Author Topic: Naval Turrets?  (Read 2928 times)

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10497
Naval Turrets?
« on: 13 February 2020, 13:35:19 »
Something occurred to me  looking at both the layouts of  existing Canon warships, and the construction rules, in the context of the late 19th through early 20th centuries.

Layouts bear a strong resemblance to pre-dreadnoughts or even pre-pre-dreadnoughts. That is, bays are arranged on facings, like broadside ships of the pre-ironclad eras.

This caused me to think, in the context of goofier ideas, of a 'technical advance' that could be concieved of, that maybe wouldn't be too game-breaking vs. existing warships, but might inspire a round of creativity.

Naval Turrets.  At an additional cost of 50% of the weight of a bay of capital weapons (Energy, Ballistic, or Missile), you gain a 270 degree arc based on forward-or-aft mounting, or a 180 degree arc of fire for bays mounted to the sides.

Effectively replicating the centerline layouts of early-to-mid 20th century warships such as IJN Yamato or USS Iowa.  (the extra mass comes from the 'Turret' mounting)

What are the advantages? 150% mass is still less than 200% mass-for the same main gun broadside, but only on one facing at a time, and presumably your fore-and-aft arcs will not benefit from the aft mounts except at angled attacks.  What it really does, is prevent 'blind spot' attacks, but adds one more crit location ("Turret Jammed") per Turret (with the location of said turret annotated).  Turret armor would be included in the facing for simplicity, and the weapon location destroyed would be the same-but it would also count from arcs within the sweep.

I really haven't finished thinking this through, so more refinements would be appreciated.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

MechWarriorFox

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #1 on: 13 February 2020, 14:15:28 »
This is interesting because I've been working on a setting that is similar to Battletech, just on the scale of the whole solar system instead of hundreds of lightyears.

Then again, if Children of a Dead Earth has told me anything, extruded turrets (which act like the turrets we all know and love) are pretty troublesome and at times more trouble than they're worth (especially when you take into account the motive systems).

Atarlost

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 559
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #2 on: 13 February 2020, 15:17:51 »
A 270 arc is awkward on hex maps.  I'd say 240 for non-broadside arcs. 

And I'd be tempted to just give capital weapons the turret arc for no added cost.  A light subcapital cannon has twice the range of an improved heavy gauss if using aerospace range bands, but is ten times as massive.  In individual ranges it's only about half again longer.  Compare that to the 8x tonnage gap between the humble machinegun and the LAC-2 for a factor of 9 difference in individual ranges.  If capital weapons include extremely large turrets the weight gap is less silly. 

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10497
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #3 on: 13 February 2020, 15:58:40 »
A 270 arc is awkward on hex maps.  I'd say 240 for non-broadside arcs. 

And I'd be tempted to just give capital weapons the turret arc for no added cost.  A light subcapital cannon has twice the range of an improved heavy gauss if using aerospace range bands, but is ten times as massive.  In individual ranges it's only about half again longer.  Compare that to the 8x tonnage gap between the humble machinegun and the LAC-2 for a factor of 9 difference in individual ranges.  If capital weapons include extremely large turrets the weight gap is less silly.

the problem is, if you start giving the Canon warships those kinds of arcs, a lot of otherwise balanced designs get...well...crazy.  Not just crazy damage, but crazy on the heat and ammo consumption too.

By setting this up as a separate system, it opens a possible angle for different design philosophies to be competitive-without tossing over the table on the existing designs.

Consider it this way: You're trading increased mass on your primary (and secondary) batteries, for a different heat balance and ammunition load, at the cost of an extra "oh shit" spot on your crit charts, and maybe a slight alteration to your armor distribution and heat load.  You don't actually invalidate your more traditional ships, you just open the possibilities for a different 'factional balance' to how those ships are built and/or used.

for example, making it risky for a ship to get caught between two OTHER ships-or riskier, at any rate, if it's got turrets instead of fixed arcs, but at the same time it can be just as dangerous one-on-one as a much larger ship for the same equivalent in ammo and heat load.

thus, creating tactical and strategic choices beyond "Line up at medium range and roll dice" or "Bigger Hull wins by weight of broadside".

Naturally, a turret-ship is going to rely more on manueverability, while a Broadsider is going to be able to lean more heavily on the armor/guns combo.

