Combat at "visible" range.

[Carlobrand]

MegaTrav has a provision for combat at "visible" range:

MT Referee Manual, p. 95: "At visible range, several special considerations come into play. Because minimal sensor aid is needed at this range, a unit is automatically considered to have a sensor lock on if any friendly unit is at visual range to it. Spinal mount weapons cannot be used at this range. Spinal mount weapons require moving the entire mass of the ship in order to aim - which is virtually impossible when the target is this close. If a target at this range is hit with nuclear or antimatter missiles, the firing unit also takes radiation hits."

"Visible" range is not defined, but it certainly means both attacker and defender are in the same hex.

Thoughts come to mind:

• It can be very useful to come to and remain at visual range if you don't want to get blown to hell by a superior spinal weapon. Might be a useful way to discourage the other guy from using nukes, too, assuming he doesn't have any more armor than you have. Strikes me that fighters and SDBs will like this range, especially as they tend to have more thrust than their opponents and can therefore hold that range despite their opponents' maneuvers.
• Space combat weapons have a rate of fire for "personal combat." I can't recall the last time I fired a bay-mounted particle beam at someone in personal combat; doesn't sound like it would be fun for the guy floating downrange from me. :devil: However, it might be interesting to implement a "personal combat" scale when ships were that close. Range is pretty much irrelevant: it amounts to breaking the engaged ships out for 200 hot rounds of mano-a-mano Sicilian knife fighting:
  
  • turret weapons other than missiles are getting 3 shots a round;
  • turret sandcasters are getting about a shot every other round, but there isn't much time for their sand to disperse, so the sand could probably be counted as a defense for two rounds - or not :devil:;
  • turret missiles are getting one shot every 10 rounds;
  • bay weapons other than missiles are getting 2 shots a round;
  • missile bays are getting one shot every 5 rounds;
  • spinal weapons can't be used.
  Creates a scenario where the fighters close in, the battlewagon endures 20 minutes of hell while its squadronmates look on helplessly, and then the fighters dash off. Not something everyone would want to add, but potentially quite fun in a nasty sort of way. The weapons balance changes: missiles are slow, beam weapons can shoot them down and then pop in several shots before the next missile launches, spinals are useless. On the other hand, one nuke aimed at nothing in particular zaps everyone in the hex with a blast of radiation, so a heavily armored battlewagon is not without its options if its enemies are lightly armored.

 

[HG_B]

Creates a scenario where the fighters close in, the battlewagon endures 20 minutes of hell while its squadronmates look on helplessly, and then the fighters dash off.

If you are using Newtonian movement (rather than pretending they are fighter aircraft in atmosphere), the fighters will to be going REALLY slow to stay in that visual range for 20 minutes. Thus, they would be taken apart by the battlewagon's turret weaponry...

 

[Carlobrand]

If you are using Newtonian movement (rather than pretending they are fighter aircraft in atmosphere), the fighters will to be going REALLY slow to stay in that visual range for 20 minutes. Thus, they would be taken apart by the battlewagon's turret weaponry...

Megatrav divorces speed and agility - a 1G ship can manage agility 6 as the rules are worded, for example - so going really slow on the battle map does not necessarily translate to low agility. Personal combat handles movement DMs differently, but it can be assumed that most of these weapons have a point defense fire control since most can be used in the missile defense role, so routine movement wouldn't cause a penalty.

The exceptions are particle accelerators and meson bays. If this kind of engagement is a normal occurrence, particle accelerators can probably be assumed to have point defense fire controls just so they can remain useful - although they probably should be subject to that same radiation rule that nuclear missiles are subject to, so not all ships are going to be eager to bring their particle beam turrets to bear. Meson bays - I can't see targeting them in that kind of close scrimmage, but if players want to decide they can be used, I'd suggest a miss would result in that same radiation rule being applied, just with ships allowed to use their armor against it, since the detonation is occurring in space.

Come to think of it: meson spinals can't be aimed, but they can sure as heck be blasted into space, so that might be another way for a heavily armored ship to persuade lightly armored attackers to keep their distance. A ship would have to have an armor rating of 100 or better to avoid some fallout from a spinal meson blast somewhere in the hex with it; for anything less than that, 18 damage rolls tends to get one's attention. (We've discussed the problem with achieving high armor ratings elsewhere, by the way.)

 

[HG_B]

Megatrav divorces speed and agility - a 1G ship can manage agility 6 as the rules are worded, for example - so going really slow on the battle map does not necessarily translate to low agility. Personal combat handles movement DMs differently, but it can be assumed that most of these weapons have a point defense fire control since most can be used in the missile defense role, so routine movement wouldn't cause a penalty.

