RPG Statistics for the Venturer

[Dragon Lord]

Well, as soon as you introduce more weapon systems, the more "military" the ship gets.  If you want an even distribution between those three areas then, at least according to the system in question (GURPS Starships) this would require two Weapons systems in the central area, and one in the front.  That's a lot of firepower.

Is it not possible to reduce the size/power of the weapon systems to suit?  After all we still want the overall firepower of the Venturer to be the same, it's just that having that firepower distributed around the ship would better represent its capabilities and structure.  Also have you factored small point defences (anti-ordnance turrets) into this?  As these would be very small in comparison to the main weapons they might be included separately I suppose.

Indeed.  The crew value of 3,000 is based upon the suggested values from the game system, but I'm sure that they will have to be "40k-ified."

I think when we were discussing it back in the very early stage we suggested a crew of somewhere between 1000 and 1500 for the Venturer based on BFG background, so it's not far off and including more automation/servitorisation would probably make up the difference, though of course the Age of Technology crew levels might have been somewhat different from the 40k-era ones in either direction.

It does help somewhat. I should say that I would want the cargo space to be bigger than the Robofac.

So the solution to this would be to remove the Robofac and just throw it in as part of the Habitat portion (taking away from the crew quarters).

I agree with CELS, while the factory does sound like a potentially interesting idea it should definitely not take up the same amount of space as the cargo holds or the warp drive.

[Kage2020]

Is it not possible to reduce the size/power of the weapon systems to suit? 

I'm using a rather simplified version of starship creation that is present in GURPS 4e.  Using the older GURPS Vehicles would be more detailed and allow a great deal of flexibility, but at the same time it would require definition of the entire 40k universe.  I think that's beyond us at the moment.

After all we still want the overall firepower of the Venturer to be the same, it's just that having that firepower distributed around the ship would better represent its capabilities and structure.

We're dealing with two different game systems here, i.e. BFG and GURPS.  Guess it comes down to which system I'm being required to conform to.

Also have you factored small point defences (anti-ordnance turrets) into this?  As these would be very small in comparison to the main weapons they might be included separately I suppose.

Again, I'm not working with the very detailed system.  Just the general, easy to use one.  I really don't have enough information to get detailed with at the moment.

I agree with CELS, while the factory does sound like a potentially interesting idea it should definitely not take up the same amount of space as the cargo holds or the warp drive.

Fair enough.  Again, it's just the system... Preconceptions are going to have to be changed universally, rather than singularly.

Kage

[CELS]

Well, as soon as you introduce more weapon systems, the more "military" the ship gets.  If you want an even distribution between those three areas then, at least according to the system in question (GURPS Starships) this would require two Weapons systems in the central area, and one in the front.  That's a lot of firepower.

Well, for what it's worth, it doesn't have to be completely even (33% x 3), but the Venturer should definitely have the ability to unleash a certain amount of firepower in three directions, in my opinion. If GURPS makes that difficult, then perhaps we could fudge the numbers a bit?

I think that we are reasonably "there" for producing a basic breakdown of the ship into different areas...

Looking forward to seeing it.

[Kage2020]

Well, for what it's worth, it doesn't have to be completely even (33% x 3), but the Venturer should definitely have the ability to unleash a certain amount of firepower in three directions, in my opinion. If GURPS makes that difficult, then perhaps we could fudge the numbers a bit?

Of course the numbers can be fudged, which is what we will hopefully be doing.  As I see it, the locations are all there as mostly suggestions to give a general sense of what and were something is, and if nothing else where systems critical materials are.  Thus, for example, Habitat is modelled as being in the Central Hull, but here is absolutely no reason that one cannot have crew quarters in other areas (e.g. hot bunks in the Engineering sections).  It's just that for the purposes of "hits" they are considered as being critically in the Central Hull.

The same in terms of the weapons. "Critical Hits" to the central hull would potentially wipe out weapons systems systemically but that doesn't mean that they couldn't be put on the front of the ship to allow it to fire forwards.

It's more a matter of implications?  What would you prefer?  Weapon systems in the Front Hull that are fully jawed, and split systems in the Central Hull?  Two Weapons in the Central Hull, with fudging to put 66% of that in the Front Hall... Or what?

Looking forward to seeing it.

Just need to find those blueprint plans again...

Kage

[Dragon Lord]

The same in terms of the weapons. "Critical Hits" to the central hull would potentially wipe out weapons systems systemically but that doesn't mean that they couldn't be put on the front of the ship to allow it to fire forwards.