I think I'll suggest turret installations be limited to Capital weapons and ships with Jump cores, and bar PWS and such from having this capability.

all of which doesn't mean you CAN'T build a McKenna-Klone using Turrets, only that if you do, you'er going to have heat problems that make a stock 2750 Cameron look cool running, and you'll be eating that extra critical hit location for little to no return after your first salvo.

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13286
  • I said don't look!
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #4 on: 13 February 2020, 16:27:36 »
I've had some similar thoughts to see if using the old FASA Starfleet Battles firing arcs ideas could be useful for improving the versatility of Warships but since I'm one of those nutjobs that is more than willing to toss out all the old designs wholesale I've not really constrained such thought with the notion of keeping the existing designs relevant.

But to contribute some other thoughts I'd go with.

Unlike bays turrets must match weapons exactly, not just types.  So no mixing NAC-10s with NAC-20s in the same turret.  To compensate they may go to a max of 80 capital damage so you can put 2 NAC-40s in a turret.

For an extra 10% you can mount additional fire control systems that allow turrets to combine for the purposes of determining if they can bracket fire or not.

I might give the 180 degree turrets a slight weight break and wouldn't be opposed to borrowing a few of the other arcs from Starfleet Battles.

I'm also thinking non-ammunition based weapons should get a break on weight too to reflect you don't need to run ammunition feed systems through the turrets and at least in the case of Naval Lasers it'd be a case of just fitting a couple mirrors and protecting them with articulated armored shrouds.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37359
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #5 on: 13 February 2020, 19:22:52 »
Conceptually, it strikes me the extra degree of freedom would imply a ring the existing "turrets" move along.  The existing fire arcs are pretty broad as is...

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13286
  • I said don't look!
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #6 on: 13 February 2020, 20:11:01 »
Wouldn't need rings for the turrets to move along with the way 3D is abstracted currently.

Which honestly the existing arcs are actually worse for what they'd need to provide proper 3D coverage.

beachhead1985

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4076
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #7 on: 13 February 2020, 20:36:59 »
I have been struggling with this concept myself for a long time and what has me stuck is the hit-locations.

How can I reasonably manage and balance armouring the turrets?

How can I create a hit-location table that permits varying numbers of said turrets?
Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,      Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
The hour when earth's foundations fled,         They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
Followed their mercenary calling,               What God abandoned, these defended,
And took their wages, and are dead.             And saved the sum of things for pay.
     
A.E. Housman

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13286
  • I said don't look!
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #8 on: 13 February 2020, 22:23:53 »
The existing methodology and abstracting the turret armor as incorporated into the existing armor facing as Cannonshop suggests should be fine.

Hptm. Streiger

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 968
  • 3d artist, spread sheet warrior, KTF
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #9 on: 14 February 2020, 06:52:58 »
OK, the problem of BattleSpace is that you don't have real 3d combat.
Think about it to have a 270° field of fire the way the game is played the turret are either mounted "dorsal" or "ventral" or mounted at "starboard" or "backboard" - although I cringe by the mention of wet-navy terms.

after I've done 2 softer scifi space ship models - the most sense would be to mount the "turrets" either in a rotating band that moves the whole turret construction where you need it - or mount them fixed into the sides. They can shoot into the adjacent and half the next sector (so mounted into the LBS - the turret can shoot into FS and RS and half the front and rear-firing arc. However, it needs an overcomplex and powerful mount for +50% mass to shoot in the firing arc they are mounted:


example Front or Rear Side:



Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10497
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #10 on: 14 February 2020, 08:07:34 »
OK, the problem of BattleSpace is that you don't have real 3d combat.
Think about it to have a 270° field of fire the way the game is played the turret are either mounted "dorsal" or "ventral" or mounted at "starboard" or "backboard" - although I cringe by the mention of wet-navy terms.

after I've done 2 softer scifi space ship models - the most sense would be to mount the "turrets" either in a rotating band that moves the whole turret construction where you need it - or mount them fixed into the sides. They can shoot into the adjacent and half the next sector (so mounted into the LBS - the turret can shoot into FS and RS and half the front and rear-firing arc. However, it needs an overcomplex and powerful mount for +50% mass to shoot in the firing arc they are mounted:


example Front or Rear Side:


Re-reading your example...I think you get it.   I wouldn't call it 'overcomplex', however.  I would call it 'complex enough' mounting.  The additional 50% per gun as accounting the mass of the turret  is a 'game balance' factor: you have to give something to get something.  In this case, you're getting smaller quantities of weapons on the same mass being traded for wider arc of fire-and only getting it back in the overlap angles, and paying for that return with an additional weakness ('turret locked' result on the crit listing).

