[FT] Weapons Cost for firing every other turn

How much of a cost reduction, if any, would be right for weapons which fire
every other turn, instead of every turn? I'm thinking of Grasers but could
extend it to other weapons.

And if you put two weapons in a turret, so you have to fire them at the same
target and lose them both in the same threshold, how does that affect them?

> How much of a cost reduction, if any, would be right for weapons which

Hmm unless it was possible to lose one but not the other to a threshold, I
would think that you would want to treat the turretted weapons as one single
weapon. If they always fire at the same target, and die together, then they're
one weapon with the effects of two. Now if the idea is that you check each
threshold for each weapon, and any failure knocks the whole lot out, that's a
different kettle of fish. In that case, I'd say that having the second (and
each additional) weapon
being 1/2
cost would be about right.

> Hmm unless it was possible to lose one but not the other to a
In that case, I'd say that having the second (and each additional) weapon
being 1/2 cost would be about right.

There are (at least) three ways to do it: a. roll once, a failure kills
everything b. roll for each weapon, any failure kills everything c. roll for
each weapon, when one fails, the remainder check at one level
worse -- eg you're taking your level one check, you roll a 1 for the
first weapon, now you lose any further weapons on a 1 or 2

What I had in mind was (a) but (c) might be interesting too

> > Hmm unless it was possible to lose one but not the other to a
In
> that case, I'd say that having the second (and each additional) weapon

   For this, I'd lean towards 2/3'rds cost for the second (and
additional) weapons. Still, given that you've got multiple weapons that can
only fire together and always die together, it'd probably be easier just to
combine them together as one weapon.

> b. roll for each weapon, any failure kills everything

    1/2 cost for the second and suceeding weapons.

> c. roll for each weapon, when one fails, the remainder check at one
Hmm, tougher. Would you have to "recheck" one of the weapons if it had already
passed and one of the others fails? I'd think something like
3/4's
cost for all weapons in such a system would be about right, but I could be off
on that. You have some loss of flexibility in not being able to choose
seperate targets, and each weapon makes the other more vulnerable too.
 On
the other hand, you can still have one weapon fail and the others working.

> > c. roll for each weapon, when one fails, the remainder check at

No, you'd just do one round of checks. That may be too time
consuming -- the idea is to have turrets.  I was thinking that losing
one gun from a turret wouldn't necessarily mean that you'd lose the others,
but you'd be more likely to.

I guess you could have two different types of turret mounts. Say that the
cheaper cost will mount multiple weapons, but all of the weapons
must target the same unit. An example of this would be the US Quad-50
mount from WW2. Using this example I could see someone wanting to mount 4
Class-1 Beam
Weapons on a single turret and consider it some high-speed beam array.
Given the cost reduction this would be useful in any Anti-Fighter and
Anti-Missile role.

A second turret design would allow the weapons within the turret to target
different units, but they would be limited to the same arc. An example of this
would be like the COAX on most MBTs or the guns on just about any modern
surface warfare combatant. The first turret design would be cheaper, but the
second would offer greater flexibility.

For damage I think 1 check for the entire turret is the easiest route to

go. The reason is that it is just easier and this game works best when the
rules are quick and easy (IMO). Plus the whole design of multiple
weapon turrets is to save on common components - thus a single hit could

take out one of those common functions.

Chip

> Laserlight wrote:

I had an idea about multi-weapon turreting, but I haven't found time to
post it until now. Here's how I'd do it...

You could mount more than one weapon in the same turret; The weapon with the
largest MASS would be bought at the same Mass and Point Cost. Additional
weapons with Mass EQUAL OR LESS than the first would be mounted in the same
turret at the same Point Cost, but cost HALF the Mass. This would allow small
ships to mount more weapons, and big ships
to mount HELLASHUS weapons!  Examples in real-life are the twin-mounted
5-inch guns on WWll destroyers, and the triple-mounted 16-inch guns on
Iowa class battleships.

On the subject of threshold checks, I'd treat the turret as a separate system.
If the turret fails its threshold check [the turret jams], either the weapons
in that turret can't fire REGARDLESS of their status, or the weapons can still
fire BUT are restricted to a FIXED MOUNT FIRE ARC [as per NIFT's Weapons &
Defences Archive] set at the arc that turret's weapons last fired from.

