View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16281 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:49 pm Post subject: Weapon Emplacements on Starships |
|
|
WEG's rather lackadaisical style of describing weapon emplacements has always irked me somewhat, as it is quite obvious that some capital ship weapons are obviously capable of covering more than one fire arc. In the interests of accuracy, I'd like to add additional notation to individual weapon systems, which may reflect additional capabilities.
New Fire Arc Notation:
Front / Left / Right / Back - The weapon may engage any target in the arc designated.
All (Replaces Turret) - The weapon may engage any target in all four arcs.
Any - The weapon may engage any target in any one arc per round. This may be expanded to include the designation Any Two (which means any target in two adjacent fire arcs per round), or Any Three (as Any Two, but with three fire arcs)
Types of Weapon Mounts & Emplacements (in order of expense and complexity, least to greatest):
Fixed - The weapon is bolted down to a specific position relative to the craft to which it is attached. The weapon is then aimed by positioning the entire ship. This is most commonly found on snubfighters, but is occasionally found on larger vessels. One outsized example would be the Death Star's superlaser.
Pivot Mount - The weapon is mounted coterminous with the hull, either extending through it, or mounted on an external mount with control linkages attaching the weapon to the gunner's position inside the ship. Fire is limited to one arc due to the gunner's position inside the hull. Usually used for starfighter-scale weapons, but can be used for capital ship weaponry, as well. Examples include the quad-laser cannon mounts as demonstrated in the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook.
Ball Mount - The weapon is mounted coterminous with the hull, but uses an ingenious mounting system that allows it to cover two fire arcs. The gunner can control the ball remotely or can be located inside the ball itself. Examples include the composite beam turrets on the LAAT/i gunships
Gun Port - The gun is mounted in an eplacement that is open to space. Atmosphere is maintained in the emplacement via a magnetic field. Like the pivot mount, fire is limited to approximately one arc due to the gunner's position inside the hull, but this mount has the added advantage of allowing the entire weapon to be retracted into the emplacement, with the additional protection of an armored blast door when the weapon is retracted. In addition, this makes repair and maintenance of the weapon much more convenient. Examples include turbolaser emplacements as seen on the Death Star (E4) and the Venator-Class Star Destroyer (E3).
Tower - The gun is mounted on a protrusion that extends it outward from the ship's hull. Tower based weapons are generally equipped to cover a greater arc of fire, but are also more exposed and vulnerable, so the tower itself must be armored to protect the weapon. The crew can either be stationed directly at the weapon or they can control the weapon remotely from a station beneath the tower. The increased visibility provided by the tower will generally allow the weapon emplacement to fire into three or four arcs (depending on the weapon's installation). Examples would include the turbolaser towers on the Death Star and the quad-laser emplacements on a Lancer-Class Frigate
Turret - The gun is mounted in an armored pod that can rotate and elevate independent of the hull. It is generally even more heavily armored than the surrounding ship. The turret's independent mobility allows it to sweep and cover between two and three fire arcs, depending on its installation. Examples include the flank turrets on the Imperator and Venator-Class Star Destroyers.
Single Emplacement - One weapon or multiple linked weapons, controlled by a crew of 1-5
Battery Emplacement - Multiple individual weapons, usually of the same type, mounted in close proximity, and generally coordinated or linked in some fashion. Battery crews generally include 2 to 3 crew per weapon, plus an additional 2-3 battery control crew. Batteries can fire in unison at the same target, or may act independently to engage multiple targets. Batteries are named by the number of weapons in the battery; dual = 2, triple = 3, quad = 4, main = 5, heavy = 6.
My thought here is that the manner in which a weapon is mounted will have an effect on its degree of coverage. A big example would be the Lancer Frigate; its capsule specifically states that its quad-laser armament is mounted on towers, extended out away from the hull. IMO, the stats should reflect that the weapons should be able to cover more fire arcs than just one. IMO, a Lancer's fire arcs should read something like 5 front/left, 5 front/right, 5 rear/left, 5 rear/right. This would allow the ship to focus up to half of its armament into any one fire arc.