I actually toyed with a few other ideas: limiting the tech base in such a way that you can't, for example, use DHS with a Turreted ship, or that you have to use the low-bulk armors (Starslab/Standard) because of the moving parts-the kind of things that announce 'this is a ship for poorer nations that can't afford a million tons of warship'. 

I kind of left that idea behind however-too many people want 'it all', after all.

I've had some similar thoughts to see if using the old FASA Starfleet Battles firing arcs ideas could be useful for improving the versatility of Warships but since I'm one of those nutjobs that is more than willing to toss out all the old designs wholesale I've not really constrained such thought with the notion of keeping the existing designs relevant.

But to contribute some other thoughts I'd go with.

Unlike bays turrets must match weapons exactly, not just types.  So no mixing NAC-10s with NAC-20s in the same turret.  To compensate they may go to a max of 80 capital damage so you can put 2 NAC-40s in a turret.

For an extra 10% you can mount additional fire control systems that allow turrets to combine for the purposes of determining if they can bracket fire or not.

I might give the 180 degree turrets a slight weight break and wouldn't be opposed to borrowing a few of the other arcs from Starfleet Battles.

I'm also thinking non-ammunition based weapons should get a break on weight too to reflect you don't need to run ammunition feed systems through the turrets and at least in the case of Naval Lasers it'd be a case of just fitting a couple mirrors and protecting them with articulated armored shrouds.

Some possible limitations that suggest themselves, are that each Turret is limited to a specific weapon type.  (No mixed bays on a Turreted ship, as suggested by Monbvol above.  the idea of an added 10% to Fire Control to let all turrets bracket is a nice one as well.   I'm not so keen to let the 'side turrets' have a break on mass, however I might be wrong enough as it is, maybe they should have the same arcs as the nose and aft, with their only 'blind' being the ninety degree wedge behind them.

Maybe limit the number of turrets/bays by tonnage with Turrets?  iow you can have a lot more weapons bays on a fixed layout ship, but they're constrained by arcs, while the turret ships structurally will have fewer emplacements with broader sweeps at the cost of tonnage?

Ideally, I personally would like to see this concept have a 'sweet spot' in the tonnage race where going larger doesn't help.  Somewhere in the middle weights (500 to 750 thousand tons being the 'hot ideal', above 750,000 and you're actually losing some capability as anything but a transport).


Hmmm...yeah.  Let's see...

50-999,999 tons: 2 Turrets/2 bay maximum. (Turrets limited to Naval Laser, Light Naval PPC, or Subcapital weapons, core is either subcompact, or Primitive type.  Bays limit to Subcap, fighter scale, or capital missiles only. Heat sinks limited to single type/DHS not permitted in this size class.)

100,000-250,000: 3 Turrets/2 secondary turrets or 2 fixed Bays maximum.

251-500,000: 3 main turrets, 4 secondary turrets (or 4 fixed bays) maximum.

501000-600,000: 3 main turrets, 6 Secondary turrets (or 6 fixed arc bays) maximum

600,001-750,000: 4 Main Turrets, 6 Secondary turrets.

75001-1000000: 4 main turrets, 6 secondary turrets, 2 fixed arc bays

Masses over 1,000,000 tons: 4 main turrets, 8 secondary turrets, 2 fixed arc bays

"Main Turret" fits Capital scale weaponry.  'Secondary Turret' fits Subcap or fighter scale weapons.

not really a good representation of the actual limitations, it needs refinement, but the idea that over a certain mass, you can theoretically build it, it's just not going to be necessarily a good idea.


« Last Edit: 14 February 2020, 08:20:59 by Cannonshop »
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13286
  • I said don't look!
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #11 on: 14 February 2020, 11:34:19 »
My main concern for the more limited firing arc turrets is I don't see why you can't put big guns in them too but they need something to make them a valid choice over the more generous firing arc turrets.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10497
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #12 on: 14 February 2020, 11:50:42 »
My main concern for the more limited firing arc turrets is I don't see why you can't put big guns in them too but they need something to make them a valid choice over the more generous firing arc turrets.

hm.