1. About 15% reduction. Not math based, but from experience.

2. This issue is thornier. There is not just the failure of the weapon to a
threshold, its also how fast it can be *repaired* again. There would be a 0
cost saving in points for such a system; in fact, I would probably
*increase* the points cost by 10-20% for turreted weapons.
As an example of this,
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/webgames/guns1/index.htm
One of the main advantages the ESU had vs the FCT was the speed with which
systems could be repaired after a failed threshold (ignore the spinning top
tactic).  Fixing a single class-3 or class-4 had a far greater effect
than
trying to fixing multiple class-2 & class-1 to generate the same
firepower.

Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies

> -----Original Message-----

IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails

of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.

> A second turret design would allow the weapons within the turret to

Umm.. Not sure what you mean here, but...

As far as I'm aware the coax MG on a MBT is never used to engage different
targets than the main gun, at the same time at the main gun? I thought they
were pretty damn fixed with respect to eachother, which is
what _co-ax_ial implies?

As for the guns on modern surface combattants, I'm fully lost what you are
suggesting here. The vast majority of modern surface combattants have one gun
per turret, and those that have more than one gun per
turret fire at the same bearing and elevation - hence at the same
target? (*)

Best regards,

> On 5/18/05, derk@cistron.nl <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:

> As far as I'm aware the coax MG on a MBT is never used to engage

Coaxial MG on an MBT is not used to engage different targets, but rather
different kinds of targets. You are correct on your understanding of the word
coaxial.

Since it is the same gunner operating both those weapons, it would be tricky
to engage two different targets even if they could move freely and seperately
from each other.

> As for the guns on modern surface combattants, I'm fully lost what you

Historical cruisers and capital ships would have multiple guns in one turret,
but would (AFAIK) engage one target at a time.

Generally, even if you did have the capability to engage multiple targets it
wouldn't be wise to spread your firepower around like that, hoping for a lucky
hit. Much better doctrine to concentrate fire and have better assurance of
smashing your primary target quickly. If you want to swat bunches of escorts,
that's what the batteries of
secondary 5" quick-firers are intended for.

The GZG Digest wrote on 5/18/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 20:15:22 -0400

There is historical precedent for losing one gun out of a turret, too.
During the Russo-Japanese War, there were a couple of cases where the
barrels of 12" guns were hit by enemy fire. This bent the barrel, making

it unusable, but had no effect on the other gun in the turret.

The main reason for having a turret (as opposed to a casement) is to give the
gun a wider arc under which it can rotate. You mounted multiple

guns per turret because you had an issue with weight (the traverse
mechanism), space, and line-of-sight. You simply couldn't put 12 main
guns in their own turrets. It added too much weight and they got in each

other's way. You had to double them up, or triple them up.

None of these issues show up in FT, due to the abstract nature of weapon

placement. You can have a long, skinny ship model and the rules still allow
you to mount all your weapons to the forward arc. Likewise, we really don't
know if weapons with multiple arcs are placed in their own turrets or separate
turrets. This sort of detail is abstracted into the
game system. When a threshold check takes out three 5-arc B3s, is that
because all three turrets were taken out, or because they were all in one
turret and the turret took a direct hit? If one of them gets to fire

again is that because that turret was repaired, or because one weapon of

three in a single turret was repaired? In FT we don't know.

I personally think placing weapons in turrets is below FT's level of detail.
If you want to do it, you should give the weapon a mass break as

well as a cost break. You then need a mechanism where hitting the turret

is more likely to take out all of the weapons than if they were mounted
separately, but still have the possibility that only one or some of the
weapons in the turret are out of commission due to a threshold check. Whenever
I've gone down the turret route, I find players want to change the armour on
those turrets, too, which adds additional complications (I

mentioned an armouring system for turrets that I came up with for my
attempt at an FT Russo-Japanese War set of rules, but it was shot down
by Oerjan and others as an option in FT).

> Laserlight wrote:

> How much of a cost reduction, if any, would be right for weapons which

~2/3 of the original weapon. (Not just half as might be expected, since
the weapon still gets to fire on the first turn of combat.)

> And if you put two weapons in a turret, so you have to fire them at

As Grant says, it depends on exactly how you make the threshold check -
but also on how you handle repairs of a damaged turret:

> There are (at least) three ways to do it:

If a single successful DCP roll is sufficient to get everything back into
operation again, the turret would have the same Mass as the two separate

weapons.