Furthermore, these emplacement rules could be used to modify the stats for existing ships, and help generate rules for new ships.
I'm tired and rambling and not entirely sure what kind of point I'm trying to make, but I would like some feedback. Thoughts? _________________ "No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jmanski Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm like you in that I don't like WEG's fire arcs. At all.
Your thoughts are interesting (and I likey, btw), but it seems like a lot of work to go through all the ships and reclassify their fire arcs. _________________ Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16281 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jmanski wrote: | I'm like you in that I don't like WEG's fire arcs. At all.
Your thoughts are interesting (and I likey, btw), but it seems like a lot of work to go through all the ships and reclassify their fire arcs. |
Very true. I'm at odds with myself as to whether or not to pursue this. Part of my reasoning ties in with another project of mine that would divide the Capital Ship scale class into three parts; Escort for Corvettes up to Heavy Cruisers, Capital Ship for Star Destroyers and the like, and Dreadnought for ships like the Executor, the Eclipse and the Sovereign.
My theory is that all the Capital Ship-class ships would keep their Escort-scale weaponry, but would also get additional, heavy Capital Ship-Scale weaponry as well. For instance, with an ISD, I would keep the Turbolaser Batteries and Ion Cannon by making them Gun Port or Swivel Mount Weapons, add the 40 Laser Cannon added by WOTC for anti-starfighter defense, then make up some rules for Capital Ship-Scale weapons mounted in the heavy flank turrets seen in the close-up shots. _________________ "No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 2426
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Id remove the 'fixed' Mount. Given the ranges and speed of space combat I cant see these really being used. You would end up with a ridiculously low range because you couldnt hit anything, alternately add the RAW missile modifiers based on the speed of the target.
Also, I cant really see the Imperials rotating the entire 160 km Death Star to aim the superlaser. _________________ My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14168 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can see actually turning things into 6 arcs.
Fore, Aft, Port, Starboard, Top and Bottom. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 2426
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | I can see actually turning things into 6 arcs.
Fore, Aft, Port, Starboard, Top and Bottom. |
Yeah, especially for turrets that are often dorsal or ventrally mounted. _________________ My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16281 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
ZzaphodD wrote: | Id remove the 'fixed' Mount. Given the ranges and speed of space combat I cant see these really being used. You would end up with a ridiculously low range because you couldnt hit anything, alternately add the RAW missile modifiers based on the speed of the target.
Also, I cant really see the Imperials rotating the entire 160 km Death Star to aim the superlaser. |
I included Fixed to account for all weapon mounting types, including the ones found on starfighters. It would also work with my new scale system, because I can see mounting Capital Ship-scale weaponry on an Escort-Scale ship, ala Lance-equipped frigates in WH40K. The weapon would be fixed in one direction, and you would have to steer the entire ship to aim it.
As far as the Death Star, I don't think they had a choice. That composite beam doesn't look particularly steerable, and the only other examples of a composite beam are the ball turrets of the LAAT/i, which turned the whole turret to aim the beam. _________________ "No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16281 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
ZzaphodD wrote: | garhkal wrote: | I can see actually turning things into 6 arcs.
Fore, Aft, Port, Starboard, Top and Bottom. |
Yeah, especially for turrets that are often dorsal or ventrally mounted. |
I agree, but in game terms, that would necessitate coming up with rules for three dimensional combat, so it's ultimately easier to just take the Battlefleet Gothic route, i.e. recognize that space combat is a 3D experience, and include aspects of the rules that recognize that effect, but to have actual gameplay occur in 2D. _________________ "No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 2426
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
crmcneill wrote: | ZzaphodD wrote: | garhkal wrote: | I can see actually turning things into 6 arcs.
