Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
There are two different aspects, the equipment that allows you to react only once or multiple times, and the gunner's capability to react only once or multiple times.
Point Defense
- Thread starter phavoc
- Start date
Samcollins said:
Don't get caught up in the forum posts, concentrate purely on the rules as written, and make a judgement on that.
Yes, you are all guinea pigs in this, but this process is useful to me
msprange said:Don't get caught up in the forum posts, concentrate purely on the rules as written, and make a judgement on that.
Yes, you are all guinea pigs in this, but this process is useful to me
I believe that's the point he's making. Reading the rules as written indicates to some that they remain interpretable, and thus make bad rules. If two readers see them, and each takes away from them a different perspective, then the rules need to be revised to remove ambiguity.
Samcollins
Mongoose
We have a lot of posts in this thread. All I want to know, officially, is how PD is supposed to work, and with that how the penalties carry over. With the rules, as written. I'm still not clear.
Tenacious-Techhunter
Mongoose
A gun turret, as defined in the technical sense, has exactly one firing trajectory at any given time. The only other variable is the convergence pattern. Tanks and battleships are doing fascinating things by varying elevation to achieve simultaneously impacting rounds these days, but that doesn't apply to space battle, where gravity is not a significant force available to be taken advantage of. If multiple weapons on a hard-point are hitting multiple and separate targets simultaneously, that should necessarily be considered multiple gun turrets.
The optimal convergence pattern is up for debate; would multiple beam weapons hitting the enemy ship at exactly the same spot do more damage, or less? Would exclusively parallel fire, in a sort of "claw rake" pattern, do more damage instead? Rules to simulate the correct results should be built from answers to this question.
I'm going to assume that hitting the exact same spot is the ideal solution. If everyone would prefer to discuss parallel fire (or more exotic options) instead, we can cross that bridge too, if necessary. I am also going to assume that the gun turrets use range data from whatever source to auto-calculate the correct convergence pattern (in this case, the exact same spot); because messing with the convergence pattern, except for calibration purposes outside of combat, is totally not a live-fire thing; except when the sensor data just isn't there to be used, like for a stealth ship you've spotted visually, but still doesn't show up on sensors.
Double or Triple Pulse Lasers should be treated as a single laser with Double or Triple the rate of fire. Each bolt does what it does completely independent of the rest; there are just potentially more of them.
Beam Lasers, though, they might be tricky. Are we factoring in thermal issues, where increased temperature might just be wasted energy? Is blowthrough prefered, or is it the hull we want to damage?
So, there is our model for turrets, with some quibbles to be debated.
So, what does this mean for Point-Defense? If a single turret is doing both Attacking and Point-Defense, it means Divided Focus, because you can only engage one target at a time. Does this mean I think you shouldn't be able to do it? Hell no, you certainly should! If this were at the time scale of ground-combat, you would be switching targets like crazy! However, since you're not concentrating all your fire on the enemy target, there should be some penalty. This should just be a matter of how much.
And what about sandcasting? Well, you should get that for free at long enough range, and here's why... you're firing something that's going to explode into a cloud between you and the enemy target, which means the target you need to hit is any trajectory approximately toward the enemy target; so while you're firing at the enemy target, or at missiles that came from the enemy target, the difference in angle is negligible. The only exception is for when the ships are so close together that, if you fire the sandcaster toward the enemy ship, the enemy ship can just move around it; at that range, sandcasting becomes really hard.
"Linked Fire" is just a synchronization of one turret's convergence pattern with another; if it can be done between barrels on one turret, it can be done across all turrets; practically speaking, the limit is the networking systems between turrets, and not software. I would argue that you should roll once for to-hit, and just count all the guns and roll damage for them all, or use a function that uses fewer dice but gets a similar distribution.
Arguably, a more important piece of software is something to intelligently divide up the targets among the gunners; it's very inefficient to have multiple gunners try to target the same missile or fightercraft just to have the first one that swivels on target destroy it. Here, again, the network is a bigger deal, but at least the computer has something significant to compute this time; it has to consider how to divide up the targets to give the gunners as equal a target load as possible within their available firing arcs, and within their ability to hit targets of that difficulty. There's something to be said for making your players pick their targets exclusively ahead of time, and leaving just enough room to react when that plan doesn't work out.
Fire Control should include both of these functions for free in addition to the usual expectations of it.
Unless turrets are placed so that they have significant negative elevation values in all directions at each emplacement, a ship never gets adequate point-defense coverage at less than 4 well-placed laser and sandcaster equipped turrets; the firing arcs just don't overlap enough. There should always be plenty of opportunity for "dogfighters" to find and exploit these blind-spots, which extend to any range, on smaller craft!
The optimal convergence pattern is up for debate; would multiple beam weapons hitting the enemy ship at exactly the same spot do more damage, or less? Would exclusively parallel fire, in a sort of "claw rake" pattern, do more damage instead? Rules to simulate the correct results should be built from answers to this question.
