BFG FAQ 2010 Ordnance Questions

[lastspartacus]

Quick question.  Im so immersed in the many turret/AC variant rules that I have forgotten what is official?

[horizon]

FaQ2010

[lastspartacus]

Is it agreed that they are acceptable, or that they suck?

Also.  Random idea for the specialty torps.

Silent Running Torpedoes:
A variant that came to popularity during the Third Armageddon War, SR Torps fire an explosive burst on launch that propels them into space, and activate their manouvering thrusters only when their sensors register a target.  Though much slower than normal torpedoes, this tactic made the tiny (by space standards) torpedoes incredibly difficult to track for the opposing Ork fleet.

SR Torpedoes only move at 10cm per ordnance phase, but turrets need 6s to hit them.

[horizon]

I think the FAQ rules are sufficient. But would find them better if only surviving fighters added an +1 attack.

I dislike all special torps so don't care. (serious)

[Vaaish]

I would agree with Horizon, however the FAQ 2010 rules for turret suppression at least removes the bizarre one bomber and X fighters.

[Sigoroth]

Having considered turrets further, I don't think that battleships should necessarily have more turrets than cruisers, or escorts for that matter. After all, there may physically be more turrets on the ship, but the turret rating doesn't just represent the physical number of turrets. It also represents coverage. More turrets on an Emperor than on a Cobra, but also far more area to cover and far more blind spots.

So what if an Emperor has 400 AAC guns and a Cobra has only 4 if the bombers only attack from an angle that exposes them to 4 of the Emperors guns? There may be some variance in coverage of course, but I don't think on the level that we're seeing.

[lastspartacus]

I agree with you completely Sig.  I've been saying that for awhile, just never was the single purpose of a post. 
It should be density, not size.

[skatingtortoise]

it could be argued that since a BB is much more than 4 times the size of an escort, density has been taken into account. you could reason that BBs would also have greater power/space reserves for better turrets, and density would all depend on turret 'range' too. if a 1km escort had a turret at each end with a 1km range each, it would have a coverage of 2 turrets/km. if the range was 2km, it would have a coverage of 2 turrets/km, as there are only two turrets. scale this up to a 10km BB, and the 1km range turrets have the same coverage, but the 2km range turrets have a coverage of 4 per km.

this is obviously very simplified, but if the turrets have a very large range compared to ship size (and massed turrets suggest they do) then suddenly actual numbers of turrets makes a significant difference.

 

[lastspartacus]

Well you are right, battleships can be assumed to have the very absolute best in energy tech, since their shields are twice the strength of a cruiser, even though spread over a larger area.  So more power for turrets?  Maybe, but turrets aren't really the kind of thing I would think would be linked to the core power of a ship.  I would not in theory at all be against larger ships not always having more turrets.

Its one of the reasons I think 6 turrets on an ork hulk is so ludicrous.

[RCgothic]

This is why i think bomber attack runs should be independant of turrets.

A turret has a long range, and if a battleship has more of them then they can put out more fire on the bomber's approach and therefore kill more of them.

But if they only have the same DENSITY on the ship, once the bombers start making their close-range attack runs, the turrets are going to be no more effective than those on cruisers.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

It's not only density. Battleships will have much more turrets and more powerful turrets than an Escort. More turrets means more chances of shooting a bomber down.

[RCgothic]

And the greater number of turrets represents the additional casualty caused whilst closing.

But whilst the number of casualties in the closing stages depends linearly on the number of turrets, when the bombers are making their attack runs suppression should depends on the turret per area.

Now suppose a battleship has twice the turrets of a cruiser (4 vs 2). Whilst the bombers are closing, they'll be able to score twice as many kills. Up until this point, the rules are a good fit.

However, once the bombers have closed to close range and the turrets have to track tens of degrees to aquire a new target rather than a fraction of a degree, the bombers are flying every which way instead of nicely lined up in formation, and the contours of the ship itself are obscuring firing lines, the turrets required for suppression should depend strongly on the turret density.

A battleship with twice as many turrets and twice the surface area would be no better than a cruiser at suppressing close-range bombing runs.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

And the greater number of turrets represents the additional casualty caused whilst closing.