Yes. My point is that it wouldn't be like Star Wars where the fighters are too fast for the small weapon defense. It would be a meat grinder for the fighters to hang about that close.

 

[Carlobrand]

Yes. My point is that it wouldn't be like Star Wars where the fighters are too fast for the small weapon defense. It would be a meat grinder for the fighters to hang about that close.

Not based on the agility. Point defenses don't get to ignore agility or evasion. If we're using agility the way it's designed, agile fighters are still very hard to hit. Of course, we're mixing apples and oranges a bit, in order to avoid having to calculate range and figure movement within the hex. If we fully applied personal combat rules to the situation, it actually gets a good deal worse 'cause the evasion DMs for high-G craft are quite big and only settle into space combat levels at a range of around 50 kilometers.

Which is not to say it won't be a meat grinder for other reasons. Pop off a nuke, the lightly armored fellows start dying whether they were the target or not. Pop off a spinal meson into some random spot in space 50 kilometers from the firing ship, and pretty much everyone without heavy armor is out of the fight. This tactic depends on either your target being too lightly armored to use a nuke on you or you being heavily armored enough to take it if he does.

A thought I'd forgotten: personal combat range allows for pinpoint shots. If the person attempts a pinpoint shot and scores exceptional success (2 over the required roll), the person "calls" the shot, deciding what system is hit, and armor value is halved. Given the way the heavily armored ships wallow, that can make it possible to stop a ship that is otherwise "bulletproof".

Now the question is: given that fighters already enjoy a numbers advantage, how do you defend when they can also close up and start pulling pinpoint shots?

 

[HG_B]

Not based on the agility. Point defenses don't get to ignore agility or evasion. If we're using agility the way it's designed, agile fighters are still very hard to hit.

In MT comp size difference makes up for that. Also, no lock on needed at that range. I don't think they'd last long.

 

[Carlobrand]

In MT comp size difference makes up for that. Also, no lock on needed at that range. I don't think they'd last long.

In MT, fighters can use the same size computers that the big boys use. The comps are not so big and power-hungry as they are in CT. Lock-on or no, you still need to make the to-hit roll.

 

[McPerth]

Megatrav divorces speed and agility - a 1G ship can manage agility 6 as the rules are worded, for example - so going really slow on the battle map does not necessarily translate to low agility.

MT rules for movement are absurd from the Newtonian physics POV (a true disgress from CT) as they can move up to its speed, but may even remain stationary (regardless of its initial speed and acceleration power). They can only change its speed up to acceleration value, but may stop in a hex by 'circling in the square' (page 92 of RM). While it is not told, it seems they may change direction at will (after all, if they can circle in a square, they may exit it in the direction they want, reagrdless previous vector). This would allow those tiny fighters to reach the large ship square and stay there, frollowing the ship's movement, regardless the vector they achieved in aproach.

In CT (and in Newtonian physics, AFAIK), if your fighters accelerate to combat to close with the large ship, they will overpass it, geting only one shoot at close distance and then following their vector until acceleration allows them to change direction and close again (once again my analogy to medieval jousts).

EDIT:

Personal combat handles movement DMs differently, but it can be assumed that most of these weapons have a point defense fire control since most can be used in the missile defense role, so routine movement wouldn't cause a penalty.

(bold is mine)

RM, page 79, under Point defense targeting:

Hardpoint mounted weapons automatically have this capacity

So, yes, they have.

 

[HG_B]

In MT, fighters can use the same size computers that the big boys use. The comps are not so big and power-hungry as they are in CT. Lock-on or no, you still need to make the to-hit roll.

A model 8 comp. is 1 ton and costs MCr24. So, IN REALITY, the computer rating difference will make a HUGE difference.

 

[McPerth]

I'm not sure in any case about what do you mean with using personal combat rules. If you mean (as I understand) tht once they are so close vehicle rules should apply, just see that in most cases small ships (and so player's) won't last a single shoot:

According IE, a scout/seeker has armor 40 and hull hit capacity 90/225, while a free/far trader has also armor 40 and hull hit capacity 180/450. Even a Gazelle has armor 49 and hull hit capacity 387/988.

According PM (page 80), A laser has pen between 70 and 80, and dmg among 500 and 800. A single TL 13 laser hit will score 200-400 hits on a marginal success, 400-800 on a roll over the mínimum required and that amount will double, quadruple or be wightfold on higher rolls. So, if a TL 13 pulse laser rolls 4 over target on an armor 40 ship, it inflicts 3200 hits, enough to vaporize any IE ship (the ones armored, Gazelle and SDB would only receive half that amount, but that's more than enough to vaporize them).