25% instead of 50% maybe?
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13286
  • I said don't look!
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #13 on: 14 February 2020, 12:10:48 »
25% might be a bit much but I do like the round percent.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10497
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #14 on: 14 February 2020, 13:23:49 »
25% might be a bit much but I do like the round percent.

Maybe needs a better name.

We have "Turrets", turrets cost (mass plus 50% per weapon) and require a uniform fitting (aka all the same weapon type), these have a 270 arc of fire and are intended to represent a 'centerline' mounting (meaning they can cover 3 1/2 fixed arcs).  We'll put a hard limit on how many Turrets based on the general tonnage of the vessel.

we have "Casemates", Casemates use (Mass plus 25% per weapon) and require a uniform fitting, but have a 180 degree firing arc.

We next have "fixed arc Bays"-the Bays we're all familiar with, including the ability to mix weapons types (NAC-20 and NAC-10 in the same bay, for example)

Turrets and Casemates, for the price of 10% Fire control tonnage, may employ Bracketing fire with weapons capable of bracketing fire.  Fixed bays do not pay this additional cost.

Turrets and Casemates each carry one additional Critcal hit category (replacing roll-agains or heat sinks), "Turret Locked" or "Casemate Jammed"-this location locks the turret or casemate in whatever facing it began the firing phase with.  This location does not exist on fixed-bay weapon systems, and requires a shipyard to correct (Unit must be taken out of play and sent to a repair site if in campaign, otherwise unit's turret/casemate is locked in that facing unless or until the end of the scenario.)

"Primary" Turrets: must be all capital scale warship weapons.

"Secondary" turrets: may mount sub-capital weapons or fighter/mech scale weapons. 

These subclassifications are informal, but in their informality, they serve to guide a builder/designer, as some masses of Warship can not mount Primary turrets.  (Ships below 100,000 tons using primitive drives may only mount 'secondary' class turrets or fixed bays.  Secondary class turrets or casemates may be mounted in addition to the Primaries on larger vessels, each with a fixed quantity based on vessel size.)

What this does?  you can load a lot more weapons on a given hull using fixed arcs.  Second biggest load out would be Casemate builds due to tonnage.  the smallest number of individual weapons at a given tonnage can be loaded on an all-turrets build, with a diminishing return at hull weights over 750,000 tons or for capital ships trying to go 'all big gun' on a turreted platform using the biggest weapons available.

so...who would build these?  (Not the Clans).

I envision "Turreted ships" as something more associated to smaller powers with limited shipbuilding resources, or large nations that want flexible escort ships for their main naval fleets.  The proposed fixed quantity rule means there is a sort of 'double limit' on throw-weight/firepower that can be made up with armor, secondary systems and engines.  a fleet built on this would be one that prizes speed and endurance over raw firepower, but which faces enemies with lots of raw firepower and larger shipyards.



"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13286
  • I said don't look!
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #15 on: 14 February 2020, 13:40:36 »
Might have to re-tweak firing arcs a bit so that if the turrets and casemates get locked into a particular facing, well some facings are better than others for coverage otherwise, but I think we're just about there for a new and interesting construction option.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10497
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #16 on: 14 February 2020, 15:23:10 »
Might have to re-tweak firing arcs a bit so that if the turrets and casemates get locked into a particular facing, well some facings are better than others for coverage otherwise, but I think we're just about there for a new and interesting construction option.

hmmm...

Casemates first.


Casemate Locked positions:

Straight forward/aft: this gives a 30 degree 'wedge' in miniatures play, from straight forward to 60 degrees along the appropriate side.  (Same for straight aft)
Side/forward or side/aft: from a line straight along the centerline of the ship, out to 60 degrees.
Straight sideways: 90 degree 'wedge' arc or cone centered directly perpendicular to the centerline of the ship. (The hull isn't blocking the independent traverse)  this is still a bit narrower than a proper, 'Bay' installation facing sideways.