I'm going to assume that hitting the exact same spot is the ideal solution. If everyone would prefer to discuss parallel fire (or more exotic options) instead, we can cross that bridge too, if necessary. I am also going to assume that the gun turrets use range data from whatever source to auto-calculate the correct convergence pattern (in this case, the exact same spot); because messing with the convergence pattern, except for calibration purposes outside of combat, is totally not a live-fire thing; except when the sensor data just isn't there to be used, like for a stealth ship you've spotted visually, but still doesn't show up on sensors.
Double or Triple Pulse Lasers should be treated as a single laser with Double or Triple the rate of fire. Each bolt does what it does completely independent of the rest; there are just potentially more of them.
Beam Lasers, though, they might be tricky. Are we factoring in thermal issues, where increased temperature might just be wasted energy? Is blowthrough prefered, or is it the hull we want to damage?
So, there is our model for turrets, with some quibbles to be debated.
So, what does this mean for Point-Defense? If a single turret is doing both Attacking and Point-Defense, it means Divided Focus, because you can only engage one target at a time. Does this mean I think you shouldn't be able to do it? Hell no, you certainly should! If this were at the time scale of ground-combat, you would be switching targets like crazy! However, since you're not concentrating all your fire on the enemy target, there should be some penalty. This should just be a matter of how much.
And what about sandcasting? Well, you should get that for free at long enough range, and here's why... you're firing something that's going to explode into a cloud between you and the enemy target, which means the target you need to hit is any trajectory approximately toward the enemy target; so while you're firing at the enemy target, or at missiles that came from the enemy target, the difference in angle is negligible. The only exception is for when the ships are so close together that, if you fire the sandcaster toward the enemy ship, the enemy ship can just move around it; at that range, sandcasting becomes really hard.
"Linked Fire" is just a synchronization of one turret's convergence pattern with another; if it can be done between barrels on one turret, it can be done across all turrets; practically speaking, the limit is the networking systems between turrets, and not software. I would argue that you should roll once for to-hit, and just count all the guns and roll damage for them all, or use a function that uses fewer dice but gets a similar distribution.
Arguably, a more important piece of software is something to intelligently divide up the targets among the gunners; it's very inefficient to have multiple gunners try to target the same missile or fightercraft just to have the first one that swivels on target destroy it. Here, again, the network is a bigger deal, but at least the computer has something significant to compute this time; it has to consider how to divide up the targets to give the gunners as equal a target load as possible within their available firing arcs, and within their ability to hit targets of that difficulty. There's something to be said for making your players pick their targets exclusively ahead of time, and leaving just enough room to react when that plan doesn't work out.
Fire Control should include both of these functions for free in addition to the usual expectations of it.
Unless turrets are placed so that they have significant negative elevation values in all directions at each emplacement, a ship never gets adequate point-defense coverage at less than 4 well-placed laser and sandcaster equipped turrets; the firing arcs just don't overlap enough. There should always be plenty of opportunity for "dogfighters" to find and exploit these blind-spots, which extend to any range, on smaller craft!
You are right, the ballistics of trajectory that allows multiple rounds from a gun to simultaneously impact a target is not relevant in space, as unguided energy streams or kinetic rounds can't follow a ballistic path - they follow a very straight one.
Because a combat round is six minutes long, it is possible to have a single turret engage in point defense (which typically happens at the end of the round as the last movements of missiles are done and engagement is done right before impact) as well as offense. I still am of the opinion that anti-ship weaponry doesn't make for the optimum anti-missile defense, but dedicated point defense systems in place of anti-ship lasers seems to be a concept the powers-that-be don't want to embrace. (shrug) We can always get around that with our own rules.
With combat abstracted as they are it is hard to take apart the issues and put them in a logical sequence that can be debated and put back together in a reasonable format. It is fair to wave your hand and say, 'meh, shit just works like this'... but where's the fun in that?
Because a combat round is six minutes long, it is possible to have a single turret engage in point defense (which typically happens at the end of the round as the last movements of missiles are done and engagement is done right before impact) as well as offense. I still am of the opinion that anti-ship weaponry doesn't make for the optimum anti-missile defense, but dedicated point defense systems in place of anti-ship lasers seems to be a concept the powers-that-be don't want to embrace. (shrug) We can always get around that with our own rules.
With combat abstracted as they are it is hard to take apart the issues and put them in a logical sequence that can be debated and put back together in a reasonable format. It is fair to wave your hand and say, 'meh, shit just works like this'... but where's the fun in that?
phavoc said:
And changing in the next update - maybe a little later today!
I have been mulling over point defense for a while. I've never been a big fan of using the ships' lasers to shoot down tiny objects, nor allowing gunners the ability to use their skills in shooting them down. They should be travelling far too fast for human response - it would be more luck than skill if they were able to hit something.
Point defense should really be an automated affair. The bigger question though is how do you implement it without totally breaking the missile/ship combat rules. So here's (another) alternate stab:
Point defense systems may be deployed 1 per 500 tons of hull size. It consists of multiple weapon installations, sensors and targeting units spread over the hull of the ship. Different versions are:
TL-10 Point Defense System: Consumes one point of power and two hardpoints. Intercepts 1d6+2 missiles or torpedoes on final approach. For incoming fire that is of the stand-off variety effectiveness is halved.