If you need separate DCP rolls for each damaged weapon in the turret, it is
worth less.

> b. roll for each weapon, any failure kills everything

Depends on the number of weapons in the turret as well as on the number of
hull rows;
eg. a two-weapon turret in a 4-row hull would be worth barely half as
much as two separate systems due to the much higher risk of suffering a
threshold failure.

> c. roll for each weapon, when one fails, the remainder check at one

(c) looks rather complex to me :-(

Later,

> A second turret design would allow the weapons

> Umm.. Not sure what you mean here, but...

> As far as I'm aware the coax MG on a MBT is never

Are you referring to the commanders Mg? Although it is mounted on the turret
it is completely separate and can operate 360 degrees. It is an internal
weapon since after WW II on all US tanks
(M48/M60/M1) which improves the chances of survival
for the tank commander over the exposed mounts of earlier tanks (Grant tank of
WWII had internal Commander Mg but lots of other problems)

> There is historical precedent for losing one gun out

The French four gun turreted battleships and battlecruisers actually Had armor
that separated the turret into 2 by 2 guns. I have no idea of the layout of
the British King George V four gun turrets.

> The main reason for having a turret (as opposed to a

Disagree with you on this one. As guns got bigger the technology of the turret
fell behind. The casement (1865 onward) allowed for bigger guns on a ship but
it was dropped as soon as turret technology caught up due to:
-the need for overhead cover (plunging fire) as some
navies used open casements to maximize elevation (range)
-can bring all guns in turret on target (sort of your
answer) as opposed to one gun per casement Note that I am referring to the
primary guns on the battleships. Secondary guns on battleships and on some
Cruisers were casemented as late as the 1920’s.

Probably being neither here-nor-there on the subject, but;

I'd understood that the 'major' reason(s) for multiple turreted guns was: a.
to allow fewer, larger guns while still being able to bring them to bear
on targets on both sides of the ship, as well as fore/aft fire. (As
opposed to
ships-of-the-line type fixed mounts or casements)
b. to allow each gun to be targeted slightly different in order to 'bracket'
an enemy and therefore increase salvo to-hit chances at range. (I recall
that
Space Opera used the same system for it's nova-cannon shots. You fired
each salvo and attempted to hit with at least one projector, if you rolled
REALLY well you hit with more than one)
c. to allow 'off-angle' fire of weapons which allowed ships to present
more
'beam' than 'broadside' so as to decrease to-hit chances for enemy
salvo's.

Personally I just use each 'battery' to mean single or multiple weapons
depending on the 'background' I'm using.

Randy

On tank main and co-ax guns:
> From my Army tank gunnes training manual the co-ax is used to 'spot'
targets
for the main gun. At least it was in the M-60 series.

Randy

My grandfather served with a tank unit during the war. The three most common
mg postions were;

1. Bow (next to the driver) for killing infantry specifically. In
those days infantry had to get close to use an anti-tank weapon.  Most
modern tanks don't have them today since infantry can stay outside effective
mg range and still kill the tank.

2. Co-ax (next to the main gun) used for range finding.  It's much, much
better to fire a few tracer bullets into the distance than to use up main gun
ammo. Besides, some vehicles could be destroyed with heavy mg fire. Most
modern tanks tend to use lasers next to the main gun for the same reason.

3. Cupola (typically on the tank commanders turret) used for
anti-aircraft purposes.  Its use against infantry is tantamount to
suicide since you have to stand on top of and mostly out of cover of the tank
making you a very good target for anyone with a gun. Guderian (a very
competent german panzer gereral) said that a good tank commander keeps his
head outside the armour at all times. Unfortunately this tends to get them
killed. The safest place for the crew against infanty is inside the armour
however this makes them almost blind and thus open
to anti-tank weaponary of the period.  Modern tanks still have this gun
even though they replace most of the others. The US tends to make them usable
from INSIDE the tank while russia, etc still requires them to be used OUTSIDE
the tank. Modern weaponary tend to make tank MGs less useful than they were
since most modern weaponary is longer ranged or vastly quicker than an MG.

By way of a humourous point, check out the internet for the WW2 russian
KV-1 and KV-2.  A serious case of over-arming if ever I saw one.