Turret Locked positions:

Like a Casemate, a locked turret has a narrower field of fire than a fixed bay facing the same way-but it's possible to be locked in an overlapping position between the side arcs and forward or aft.  In general, a 'locked' turret has a centerline, and can engage anything forty five degrees off that turret centerline.  (this is presumed to be the motion of the weapon itself within the turret)  Like with a casemate (Side turret or sponson) mount, this can result in a forward turret firing aft being locked in that position, but since it can't go straight aft, (270 degree traverse) this can result in an aft turret locked so it can only engage targets forward of the ship's bow, or a forward turret locked in position to only engage targets to the side/rear arc.

thus, when 'unlocked' your turret or casemate have a much wider arc of engagement than a fixed bay, but when damaged in a 'locked' position, the arc is much narrower and position dependent...and of course, you will have a blind spot with that turret or casemate that is quite large if it gets a turret locked critical.

(Which in turn makes being able to push faster more important, as your main guns and/or secondaries could very well end up locked in an inconvenient position!)

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4879
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #17 on: 15 February 2020, 13:01:50 »
One idea I thought of was each additional arc you want the gun to fire into increases the mass of the weapon by +10% for the first arc, +20% for a 2nd arc, 30% for a 3rd arc, and 40% for a 4th arc, max of 4 additional arcs.  Each arc is cumulative in the additional mass, so +2 arcs is +30% mass.  Each arc has to be continuous (so no turret with LBS/RBS/Front/Aft arcs)

So if you have a HNPPC mounted LBS, and you want it to fire into the Fore-left, that counts as +1 arc, meaning that instead of massing 3000 tons, it now masses 3300 tons.  If you want it to be able to fire LBS, Fore-left, and Aft-Left, that counts as +2 arcs (+30%), so it masses 3900 tons.  If you want it Fore, Fore-Left, LBS, and Aft-Left, that is +60%, or 4800 tons.  If you want it to fire 5 arcs (Fore through Aft, via left side), that is 6000 tons for that HNPPC.

However, since the weapon can fire into an arc, that means the weapon is vulnerable to critical hits from that arc as well.  So if the weapon gets a crit from that arc, it cannot fire into that arc, or past it.  So if the HNPPC firing on the left side gets hit from the Fore-Left, that means it can only fire into the LBS, Aft-Left, and Aft arcs.  The Fore arc did not take a crit, but the HNPPC cannot move past the damage in the Fore-Left.

The nice part is this lets you get more weapons firing on a target since the additional mass still only counts as one weapon, reducing Fire Control requirements.  The down side is that as incoming fire arrives, you lose a lot more of your firing damage capability since weapons lose access to more arcs of fire.  Also if a weapon is lost, that means you lose that firepower for every arc it used to fire into.  So if you had a Quad-mount of HNPPC in the Broadside, and it gets destroyed, that entire left side is without the Quad-HNPPC firepower.  If you were needing it to deal with an enemy frigate getting close, time to make a new plan.

If the HNPPC ship had one Quad-mount of HNPPC on each Broadside, it would be able to fire both at a target in the Front Arc.  But if a Dropship to the side scored a critical hit in the Fore-Left arc, the LBS HNPPC would not longer be able to fire into the Fore-Left or the Nose Arc.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37359
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #18 on: 15 February 2020, 13:07:11 »
That sounds pretty reasonable.  8)

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10497
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #19 on: 15 February 2020, 13:28:42 »
we need to figure out the BV multiplier for these ideas.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13286
  • I said don't look!
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #20 on: 15 February 2020, 14:12:33 »
Borrow the multiplier from combat vehicle turret mounts?

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10497
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #21 on: 15 February 2020, 14:21:59 »
Borrow the multiplier from combat vehicle turret mounts?

that might be teh way to go once we've shaken out the systems a bit more, but the real test is to actually sit down with spreadsheets, build a sample ship, and match it up against comparable BV vessels on tabletop to see if we're anywhere close.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37359
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #22 on: 15 February 2020, 14:23:43 »
If I had even a shred of confidence in BV, I'd offer to help with the math.  My Kentucky windage says Idea Weenie's 10% cumulative weight cost is about right.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10497
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #23 on: 15 February 2020, 17:51:12 »
Okay, let's see where we're going with this idea...


Turrets and Casemates

Available to: Warships, Primitive Core Jumpships and large space stations.

Types:


Primary turrets may mount large naval weapons (capital scale weapons) of the 'Capital Missile', "Naval Autocannon", "Naval Gauss", Naval Laser, Naval PPC. 

Secondary turrets may mount Subcapital weapons, Capital missiles,  or Figher/battlemech scale weapons including AMS and/or point defense armament.