But whilst the number of casualties in the closing stages depends linearly on the number of turrets, when the bombers are making their attack runs suppression should depends on the turret per area.

Now suppose a battleship has twice the turrets of a cruiser (4 vs 2). Whilst the bombers are closing, they'll be able to score twice as many kills. Up until this point, the rules are a good fit.

However, once the bombers have closed to close range and the turrets have to track tens of degrees to aquire a new target rather than a fraction of a degree, the bombers are flying every which way instead of nicely lined up in formation, and the contours of the ship itself are obscuring firing lines, the turrets required for suppression should depend strongly on the turret density.

A battleship with twice as many turrets and twice the surface area would be no better than a cruiser at suppressing close-range bombing runs.

Sorry, I don't agree. Yes you've closed in a certain area. So let's say density is the same. Fine. However, that doesn't change the fact that the area of a battleship is much bigger than a cruiser and so the number of turrets shooting at you from the adjoining areas are still much more than that of a regular cruiser. There is still more flak being thrown up compared to a regular cruiser which may throw one's aim off. Whether actively shooting down the attacking bombers or passively suppressing them, the amount of shots being fired are still almost the same even assuming some turrets won't be able to shoot at the bomber in the said area.

The only way for your scenario to happen would be for the bombers to be on top of the target at point blank range. Anything beyond that turrets would still be able to shoot at the bombers.

[skatingtortoise]

And the greater number of turrets represents the additional casualty caused whilst closing.

But whilst the number of casualties in the closing stages depends linearly on the number of turrets, when the bombers are making their attack runs suppression should depends on the turret per area.

Now suppose a battleship has twice the turrets of a cruiser (4 vs 2). Whilst the bombers are closing, they'll be able to score twice as many kills. Up until this point, the rules are a good fit.

However, once the bombers have closed to close range and the turrets have to track tens of degrees to aquire a new target rather than a fraction of a degree, the bombers are flying every which way instead of nicely lined up in formation, and the contours of the ship itself are obscuring firing lines, the turrets required for suppression should depend strongly on the turret density.

A battleship with twice as many turrets and twice the surface area would be no better than a cruiser at suppressing close-range bombing runs.

Sorry, I don't agree. Yes you've closed in a certain area. So let's say density is the same. Fine. However, that doesn't change the fact that the area of a battleship is much bigger than a cruiser and so the number of turrets shooting at you from the adjoining areas are still much more than that of a regular cruiser. There is still more flak being thrown up compared to a regular cruiser which may throw one's aim off. Whether actively shooting down the attacking bombers or passively suppressing them, the amount of shots being fired are still almost the same even assuming some turrets won't be able to shoot at the bomber in the said area.

The only way for your scenario to happen would be for the bombers to be on top of the target at point blank range. Anything beyond that turrets would still be able to shoot at the bombers.

shape is also a factor - RC's scenario is good for spheres, or surfaces where each turret has a limited field of fire, but if the defended object is a flat surface and the turrets have a wide field of fire, assuming they have enough range to hit anything they see they can at least provide some flak. in terms of density its not number of turrets per square metre, its numbers of turrets that can see bombers.

an extreme comparison would be 4 turrets on the outside of a sphere, which couldnt see each other at all and youd have blind spots, and 4 turrets on the inside of the same sphere. same surface area, same number of turrets, but the latter could bring 4x the weight of fire to bear on bombers.

[RCgothic]

In my personal envisioning of BFG, attack runs do take place at point blank range, star wars style.

But it's not just field of fire that counts - at long range, all the turrets can suppress all the bombers at once, because the bombers are all located within a tiny fraction of angle and a miniscule traverse of the turret threatens all the bombers. At close range, even they can traverse fast enough to track a bomber (unlike in star wars for example), they can't threaten all the bombers at once because the bombers most likely massively outnumber the turrets. 1 group of targets becomes a hundred. It's like the difference between tracking a formation of geese flying over a field with a flock of bats swarming round your head.

Diminishing field of fire, inability to traverse fast enough, and a target rich environment all play a part at allowing bombers to break suppression at close range and are a good argument for suppression being independent of turrets.