TL-12 Improved Point Defense System: Consumes three points of power and two hardpoints. Intercepts 1d6+4 missiles or torpedoes on final approach. For incoming fire that is of the stand-off variety effective is halved.
TL-15 Enhanced Point Defense System: Consumes five points of power and three hardpoints. Intercepts 2d6 missiles or torpedoes on final approach. For incoming fire that is of the stand-ff variety effectiveness is halved.
The idea is that if you are willing to give up offensive firepower for dedicated defensive power you should be somewhat rewarded. The TL-15 version gives up guaranteed hits for more potential hits, but also bad rolls mean more missiles can possibly get through. This also differs from the existing rules by (a) removing gunner skills and (b) making it an all or nothing approach. Plus you are limited by hull tonnage on what you can do with it. It would be possible to shoe-horn this into the existing point defense rules as well. And I don't think it's terribly lopsided against missile strikes. It does make for an attractive system for say escorts and the like whose primary job it is to offset the new danger for incoming missiles. Power is relatively minor as it should be for such a system. It would also be easy enough to create a lower than TL10 system that uses actual projectiles to destroy incoming missiles if that was so desired.
Point defense should really be an automated affair. The bigger question though is how do you implement it without totally breaking the missile/ship combat rules. So here's (another) alternate stab:
Point defense systems may be deployed 1 per 500 tons of hull size. It consists of multiple weapon installations, sensors and targeting units spread over the hull of the ship. Different versions are:
TL-10 Point Defense System: Consumes one point of power and two hardpoints. Intercepts 1d6+2 missiles or torpedoes on final approach. For incoming fire that is of the stand-off variety effectiveness is halved.
TL-12 Improved Point Defense System: Consumes three points of power and two hardpoints. Intercepts 1d6+4 missiles or torpedoes on final approach. For incoming fire that is of the stand-off variety effective is halved.
TL-15 Enhanced Point Defense System: Consumes five points of power and three hardpoints. Intercepts 2d6 missiles or torpedoes on final approach. For incoming fire that is of the stand-ff variety effectiveness is halved.
The idea is that if you are willing to give up offensive firepower for dedicated defensive power you should be somewhat rewarded. The TL-15 version gives up guaranteed hits for more potential hits, but also bad rolls mean more missiles can possibly get through. This also differs from the existing rules by (a) removing gunner skills and (b) making it an all or nothing approach. Plus you are limited by hull tonnage on what you can do with it. It would be possible to shoe-horn this into the existing point defense rules as well. And I don't think it's terribly lopsided against missile strikes. It does make for an attractive system for say escorts and the like whose primary job it is to offset the new danger for incoming missiles. Power is relatively minor as it should be for such a system. It would also be easy enough to create a lower than TL10 system that uses actual projectiles to destroy incoming missiles if that was so desired.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
10 ships flying in formation each with Point Defence Batteries and running Point Defence/2.
According to the rules each missile fired on any of the ships is engaged by all 10 ships point defence and effectively all missiles are destroyed. Torpedoes fare a little better, but make it 20 ships in formation and effectively all torpedoes are destroyed as well.
Add something to the rules that only one Point Defense Battery can engage any particular missile/torpedo?
According to the rules each missile fired on any of the ships is engaged by all 10 ships point defence and effectively all missiles are destroyed. Torpedoes fare a little better, but make it 20 ships in formation and effectively all torpedoes are destroyed as well.
Add something to the rules that only one Point Defense Battery can engage any particular missile/torpedo?
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
High Guard, Weapons ans Screens, p10: "To be effective, a ship requires a single point defence battery for every 1,000 tons of its hull. "
So how many batteries does a 1500 ton ship require?
So how many batteries does a 1500 ton ship require?
AnotherDilbert said:
Its been highlighted that Point defense batteries need a "maximum missile/torps" engaged per turn. Otherwise you have scenarios where a 12x 2000-ton dedicated PD ship can defend a 2 million ton dreadnought with 12x PD rolls against EVERY missile - which if of course silly.
More PD should be effective against missiles - even the same missile. It shouldn't be effective against an infinite amount of missiles within the same turn however.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
I agree, but it is not clear.
Core Book p157, "Every 100 tons of the ship’s hull allows one turret to be installed..." means, of course, rounded down.
High Guard, Weapons ans Screens, p10: "To be effective, a ship requires a single point defence battery for every 1,000 tons of its hull. " probably means rounded up, otherwise X900 ton ships would be popular...
Core Book p157, "Every 100 tons of the ship’s hull allows one turret to be installed..." means, of course, rounded down.
High Guard, Weapons ans Screens, p10: "To be effective, a ship requires a single point defence battery for every 1,000 tons of its hull. " probably means rounded up, otherwise X900 ton ships would be popular...
Ummm... the implications of this on a large scale need consideration. Most ships of the line are going to have hundreds of turrets. Are you saying Matt that a ship could have say 2 missile racks and a beam laser in a turret and be able to use say the 300 turrets for point defense with the laser and in the same turn each turret can launch 2 missiles? The paradigm is quite different for a break down of 200 missile triple turrets and 100 triple beam laser turrets.
