limit. Really close-range fights, where turrets are blazing wildly and every roll represents one shot.

And then there are the stately, long-range fights over tens of thousands of kilometers, where the bad guy is a dot on the scope, and it's all submarine warfare and inevitability, and each roll represents multiple laser blasts or beams, and there's a chance that one shot at most actually connects and does damage.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

There's an argument to be made that Traveller needs two space combat systems. There are two sorts of engagements: there are close-range, cinematic fights ala Star Wars, where the PCs get into trouble while they're trying to loot a wrecked starship, or they're racing ahead of a System Defence Boat to get to the jump limit. Really close-range fights, where turrets are blazing wildly and every roll represents one shot.

And then there are the stately, long-range fights over tens of thousands of kilometers, where the bad guy is a dot on the scope, and it's all submarine warfare and inevitability, and each roll represents multiple laser blasts or beams, and there's a chance that one shot at most actually connects and does damage.

Funny you should say that, considering the current 2nd edition beta rules for ship combat...

 

[wbnc]

Evidently the developers have the same idea..they have introduced basic close combat maneuvering ( dogfight) rules.

I was cobbling together my own rues for my personal use...I looked at the new rules and smiled..they are very similar with the same basic. I have a habit of over thinking some aspects.

once a ship gets into close or adjacent range bands the ability to match rotation, vectors, and facing get tricky, and that long range artillery duel becomes a knife fight. where every maneuver could put a vessel at a disadvantage, or in another ships kill slot.

 

[Condottiere]

Fire and forget systems, like canisters and smart missiles shouldn't matter.

Beam weapons in the same turret, and possibly other missiles, would need to track the same target.