> On 5/20/05, Adrian <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> 2. Co-ax (next to the main gun) used for range finding. It's much,

The coax is retained for killing soft targets.

> 3. Cupola (typically on the tank commanders turret) used for

It can generally be used against infantry while buttoned-up.

> good target for anyone with a gun. Guderian (a very competent german

Yeah, but the Israelis find that fighting unbottoned doubles or triples the
effectiveness of the tank because of faster speed of acquiring targets. Hence
their doctrine is also unbuttoned. I find a lot of BCs and TCs do this in the
US Army as well. I personally,
commanding a 1960s relic (M-113A3) have no other option, and indeed
generally prefer to be exposed from about the level of my navel up. That way I
can SEE.

Yes, historically multiple gun turrets enabled the firing vessel to bracket
their target to ensure a greater chance to score a single hit.
Maybe a multi-gun turret could move the hit numbers down by one. Thus if

  you have 2 Class-2 batts in a turret you could fire them as a single
Class-2 with a 1 shift positive result.

The reason I used the COAX design was it was coupling the same gunner with two
very different weapons. As an example a turret could contain a
Class-3 and a Class-1 Beam weapon. The reason I limited it to the same
arc was to account for the fact that the beam weapon is more than likely

not really coaxially mounted, but in fact each weapon can only target within
the same arc at the same time.

Chip

> John Atkinson wrote:

> Chip wrote:

> The reason I used the COAX design was it was coupling the same gunner

And the point pretty much everyone else was making is that two weapons mounted
in the same turret almost invariably DON'T fire at different
targets at the same time - they're either used against different targets
at *different* times (eg. the coax MG on an MBT), or against the *same* target
at the same time (eg. wet-navy battleship multi-gun turrets).

Regards,

Yes, but when designing up a rules base addition why limit something to what
invariably is used now. Invariably ships DON'T travel faster that
the speed of light - but most FT ships are equipped with FTL drives.
Cannot we spread our imagination.

The base FT rules are flexible in that a Beam Weapon can be used to represent
any type of weapon that loses strength with range and is
reduced by shields. A single battery could represent dozens of arrays -
or simply a single weapon port.

Given how fungible the base rules are designed each turn is not a given-

hard-set-in-stone amount of time, instead things are fungible. Can
anyone seriously say that no gunner *EVER* fired their main gun at an
enemy unit (say a tank) - then within the time frame alloted to the FT
system turn - fired their COAX MG at some nearby supporting infantry?

This is different from the re-design of FT to different universes - like

the HH or SW variants.

Why should the design be so rigid?

Chip
-----
Just because everyone else thinks the same thing doesn't make it right -

just makes it group-think.

> Oerjan Ariander wrote:

> with two very different weapons. As an example a turret could contain

> a Class-3 and a Class-1 Beam weapon. The reason I limited it to the

> target within the same arc at the same time.

> mounted in the same turret almost invariably DON'T fire at different

> Chip wrote:

> Yes, but when designing up a rules base addition why limit something to

> what invariably is used now.

Because the reason why it is nearly invariably used now is the physical
limitation caused by putting two weapons in the same turret.

In order to allow the two weapons to shoot at different targets at the same
time, they need to be able to both elevate *and rotate* independently. In
order to achieve that, you have to buy complete sets of rotation and
elevation gear for both of them - ie., you don't get any rebate for the
smaller weapon, so in game terms you are in effect putting the two weapons in
*separate* turrets rather than in a single one.

Regards,

Again. Unnecessarily rigid.

Turret is rotated so that the main weapon in the turret is firing at a single
target. Secondary weapon within that turret can lock on to another, but maybe
only within the same arc that the turret is current facing.

When matched guns are found in most modern surface warships can elevate
independently. Given FTs hand-waving away the 3D aspect of space combat
in favor of something more simple, ships can easily only be on multiple planes
of each other (so they can fire through friendly models and the like). Thus
targeting two opponents with different weapons might be a simple matter of
elevating the second weapon an extra degree or two.

Again this is all within the fungible definition of a "turn" in FT.
Within that turn everyone is actually still moving - again we only
conform firing to the end of this "turn" to make the game easy.