Even vehicles' fusion guns (those on page 78 of RM) could be devasting against fighters, doing 15 hull (base, multiplied by success task) on any hit, with a ROF of 40+. That would cripple any craft under 17 dton ( the mínimum to have 15 hits before becoming inoperative), and probably to anything under 30 dton, as many hits would deliver at least double damage. That could easily lead to the fighter's meat grinder (metal grinder ?) HG_B told about above.

And I only talk about hull hits because hitting any other system makes it still worse, as the can whitstand less hits...

And, in any case, those rules whould lead to a paradigm change, as they will imply some changes on starship combat:

• Fighters will only use nukes as standoff weapons, so most will be armed with beams only
• Combat would begin with massive fighters dogfighting before any major ship even fires a shot
• Most ships would carry a miriad of vehicles plasma/fusion guns for close defense against fighters
• Probably other changes I cannot think about right now

Not saying this is good nor bad, just a major change, leaving that to anyone's opinion.

 

[jec10]

I'm not sure you've got everything right, McPerth, although your basic point may well stand.

If most civilian starships have 40 armour then the energy weapons listed on page 80 are only going to be getting low penetration hits on them (using the personal combat rules on page 70). So, if you roll the minimum required for success (a marginal success) you're only doing 25 percent damage (for lasers=125 to 200 points damage). If you get one more than the minimum required for success you're doing 50 percent damage, and if you get exceptional success you're doing 100 percent damage and so on.

As for vehicle weapons versus fighters, again they would only be getting low penetration hits and so they would do base 25 percent of damage (rounded down remember) and then go on up depending on success.

 

[Carlobrand]

A model 8 comp. is 1 ton and costs MCr24. So, IN REALITY, the computer rating difference will make a HUGE difference.

A 20dTon fighter can carry a model/9. Computer rating does make a huge difference. Three of them cost more than 91 million credits. It's just that, with them shrunk down this way - a bit under 4 dTons for all three and a hundredth of a megawatt for each - and with the fighters so small and agile, it's a lot easier for them to stand toe to toe with the big boys.

I'm not sure in any case about what do you mean with using personal combat rules. If you mean (as I understand) tht once they are so close vehicle rules should apply, just see that in most cases small ships (and so player's) won't last a single shoot:

According IE, a scout/seeker has armor 40 and hull hit capacity 90/225, while a free/far trader has also armor 40 and hull hit capacity 180/450. Even a Gazelle has armor 49 and hull hit capacity 387/988.

According PM (page 80), A laser has pen between 70 and 80, and dmg among 500 and 800. A single TL 13 laser hit will score 200-400 hits on a marginal success, 400-800 on a roll over the mínimum required and that amount will double, quadruple or be wightfold on higher rolls. So, if a TL 13 pulse laser rolls 4 over target on an armor 40 ship, it inflicts 3200 hits, enough to vaporize any IE ship (the ones armored, Gazelle and SDB would only receive half that amount, but that's more tan enough to vaporize them).

Even vehicles' fusion guns (those on page 78 of RM) could be devasting against fighters, doing 15 hull (base, multiplied by success task) on any hit, with a ROF of 40+. That would cripple any craft under 17 dton ( the mínimum to have 15 hits before becoming inoperative), and probably to anything under 30 dton, as many hits would deliver at least double damage. That could easily lead to the fighter's meat grinder (metal grinder ?) HG_B told about above.

And I only talk about hull hits because hitting any other system makes it still worse, as the can whitstand less hits...

And, in any case, those rules whould lead to a paradigm change, as they will imply some changes on starship combat:

• Fighters will only use nukes as standoff weapons, so most will be armed with beams only
• Combat would begin with massive fighters dogfighting before any major ship eve nfires a shot
• Most ships would carry a miriad of vehicles plasma/fusion guns for close defense against fighters
• Probably other changes I cannot think about right now

Not saying this is good nor bad, just a major change, leaving that to anyone's opinion.

Fighters can't dogfight each other because they can't hit each other. That odd feature of the old rules has endured: you need fairly high weapon factors to hit an agility-6 fighter with the same computer rating as you.

The problem isn't the damage - the problem is actually managing to hit. Point defense systems answer the speed problems, but point defense does not to my knowledge counter evasion, and a 6G fighter can rack up a lot of evasion DMs, especially if he keeps within about 50 kilometers or less of his target, and big heavily armored ships of the line don't tend to have 6G drives to go matching speed with a fighter. Yes, at that range a hit from a ship's weapon would hole the fighter like a knife cutting through kleenex, but you have to score the hit first.