Fore, Aft, Port, Starboard, Top and Bottom. |
Yeah, especially for turrets that are often dorsal or ventrally mounted. |
I agree, but in game terms, that would necessitate coming up with rules for three dimensional combat, so it's ultimately easier to just take the Battlefleet Gothic route, i.e. recognize that space combat is a 3D experience, and include aspects of the rules that recognize that effect, but to have actual gameplay occur in 2D. |
Ah, our games have three dimensions, both in space and while on a planet. It adds a lot of excitement to try to maneuver to be on the 'safe side' of a ships weapon emplacements. _________________ My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14168 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
crmcneill wrote: | ZzaphodD wrote: | garhkal wrote: | I can see actually turning things into 6 arcs.
Fore, Aft, Port, Starboard, Top and Bottom. |
Yeah, especially for turrets that are often dorsal or ventrally mounted. |
I agree, but in game terms, that would necessitate coming up with rules for three dimensional combat, so it's ultimately easier to just take the Battlefleet Gothic route, i.e. recognize that space combat is a 3D experience, and include aspects of the rules that recognize that effect, but to have actual gameplay occur in 2D. |
And why would making space combat 3d be a pain? _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 2426
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | crmcneill wrote: | ZzaphodD wrote: | garhkal wrote: | I can see actually turning things into 6 arcs.
Fore, Aft, Port, Starboard, Top and Bottom. |
Yeah, especially for turrets that are often dorsal or ventrally mounted. |
I agree, but in game terms, that would necessitate coming up with rules for three dimensional combat, so it's ultimately easier to just take the Battlefleet Gothic route, i.e. recognize that space combat is a 3D experience, and include aspects of the rules that recognize that effect, but to have actual gameplay occur in 2D. |
And why would making space combat 3d be a pain? |
If you use 2D miniature map you limit your imagination. _________________ My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rerun941 Commander
Joined: 27 Jul 2004 Posts: 459 Location: San Antonio, TX
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ZzaphodD wrote: | If you use 2D miniature map you limit your imagination. |
2D or 3D map... doesn't matter. My imagination has no limits. _________________ Han - "How're we doin'?"
Luke - "Same as always."
Han - "That bad, huh?" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16281 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rerun941 wrote: | ZzaphodD wrote: | If you use 2D miniature map you limit your imagination. |
2D or 3D map... doesn't matter. My imagination has no limits. |
Quote: | Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, page 54-55
"It is an interesting fact that, though space is, of course, three-dimensional, with a vessel's orientation of no particular importance, humans find it distinctly unsettling to view a ship which appears to be upside down or which appears to be "hanging over" their vessel. To counteract this, fleets almost always orient their vessels so that "down" is in the same direction for all craft. Tradition has it that the approaching vessel orients itself to match the vessel already in position.
This psychological quirk makes capital starship combat surprisingly similar to water-based ship combat. It might be noted that, if a species were fully comfortable with the three dimensional nature of space, they would be at a distinct advantage when fighting humans in space." |
Therefore, according to the canon, capital ship combat is almost always fought on a 2D scale, mostly because the crew has an easier time dealing with the situation mentally. Even the canon capital ship combat, as seen in E3 and E6 (and in all the movies to a lesser degree), occurs like this, with all the ships oriented with "up" the same direction. IMO, even if I were to introduce a species that was comfortable with 3D combat, I would represent it as a bonus to their skill, not try to introduce a new game mechanic.
Battlefleet Gothic has some useful rules for this, like allowing ships to fire "through" other ships, representing the idea that the ship may be above or below the relative altitude of the intervening ship. There are some other rules, as well, but that is the one I remember most clearly at the moment. _________________ "No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14168 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
True, but that is imo where the rebelion would be good at since many of the cap ships are crewed by true 3d critters (mon cal)... _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16281 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | True, but that is imo where the rebelion would be good at since many of the cap ships are crewed by true 3d critters (mon cal)... |
Maybe they already have. Mon Cal crew dice tend to be higher than their Imperial equivalents. That familiarity with a 3D environment would certainly hold the Mon Cals in good stead during space combat. However, even underwater, there is still an "up" and a "down"... _________________ "No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|