It's more a matter of implications?  What would you prefer?  Weapon systems in the Front Hull that are fully jawed, and split systems in the Central Hull?  Two Weapons in the Central Hull, with fudging to put 66% of that in the Front Hall... Or what?

From that point of view, and going back and having another look at CELS images of the Venturer I think it might be better if the 'primary weapons systems' to put it that way are located in the front hull.  Possibly other peoples visions of things are different but I picture most of the weaponry being around the bulkier prow section of the ship either arranged around the mid-line or in fully rotatable turrets mounted on the top and bottom.  Perhaps even to an extent both would be present with one system being the old Age of Technology weapon mounts (probably the mid-line weapons), or at least the location of them, and the other being more recent additions (probably the turrets).

[Kage2020]

We'll see what CELS has to say, then.  In my mind, I was working with the Age of Sail imagery and those broadside thingies.

Let me know so that I can tweak things to everyone's interpretations, remembering that there are always going to be minor discrepancies going from one system to another (even one that is more detailed).

Kage

[CELS]

Well, as long as the location of the systems has mostly to do with representing critical damage, and doesn't really restrict how we design the interior of the ship, I don't mind if the central weapons system is in the prow or midsection. I just think the ship should have guns pointing forward and to the side.

DragonLord has a good idea in regards to the exact distribution of the weapons though. It does make sense to have most of the weapons on the prow, making the midsection available for storage compartments, crew compartments and/ or the ship's shuttle bay.

[Dragon Lord]

I realized it might be easier to explain what I meant with a picture:



I was imagining the weapons being arranged in the area outlined in red with the weapons on the angled part facing forwards and those further back on the part aligned with the ships axis facing sideways (i.e. broadsides), with possibly turrets in the locations indicated above and below the prow.

It does make sense to have most of the weapons on the prow, making the midsection available for storage compartments, crew compartments and/ or the ship's shuttle bay.

That was also part of my thinking.

[Kage2020]

I've actually removed my previous post because I have a question that I'm guessing that only you guys will be able to answer since it comes down to interpretation of the Battlefleet Gothic rules and how you see them working out.

Anyway, taking a gander at the BFG stats, other than the left, right, and front firing arcs, there is little information about the numbers of "guns" involved in these batteries.  Remembering that we have two different locations to consider (Front hull and Central hull), consider these descriptions:

• Spinal Weapon.  Very powerful weapon, located in Front, Central, and Rear hulls (one system each).
• Major Battery.  A single powerful weapon. (Doesn't sound like it is going to be what you're after.)
• Medium Battery.  Up to 3 weapons.
• Secondary Battery. Up to 10 weapons.
• Tertiary Battery.  Up to 30 weapons.

Weapons can be fixed (one direction firing) or on turrets, in which case they're not really going to have a problem with firing in a given direction (including to the rear; that might be a limitation of the BFG rules set, though).

As before, two Weapon systems are going to be required, one for the Front hull and one for the Central hull.  The Central Hull I see as extending from about the first angle where the hull then becomes parallel to the, might have a smaller system (perhaps a Secondary battery with five weapons either side)?  Perhaps a Medium Battery on the Front Hull, say a turret on the ventral and dorsal surfaces, and a front firing weapon as well?

Let me know your thoughts on this.  Also, what type of weapons do you want?  Your options are (underlined are advanced, only found in the GDAoT and italics are probably military-grade weapons on the GDAoT):

• Beam.  Heat, laser, particle, plasma, UV laser, antiparticle (only GDAoT), Ghost Particle (only GDAoT and perhaps only military), Tractor, X-ray laser, graviton, conversion, graser, and disintegrator.
  
• Guns.  Conventional, electromagnetic, grav gun.
  
• Launcher.  Missile/torpedo launchers.

You can mix and match on a given Battery as much as you want.

Oh BFG lovers, let me know your preferences...

Oh yes, and one final thing.  There isn't enough power for all the systems at the moment.  Thus, when they're in space, the turn off the contra-grav.  Kind of makes sense, though.

Kage

[horizon]

Hmmm,
rear firing: 'not done' in BFG rules. But some large ships can (Space Hulk) or Space Stations can do an allround arc. But in a Warp Rift I had a Legendary Rogue Trader with a battery system that could fire in the rear arc. Seeing this vessel as ancient in design, I would not oppose to the idea if that would be an issue in the end.

In BFG we can muster these weapons on a normal escort class vessel:
Weapon batteries
Lances
Torpedoes

I (or someone else....) will back these with BFG background on what they exactly are. But Weapon batteries are many.

Now in BFG escorts are abstracted a bit. Where capital ships have port/starboard mounts escorts are often represented with a dorsal system (although the model is port/starboard) that can fire L/F/R

If the two systems end up being the same it would not be needed to separate this in BFG. Thus prow battery and dorsal battery would just be a dorsal battery combining both. Seperating would only be neat.

If there are two different systems splitting up is needed of course.

[CELS]

• Spinal Weapon.  Very powerful weapon, located in Front, Central, and Rear hulls (one system each).
• Major Battery.  A single powerful weapon. (Doesn't sound like it is going to be what you're after.)
• Medium Battery.  Up to 3 weapons.
• Secondary Battery. Up to 10 weapons.
• Tertiary Battery.  Up to 30 weapons.

Is the difference between these batteries just the number of weapons, or is a secondary battery also more powerful than a tertiary battery? Because in terms of image, we should go with many weapons in each locations. Probably tertiary batteries all round.

As before, two Weapon systems are going to be required, one for the Front hull and one for the Central hull.  The Central Hull I see as extending from about the first angle where the hull then becomes parallel to the, might have a smaller system (perhaps a Secondary battery with five weapons either side)?  Perhaps a Medium Battery on the Front Hull, say a turret on the ventral and dorsal surfaces, and a front firing weapon as well?

In keeping with Dragon Lord's suggestion, the prow should definitely have lots of guns which can then be aimed either forward or to the side. The number of guns in the midsection are more up for grabs. Maybe just leave it as a a row of dorsal and ventral batteries. This would actually make the armament more "realistic" in that it gives the Venturer the ability to attack in 3 dimensions, rather than 2.

Let me know your thoughts on this.  Also, what type of weapons do you want?  Your options are (underlined are advanced, only found in the GDAoT and italics are probably military-grade weapons on the GDAoT):

Weapon batteries in 40k tend to be made up of an array of different weapon types, because different targets have different vulnerabilities. I'd go with laser and plasma beams, conventional cannons and missile launchers. Oh, and railguns would be awesome - is that too advanced? I am of the opinion that the Imperial Navy has railguns (which messes with GW's idea that each race has unique weapons <yawn>), but I'm not sure if it's appropriate for a small AoT transport.

Oh yes, and one final thing.  There isn't enough power for all the systems at the moment.  Thus, when they're in space, the turn off the contra-grav.  Kind of makes sense, though.

It certainly does. And I just love stuff like this anyway. Same reason why I suggested that the Venturer might not have the energy to go full speed while having shields at maximum and firing all its guns. It's much cooler to picture the captain going "All ahead full! Reduce void shields to 50% capacity! Contra-grav at stand-by. Hold fire on starboard side! Yarrrr!"

[Dragon Lord]

I agree with CELS we really need to know if the only difference between the different batteries is the number of weapons or if they also differ in combined power.
The spinal weapon would be similar to the lance mounted on firestorm class frigates.

As far as numbers of weapons and their distribution goes I think tertiary batteries all round might be a bit too much, with 30 weapons a side on a ship this size each one would not be powerful enough I think.  With the numbers available I would tend to say that a single tertiary battery divided into 10 on each side and 10 forward plus a single medium battery with 2 turrets, one dorsal and one ventral would be the best representation.  Having said that though I know that with the way GURPS seems to work that might be awkward, an alternative might be a secondary battery divided into 5 on side and another secondary battery in the front divided into 4 forward facing and 6 combined into 2 turrets making each turret effectively 3 weapons, or 6 forward with each turret being 2 weapons.  Or of course if we want more firepower forwards we could go with a secondary battery divided into 5 on each side another secondary battery forwards and a medium battery as turrets.

As a side note as Horizon says rear firing is not generally done in BFG, the usual explanation being that thermal backwash from the engines makes targetting impossible, also if you look at the location that I suggested for the potential dorsal turret the bridge would be in the way of it firing to the rear.
Whatever detailed weapons arrangement we go for I would expect it to translate into a L/F/R weapons battery in BFG.

Weapon batteries in 40k tend to be made up of an array of different weapon types, because different targets have different vulnerabilities. I'd go with laser and plasma beams, conventional cannons and missile launchers. Oh, and railguns would be awesome - is that too advanced? I am of the opinion that the Imperial Navy has railguns (which messes with GW's idea that each race has unique weapons <yawn>), but I'm not sure if it's appropriate for a small AoT transport.