We can probably table this discussion since we are not reaching any type

of middle ground and instead stand apart churning the same ground. My view of
FT is that it provides a set of basic rulebooks that do not set out to tell
you how anything is actually done, only what effect they have on the game
world. So, I like all variant rules to approach from this same mindset
- like
the HERO RPG of which I am also a fan. It is obvious that your view of FT is
different. Equally valid its just that given our two different views it is
unlikely that we will find middle ground.

I have offered my opinion on this subject and I gave what I hoped was a full
explanation of why I held that opinion in relation to FT.

Case Closed.

Chip

> Oerjan Ariander wrote:

> same time, they need to be able to both elevate *and rotate*

> of rotation and elevation gear for both of them - ie., you don't get

> On 5/24/05, Chip Dunning <chip.dunning@fuse.net> wrote:

If it is in the same turret, it is going to be pointed at the same target.
Elevation might be seperate but the traverse is not. That is the POINT of a
turret. It rotates to point the gun at a target. Ever seen an armored vehicle
at a gunnery range? So unless the two targets are lined up one in front of the
other, you can't even theoretically aim at another target elsewhere.

The GZG Digest wrote on 5/24/2005 1:00 AM:

> Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:28:23 -0400 From: Chip Dunning

Sorry, it doesn't work that way, and Oerjan explained why.

Arc has nothing to do with it. It's how quickly the target moves through that
arc, and how quickly turret has to move in order to track the target, that is
the sticking point.

If two targets are traveling parallel at the same speed, and one is further
away than the other, the closer target will pass through an arc in front of
the shooter more quickly than the more distant target.

Here's a little experiement. Point straight ahead. Have someone walk past you
at walking speed. How quickly must you turn in order to keep
pointing at that person. Now, stand a dozen yards/metres from a street.
Do the same thing with a passing car. How quickly must you turn to keep your
finger pointed at the car. Try it with a passing airplane high in the sky. How
quickly must you turn to keep pointing at it? The relative speeds of someone
passing by you versus a car versus a plane are roughly
3 mph, 30 mph, and 300+ mph, yet the person closest to you is likely to
be the hardest to track.

In other words, your turret has to rotate faster (perhaps _much_ faster)
in order to track a close object than a distant object. If one weapon in a two
weapon turret is firing at a close target, it's almost impossible to hit a
distant target, unless that distant target is obliging enough
to be traveling parallel to the close target _and_ at a sufficiently
high enough speed that it travels through the same period of arc as the closer
target. That's not likely to happen.

This doesn't even touch what needs to be done in order to "lead" a
target (in the case of slower-than-light speed weapons).

The reason modern multi-missile mounts can fire at multiple targets is
because they are missiles. You can fire them in the general direction of a
target and the missile will track it. It's quite possible to fire two missiles
at two targets within the same arc but with radically different velocities
from the same missile turret. You can't do that with guns, nor could you do it
with FT beams.

> Thus targeting two opponents with different weapons might be a simple

Guns are elevated to counter gravity. Guns in a modern turret elevate
independently so that if one gun is damaged you don't lose the elevation
capability for both guns. Shore bombardment in World War II could allow one
gun to be aimed higher than another in order to hit two different parts of a
beach. For the most part, though, a single salvo was fired with the same
elevation.

> Again this is all within the fungible definition of a "turn" in FT.

Sure, and we could assume that the one gun in the turret fires at one target
for a while, then the second gun in the same target starts tracking a second
target in the same turn. In other words, the first weapon could track target A
for part of the turn, and the second weapon could track target B for the
second part of the turn. However, if we do that, we have to come up with a
penalty for two weapons in the same turret firing at two different targets,
because if they were in independent turrets they could each fire at the two
weapons for the full length of a turn (regardless of how long that is).

So, yes, I can see your point of allowing two weapons in the same turret
engage two different targets. To allow it, you have to come up with some sort
of modifier so that it doesn't do as much damage to either target as you would
get with a weapon in its own turret. And you'd have to come up with modifiers
for each of the direct fire weapons, since they each use different mechanics.

Personally, I would find it simpler just to say that one turret can only
engage one target per turn.

> We can probably table this discussion since we are not reaching any

Yes, but they still have to conform to some modicum of realism. As I explained
above, it's just not realistic to assume that two direct fire weapons in the
same turret could hit two different targets, unless
things lined up _very_ precisely.