Turrets: replace available Bay spaces on the record sheet. Turrets and Casemates require the same weapon installations, (meaning if a turret is carrying a naval autocannon, it is carrying nothing but that same type of naval autocannon.  same for a turret mounting a naval laser-if it's mounting multiple weapons, all of those weapons are the same type and class.)  Turrets cover end arc, plus both broadside arcs, plus half the other end arc.  a Forward mount Turret therefore would cover Nose, all broadsides, and a wedge of the aft arc.  an aft mounted turret covers aft, all broadsides, and a portion of the forward arc. (effectively a 270 degree sweep.)

Casemates: Replace available Bay spaces on Record sheet.  Casemates require the same weapon to be mounted, both type and class, in a uniform manner.  Casemates are mounted to the ship's side mounts, and cover half the nose and tail arc, in addition to the rear arc, (Effectively a 180 Degree sweep)

Costs:

Mass cost:  The mass of a given turret is (Weapons weight plus 50%), the cost for a Casemate mount is (Weapons cost plus 25%)

Fire Control: Standard cost plus 10% due to the wider arc, and the ability to use bracketing fire with Turret or Casemate mounts. 

Restrictions:

NOT available to: Dropships, Pocket-Warships (Dropships), Small Craft, Fighters, or (non-Canon) Monitors.

Clan Units may not mount full Turret installations, but may mount Casemate installations.

Turreted ships must mount turrets on the fore or aft hit location arcs.  Units do not gain bonus armor or locations from carrying turrets, instead, an additional critical location for each turret replaces each 'roll again' on the critical hit chart for all relevant facings.  (iow it's possible to nail a Turret on a critical hit from the aft left broadside when the turret is mounted on the nose/forward arc of the chart.)  This is the "Turret Locked" position, and traps the turret at whatever facing it was at during the relevant firing phase.  (meaning if you were firing at a target off your left rear arc, and he hits one of your nose turrets with a crit, that nose turret is locked on that arc and may not traverse to fire at targets in the nose, or forward/broadside arcs-only targets in the aft broadside.)

Casemate mounts: if a 'turret locked' result is rolled on a casemate, the same restriction applies-it remains pointed at the last firing arc it was aimed at.

this is functionally similar to the "Turret locked" critical hit on vehicles, and may not be cleared while in combat.

Due to the nature of Turreted design, ammunition is considered 'CASEd' on an ammunition crit, and will only destroy the weapons in THAT turret. (along with whatever unlucky crewmen were manning things there.)  this is likewise with Casemate mounts.  For multiple turrets with the same weapons, (say, imagine three NAC 40 turrets each carrying 3 NAC 40s) divide total ammunition quantity for the ship by three, representing the individual magazine spaces for each turret.  Ammunition is abstracted and (it is presumed) feeds can cross-feed between turrets and/or casemates if it is the same type.

Ships with Turrets may not run double heat sinks.  They must run singles.  This is due to the large number of moving structures inside the ship to make the turrets do their 'thing'.  Neither Clan nor InnerSphere DHS may be used in a vessel carrying turreted weapons.  Clan vessels carrying Casemates may use CLAN double heat sinks as the system doesn't have as MUCH motion as a full-turreted design.

Periphery/Inner Sphere tech bases may build vessels carrying full turrets OR Casemates, but Clan forces may not.
Clan forces may build vessels with Casemates in place of Bays, but may not build full-turreted vessels.



You can put anything you want in a Casemate if you can afford the mass.

Class and Mass restrictions:

Primitive core Jumpships/subcompact core vessels:

Below 50,000 tons: May not mount Main Turrets.  May mount up to 1 secondary turret
51,000 to 100,000 tons: may mount 2 Secondary class turrets or Casemates, or ONE Primary turret (not 'and' but 'or')

Compact Core Warships:

100,000 tons to 200,000 tons May mount 1 Primary turret, plus 2 Secondary turrets or casemates,
200,000 tons to 300,000 tons may mount 2 primary turrets, plus 2 secondary turrets or casemates.
350,000 tons to 400,000 tons may mount 2 primary turrets, plus 3 secondary turrets or casemates
450,000 tons to 550,000 tons may mount 3 Primary Turrets, plus 4 secondary turrets or casemates
600,000 tons to 700,000 tons may mount 3 Primary Turrets, plus 5 secondary turrets or Casemates
750,000 tons to 850,000 tons may mount 4 Primary Turrets, plus 6 Secondary turrets or Casemates
850,000 tons to 2,000,000 tons may mount 4 Primary turrets, plus 8 secondary turrets or casemates.

any additional 'bay spaces' are fixed-arc equipment, weapons etc. Be mindful of your Heat load, as ships with full turrets have restricted heat venting (Single heat sinks ONLY).