I'm not entirely sure about a single weapons battery being made up of an array of different weapon types, certainly the types of weapon included vary but I'm not sure how many different types would be present in a single battery.  Either way I think we should limit the number of weapons types to avoid clutter, I think we should limit it to 3 at most.
If I were to choose 3 weapon types to include I would go with plasma beams, conventional guns and electromagnetic guns (which I presume are railguns?), I think missile launchers are too similar to torpedoes and although lasers are another possibility people might confuse them with lances (which are definitely laser weapons).  Possibly the guns in the different locations would be different types, so plasma beams in the broadsides, conventional guns forwards and electromagnetic/railgun turrets for example.

Oh yes, and one final thing.  There isn't enough power for all the systems at the moment.  Thus, when they're in space, the turn off the contra-grav.  Kind of makes sense, though. 

It certainly does. And I just love stuff like this anyway. Same reason why I suggested that the Venturer might not have the energy to go full speed while having shields at maximum and firing all its guns. It's much cooler to picture the captain going "All ahead full! Reduce void shields to 50% capacity! Contra-grav at stand-by. Hold fire on starboard side! Yarrrr!"

The contra-grav is part of the landing system isn't it?  If so then no I would not expect it to be on normally.

[CELS]

In regards to weapon batteries, I shall quote the BFG bible;

"And lo... Weapons batteries form the main armament for most warships, ensuring that much of their hull is pock-marked by gun ports and weapon housings. Each battery consists of rank upon rank of weapns: plasma projectors, laser cannons, missile launchers, rail guns, fusion beamers and graviton pulsars. Weapons batteries fire by salvoes, using a co-ordinated pattern of shots to catch the target in the middle of a maelstrom of destruction."

Hence my suggestion for plasma, laser, missiles and rail guns. Graviton pulsars sounds like something reserved for bigger, dedicated warships. I can see the point about missiles being too similar to torpedoes, but I included them because GW included them, and because guided missiles seem like a very realistic and effective space weapon.

Granted, the above is a description of warship armament, so it might not be applicable to a small transport like the Venturer. Then again, the Venturer is an armed transport, not just any freighter with a few pintle-mounted machine guns to scare off enviromentalist activists. Going by artwork, batteries seem to consist of a few really large guns, and then an array of smaller guns. Presumably, the smaller guns are just there for some extra oomph when delivering broadsides at point blank (i.e. only a few dozen kilometers)

I wasn't suggesting three tertiary weapon systems. Kage said that there would be 1 system on the front hull and 1 system in the central hull. so that's something like 12 guns on the left and right side of the prow, maybe 3 dorsal and ventral guns above and below the prow. Then something like 10 dorsal and ventral guns in the central hull. It doesn't really sound like too many guns, especially when compared to the description of "pock-marked by gun ports and weapon housings" or compared to the gun-crammed artwork in the BFG illustrations. But hey, that''s just my opinion. I won't insist on it

[Dragon Lord]

In regards to weapon batteries, I shall quote the BFG bible; ......

Ah yes I had forgotten about that quote, I must get re-aquainted with the BFG rulebook at some point, its been quite since time since I looked at it last.

Hence my suggestion for plasma, laser, missiles and rail guns. Graviton pulsars sounds like something reserved for bigger, dedicated warships. I can see the point about missiles being too similar to torpedoes, but I included them because GW included them, and because guided missiles seem like a very realistic and effective space weapon.

Fair enough, I must admit that I am slightly surprised at GW for suggesting something realistic and effective .  I agree that graviton pulsars sound like perhaps something for larger warships, particularly as Kage has grav weaponry down in the 'advanced' section.

Granted, the above is a description of warship armament, so it might not be applicable to a small transport like the Venturer. Then again, the Venturer is an armed transport, not just any freighter with a few pintle-mounted machine guns to scare off enviromentalist activists. Going by artwork, batteries seem to consist of a few really large guns, and then an array of smaller guns. Presumably, the smaller guns are just there for some extra oomph when delivering broadsides at point blank (i.e. only a few dozen kilometers)

Part of my reason for suggesting fewer weapon types was so we don't end up with one of each weapon on each side, because that seems a little odd.  Indeed on larger Imperial ships at least weapons batteries do seem to be made up of a few (typically 4) large guns plus many more smaller guns, chaos batteries seem slightly different but I've never been able to work out if those 3 prongs on them are gun barrels or not.  I'm not sure how much escort sized vessels follow that, but I suppose there is no reason to assume they do not.  I suppose perhaps there would be the difference between the Venturer as an armed transport rather than a warship, it might not have the few very large guns and just have some medium sized ones?