This hinges on me interpreting evasion and the point defense fire control but correctly, but the game seems to run with the paradigm of the jet fighter against the tank - the tank could shred the fighter if it could get a round in on the thing, but weaving jet fighters are just too nimble to be hit by a tank gun.

 

[Carlobrand]

Hmmm...

Reading through evasion rules, it seems to work both ways: if you can't hit me, I can't hit you. My defensive DM bonus seems to become my offensive DM penalty. Is that right?

 

[McPerth]

A 20dTon fighter can carry a model/9. Computer rating does make a huge difference. Three of them cost more than 91 million credits. It's just that, with them shrunk down this way - a bit under 4 dTons for all three and a hundredth of a megawatt for each - and with the fighters so small and agile, it's a lot easier for them to stand toe to toe with the big boys.

Yes, there are posible, but if each fighter costs you about MCr 100 (to make numbers easy). If you arm them with nuclear missiles, you'll have a factor 2-3 battery at most for Mcr 100. Any ship with ha nuclear damper 6+ (and that means any large ship) may just ignore them.

Fighters can't dogfight each other because they can't hit each other. That odd feature of the old rules has endured: you need fairly high weapon factors to hit an agility-6 fighter with the same computer rating as you.

You're right here, as you need to roll 11+ to hit, and the fighters modifier would be in this case -8 (computer aside, but I asume computer modifier to be cancelled). If your fighter has a fusión turret (the higher rated he can carry with beam weapons, as, according to the rules it may be factor 5 for a single weapon), its weapon modifier would be +5, so still needing to roll 14+.

Of course, you can make a two seats fighter with a rapid pulse plasma/fusion gun as secondary weaponry (I'd had to run the numbers, but my guess is that a 25-30 dton fighter might be so equiped and still have Ag6 and computer 9), and, if vehicle rules are used as you say, assuming the visual range being up to 50 km it would be very distant range (so dif task at TL 13+), and if they close to 5 km, it would be routine task for TL 14+ ships. speed modifier is is divided by range band, so it wouldn't be too high, while gunner's skill DM will be kept. There will be no cover in space, and any hit will probably mean a fighter taken out, and those rapid pulse weapons have very high ROF...

And, if using space combat rules as told above, it could be seen if cautious task (accurate aiming) might be used¹ (e.g. firing every other turn). If so, for those who pass the determination task their to hit task would be routine, meaning they's had to roll "only" 10+ to hit (for the fusion armed fighter). Any hit on such a ship will take it out of commison (factor 5 battery against less tan 100 dton craft means 5 critical hits, and they will be unarmed if they want to keep agility 6).

Note 1: I know this use of the rules is (to say the least) questionable, but IIRC, in a Q&A, this was seen as aceptable for personal combat. AFAIK no one has raised the question for space combat, but cautious tasks rules are there...

 

[HG_B]

A 20dTon fighter can carry a model/9. Computer rating does make a huge difference. Three of them cost more than 91 million credits. It's just that, with them shrunk down this way - a bit under 4 dTons for all three and a hundredth of a megawatt for each - and with the fighters so small and agile, it's a lot easier for them to stand toe to toe with the big boys.

Umm, if you're spending THAT much on individual fighters, you've already lost the war against a foe of similar econ resources... o:

 

[McPerth]

I'm not sure you've got everything right, McPerth, although your basic point may well stand.

As you say, my main intent is not about precise numbers (where I can well be wrong) but about the mechanics included.

In any case, I will explain you where my numbers come from, as I think they're mostly correct this time:

If most civilian starships have 40 armour then the energy weapons listed on page 80 are only going to be getting low penetration hits on them (using the personal combat rules on page 70). So, if you roll the minimum required for success (a marginal success) you're only doing 25 percent damage (for lasers=125 to 200 points damage). If you get one more than the minimum required for success you're doing 50 percent damage, and if you get exceptional success you're doing 100 percent damage and so on.

As I specified TL13 lasers, their dmg is 600 (BLaser) or 800 (Plaser), so if they do 25% that will mean 150 or 200, while 50% are 300 or 400, so you're right the 200-400 hits I said in my post should read 150-400 (the TL13 PLaser has penetration 80, so it will not be halved as low penetration hit against armor 40, as penetration rule in PM page 70 says at least twice the armor, not over twice the armor).

As for vehicle weapons versus fighters, again they would only be getting low penetration hits and so they would do base 25 percent of damage (rounded down remember) and then go on up depending on success.