[note: yeah, I know, it seems contradictory that IS and Periphery tech bases would come up with Turrets first, while Clan warship design wouldn't, but it actually fits: the cooling issues are such with the heat-sink restrictions, that the Clans would take one look and go 'nah, not worth it', since Casemate ships can be fitted with CLAN dhs, they'd go that route instead, methinks, or just be supremely confident in the superiority of their existing architecture and design.]

Campaign Rules:

It costs less to replace a Turret, than it does to replace a Bay.  If the mass fits, the part fits...but you're replacing the entire turret.  Shipyard time to do so is measured in man-hours, instead of man-weeks.  Thus, the quirk "Easy to modify" and "Easy to maintain" in spite of also having "complex design".

On turreted ships, DHS are a NO.  Let me repeat that again-if you want to run DHS, don't build turreted ships.  Be clan and build casemates instead.

There is a reason for the 'size limit' where diminishing returns hits in the 850,000 to 2000,000 ton range-this is because it's generally more cost-efficient and cost-effective to either build it with a bigger engine, or thicker armor, or just conventional fixed-arc bays, than to pay for the cost of Turrets or Casemates on something that large, particularly with how much you'll be spending on heat-sinks.

BV Multiplier:

Turrets: same as Vehicle turrets
Casemates: same as vehicle sponson turrets
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10497
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #24 on: 15 February 2020, 18:20:16 »
anyone here up for running a balance/playability check on this to see if it comes out at least semi-coherent?

I would, ideally, like to see results matching up against ships of similar BV, and if possible, similar size to see if the theory can actually play out correctly.
One idea I thought of was each additional arc you want the gun to fire into increases the mass of the weapon by +10% for the first arc, +20% for a 2nd arc, 30% for a 3rd arc, and 40% for a 4th arc, max of 4 additional arcs.  Each arc is cumulative in the additional mass, so +2 arcs is +30% mass.  Each arc has to be continuous (so no turret with LBS/RBS/Front/Aft arcs)

So if you have a HNPPC mounted LBS, and you want it to fire into the Fore-left, that counts as +1 arc, meaning that instead of massing 3000 tons, it now masses 3300 tons.  If you want it to be able to fire LBS, Fore-left, and Aft-Left, that counts as +2 arcs (+30%), so it masses 3900 tons.  If you want it Fore, Fore-Left, LBS, and Aft-Left, that is +60%, or 4800 tons.  If you want it to fire 5 arcs (Fore through Aft, via left side), that is 6000 tons for that HNPPC.

However, since the weapon can fire into an arc, that means the weapon is vulnerable to critical hits from that arc as well.  So if the weapon gets a crit from that arc, it cannot fire into that arc, or past it.  So if the HNPPC firing on the left side gets hit from the Fore-Left, that means it can only fire into the LBS, Aft-Left, and Aft arcs.  The Fore arc did not take a crit, but the HNPPC cannot move past the damage in the Fore-Left.

The nice part is this lets you get more weapons firing on a target since the additional mass still only counts as one weapon, reducing Fire Control requirements.  The down side is that as incoming fire arrives, you lose a lot more of your firing damage capability since weapons lose access to more arcs of fire.  Also if a weapon is lost, that means you lose that firepower for every arc it used to fire into.  So if you had a Quad-mount of HNPPC in the Broadside, and it gets destroyed, that entire left side is without the Quad-HNPPC firepower.  If you were needing it to deal with an enemy frigate getting close, time to make a new plan.

If the HNPPC ship had one Quad-mount of HNPPC on each Broadside, it would be able to fire both at a target in the Front Arc.  But if a Dropship to the side scored a critical hit in the Fore-Left arc, the LBS HNPPC would not longer be able to fire into the Fore-Left or the Nose Arc.

I didn't ignore this, Idea Weenie, and it may move into the next iteration if the current one turns out to be...clunky?
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10161
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Naval Turrets?
« Reply #25 on: 16 February 2020, 04:51:05 »
Sounds like a awesome idea...just need a way to put it on a warship.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass