GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

[weby]

Originally Posted by scc

I'm pretty sure that when your ~.75 AUs from Sol a Solar Panel Array outputs two Power Points

Not according to space ships: "A solar power system. If exposed to sunlight it generates one Power Point."

Also note that the description of the thing starts with: "The Von Braun-class is typical of the largest and most modern stations in Earth or Mars orbit..." and Mars is just "a tiny weeny bit" further than 0.75 au form Sol.. :)

[Mailanka]

Sword-Class Heavy Cruiser in SS3 page 14. The stat-line is listed as having a DR of 100/100/50, but the design has 140/140/70 (which seems to fit the actual stats for streamlined diamonoid)

Also, it has 10 fixed rear-mounted missile launchers. Does it expect to be running away often?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Also, it has 10 fixed rear-mounted missile launchers. Does it expect to be running away often?

Facing doesn't matter for missile launchers in the tactical combat system.

I'm not seeing a rule in the basic combat system that makes that true, but I may be overlooking it.

[weby]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'm not seeing a rule in the basic combat system that makes that true, but I may be overlooking it.

SS page 57:
"Fixed mount weapons can only fire at a target if the weapon
is in installed in a hull section facing the enemy."

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by weby

SS page 57:
"Fixed mount weapons can only fire at a target if the weapon
is in installed in a hull section facing the enemy."

Yeah that's the exact opposite of what I'm looking for.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Yeah that's the exact opposite of what I'm looking for.

And yet it seems necessary to prevent missiles from grabbing a +2 to their Acc at no cost whatsoever.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

And yet it seems necessary to prevent missiles from grabbing a +2 to their Acc at no cost whatsoever.

+2 Acc for fixed mounts is in the beam attack rules but not the ballistic attack rules.

(And, again, in the Tactical system facing and mounting of missiles has no effect on what directions they can attack in.)

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

+2 Acc for fixed mounts is in the beam attack rules but not the ballistic attack rules.

(And, again, in the Tactical system facing and mounting of missiles has no effect on what directions they can attack in.)

There's a static +2 listed in the weapon system rules, and there's nothing stopping you from mounting fix-mounted machine guns, and that sort of makes sense (though it should be noted that despite being called "gun," the guns of GURPS spaceships fire guided munitions, which makes fixing the mounts a little pointless). That said, you're right: the +2 from fixed mounts is not actually listed in the ballistic attack rules. Given that Pulver has applied fixed mount to at least one ballistic weapon (the missile launchers for the Sword-class Heavy Cruiser), I am more than a little curious as to what the intent is. Do they have a limited arc but no +2? Did he originally plan on having fixed mount ballistics, realized it made no sense of all ballistic attacks were guided, and then forget that when he was writing the Sword-Class Heavy Cruiser? Was the lack of a +2 in the ballistic attacks modifiers an oversight? What is errata and what isn't?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

There's a static +2 listed in the weapon system rules, and there's nothing stopping you from mounting fix-mounted machine guns, and that sort of makes sense (though it should be noted that despite being called "gun," the guns of GURPS spaceships fire guided munitions, which makes fixing the mounts a little pointless). That said, you're right: the +2 from fixed mounts is not actually listed in the ballistic attack rules.

There's nothing stopping you from mounting ballistic weapons unlike the ones actually covered in Spaceships, but the combat system doesn't cover them. Ballistic attack rules also don't include range modifiers, because as you note all ballistic attacks are guided munitions. (SS7 introduced some, probably, but didn't really give rules for using them.)

There is that +2 back in the general weapon system rules. I think no +2 for fixed ballistic weapons, as written in the specific rules, makes more sense (for the reason you note) and is at least as well supported by the text. I do not remember whether we've gotten Word of God on which way was intended.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Given that Pulver has applied fixed mount to at least one ballistic weapon (the missile launchers for the Sword-class Heavy Cruiser), I am more than a little curious as to what the intent is. Do they have a limited arc but no +2? Did he originally plan on having fixed mount ballistics, realized it made no sense of all ballistic attacks were guided, and then forget that when he was writing the Sword-Class Heavy Cruiser? Was the lack of a +2 in the ballistic attacks modifiers an oversight? What is errata and what isn't?

I don't think there's anything confusing about the missile launchers on the Sword-class Heavy Cruiser, which you cite from Spaceships 3, using fixed-mount missile launchers.

It's in Spaceships 3, alongside the tactical combat rules, which make the rear-facing fixed tubes perfectly practical. The fixed tubes don't offer anything I'd call a real advantage (on the premise that they don't get the +2) but they do mean that a single gunner can fire them all together which, by the book, is impossible with turrets. As endlessly discussed, doing that is game-mechanically an incredibly bad idea, but the published material has always seemed to consider it reasonable.

The only missile turrets in the book are on the Admiral-class battleship. All other missile-armed ships use fixed tubes, and rear-mounted tubes are common. I dunno whether this was a semi-rational choice to limit turret crews or just a matter of matching concepts (as many ships seem to be designed to a concept rather than to be practical under the rules) but either way, SS3 clearly doesn't see a problem with throwing them around.

The one peculiarity you're pointing out only requires that that quirk of the basic combat rules be overlooked.


(Is there a rule somewhere saying you can use multiple fixed batteries on the same facing as a single attack? I remember there being one, and SS4 probably needs it, but I can't find it now.)

[Mailanka]

The Typhoon-Class Deep Space Fighter on page 11 of SS4 is listed as having two super fusion reactors, giving it 8 energy points. It uses these to power the two non-fixed(?) forward-mounted X-ray laser batteries it has, and the four super fusion torches it has on the back... only super-fusion torches aren't powered systems.

So in the very least, listing them as powered is errata. Having a redundant generator might be errata, and while a turret on a single-person starfighter isn't inconcievable, I suspect the intent is to have it fixed.