I wasn't suggesting three tertiary weapon systems.

Fair enough, my misunderstanding.

Kage said that there would be 1 system on the front hull and 1 system in the central hull. so that's something like 12 guns on the left and right side of the prow, maybe 3 dorsal and ventral guns above and below the prow. Then something like 10 dorsal and ventral guns in the central hull. It doesn't really sound like too many guns, especially when compared to the description of "pock-marked by gun ports and weapon housings" or compared to the gun-crammed artwork in the BFG illustrations. But hey, that''s just my opinion. I won't insist on it

That sounds fair, I had thought all of the weapons were going to mounted on the 'arrow-head' part of the ship rather than there being any on the smaller middle-section (that is apart from small anti-ordnance turrets which I imagine are scattered around everywhere).  I suppose it all depends what the relative power of secondary vs tertiary, etc. batteries are and how powerful we want different aspects of the weapons systems to be.  My thought when suggesting secondary batteries in the distribution I did was that the battery divided into broadsides would be mounted on the flat side parts of the 'arrow-head' making each gun almost the size of the indentations there currently.
Does GURPS give any indication of how powerful the different battery classes are in absolute terms as well as relative to each other Kage?

[CELS]

Part of my reason for suggesting fewer weapon types was so we don't end up with one of each weapon on each side, because that seems a little odd.  Indeed on larger Imperial ships at least weapons batteries do seem to be made up of a few (typically 4) large guns plus many more smaller guns, chaos batteries seem slightly different but I've never been able to work out if those 3 prongs on them are gun barrels or not.  I'm not sure how much escort sized vessels follow that, but I suppose there is no reason to assume they do not.  I suppose perhaps there would be the difference between the Venturer as an armed transport rather than a warship, it might not have the few very large guns and just have some medium sized ones?

Well, let's have a look. I've gone and designed a laser turret. Here it is.



Now, I've positioned a number of these turrets on the 800-meter long Venturer. The turret in the picture above is the smallest of the three turrets on top of the prow. I have positioned 14 turrets ( 2 * 7 ) on each side of the prow, for a total of 28 turrets. That would be the tertiary weapons system. I have also positioned 9 turrets ( 3 * 3 ) along the length of the ship, with 3 + 3 above and a battery of 3 turrets below. This could be a secondary weapons system.



As you say, with such small numbers of turrets, it would look odd to have a completely random mix of different weapons. The different turrets are going to look a bit different from each other, of course. At least, there is going to be a big difference in design between a laser turret and a missile turret. This is another argument, I think, for having many turrets rather than just a few big ones.

That said, two points came to mind when modelling the ship with weapons;
1) Where do we use turrets and where do we use fixed gun ports? The advantage of turrets is obviously the ability to aim in any direction, the advantage of fixed gun ports (internal weapon systems firing out through gun holes) is that they are less likely to suffer damage from enemy fire or collisions with asteroids, etc. As a compromise, you could have pop-up turrets, which can be lowered into the body of the ship when "bracing for impact".

2) Where is the ideal location for weapons? Having a huge turret on top of the prow ala modern battleships just seems extremely vulnerable. Seems a tempting target for enemy warships or bomber wings. And again, the problem with running into some asteroids. (It's never a good thing to run into asteroids, but just knocking the barrel 0.00001 degrees to the side renders it almost useless in a firefight across thousands of kilometers.)
It might be a good idea to move the batteries belonging to the Central Hull behind the prow, so they're at least shielded physically from any dangers directly ahead of the ship. For offensive purposes, it's not really a good idea to have weapons positioned so that they can't fire forward, but in a space battle, the best tactic for the Venturer would probably be to circle its target anyway - to make the most of its speed and small size - rather than surging forward like an ork battleship.

3) How big do we want our turrets?

That sounds fair, I had thought all of the weapons were going to mounted on the 'arrow-head' part of the ship rather than there being any on the smaller middle-section (that is apart from small anti-ordnance turrets which I imagine are scattered around everywhere).  I suppose it all depends what the relative power of secondary vs tertiary, etc. batteries are and how powerful we want different aspects of the weapons systems to be.  My thought when suggesting secondary batteries in the distribution I did was that the battery divided into broadsides would be mounted on the flat side parts of the 'arrow-head' making each gun almost the size of the indentations there currently.
Does GURPS give any indication of how powerful the different battery classes are in absolute terms as well as relative to each other Kage?

I'll post another image shortly, matching the description you've posted here.

EDIT: And here we are.