Here I might not be clear in my wording, but I assumed the low penetration modifier (so I talked about 15 base damage), while considered the 50% for marginal success included in the success task modifier (that can go from 50% to 800%).

In any case, as you say, the main point (using personnel/vehicle combat rules is letal for most IE (and so most players') ships/crafts) stands

 

[Carlobrand]

Yes, there are posible, but if each fighter costs you about MCr 100 (to make numbers easy). If you arm them with nuklear missiles, you'll have a factor 2-3 battery at most for Mcr 100. Any ship wit ha nuclear damper 6+ (and that means any large ship) may just ignore them.
...

Umm, if you're spending THAT much on individual fighters, you've already lost the war against a foe of similar econ resources... o:

Uh, no. MegaTrav, new paradigms: the big boys are slow and ponderous. Now think, "Pulse lasers."

Fighters are expensive, but they're still hard as hell to hit, the moreso with model/9's aboard. Without electronic circuit protection - which isn't worth much in something that dies so easily when it gets hit - the 20 dT fighter comes in under 120 megacredits. A "small" armored dreadnought, at 200,000 dT, comes in around 300 thousand megacredits; a small agile dreadnought, with minimal armor, costs about half that. You can buy around 2500 fighters for the cost of an armored dreadnought.

Each of those fighters has one hardpoint with three weapons. The Fighting Ships model carries two pulse lasers as two batteries of Factor 2 and one missile launcher as one of Factor 2. So, each wing of ~2500 fighters is sending out more than 5000 laser rolls and 2500 missile rolls per turn. Each has agility-6. Each is -2 to hit due to size.

Now, let's look at the dreadnought target. The slow dreadnought has little or nothing in the way of agility and a +2 to be hit due to its large size. Base roll is an 11, weapons table assigns a +4 to the factor 2 pulse laser, most of the 5000 laser rolls are going to be hits. Some will be blocked by sandcasters, but not nearly enough. Short form, unless it has a minimum armor of 88, the dreadnought takes anything from a few hundred to a couple thousand weapons hits and gets stripped of weapons in a round or two. Meanwhile, when the dreadnought shoots at the fighters, it likewise has a base 11, plus 7 to 8 for its factor 9's, minus 8 for the fighter's agility: about 1 to 3 attacks in 36 will hit. Without heavy armor, the dreadnought kills 3 or 4 fighters per round and is neutered in a couple of rounds. That's without the missiles.

And with heavy armor at 88+, the dreadnought is a floating target waiting for something with a meson spinal to come and kill it, and that's light by dreadnought standards - one armored up to stop nukes (106) costs almost 3 times as much, and really doesn't give you much for that.

The opposite case is the fast dreadnought, sacrificing armor for agility to avoid meson fire. As discussed, it's cheaper: you can buy around 1300 fighters for the price. Assuming it can get to 6 agility, it's size is still a handicap. The fighters base 11 plus 4 meets the dreadnought's defense of 4, 3 in 36 attacks hit - but HE missiles become useful. About 160 hits are registered, the defenses give a better show but you can only carry so many defenses and still mount a spinal and missiles: maybe a quarter get through unopposed. The dreadnought kills 3 or 4 fighters a turn, watches its weapons get whittled away over several turns before it leaves the field with no functioning weapons.

Things get a little better for cruisers but not good enough.

Destroyers, in the 1000 to 9999 dTon range face a much better battle, but the edge still goes to the fighters. Destroyers can make themselves agile enough to avoid being hit by the lasers. Then the fighters draw back, unleash missiles at long range, and the HE missiles punch through the destroyers' light armor. Destroyers typically come in at under a megacredit per dTon, figure 7-800 megacredits for every thousand dTons. However, to have a chance to hit an agility-6 fighter with its -2 size bonus, the destroyer still needs to marshall its turrets into massed batteries to earn the +7 weapon bonus that's the minimum needed to overcome the fighters' advantages. Means you tend to have about 6 fighters for every Destroyer battery: a destroyer ends up taking about 6 weapons/fuel hits for every fighter it hits. Or, like the dreadnoughts, the destroyers can carry the uber-armor and end up slow, which makes them ideal targets for meson bays.

I can show you a 25 dT TL15 fighter with 6Gs, agility-6 and just enough armor to eliminate criticals from anything but nukes and spinal mounts. Like its big cousins, it can fight and then get fixed quickly afterward.

The ideal defense force tends to be a mix of little fighters and battleriders in the 9000 dT range; the fighters eat anything without heavy armor, the battleriders use a meson spinal to eat the heavy armored folk. The ideal attack force tends to be carriers delivering a bunch of little fighters to strip down the battleriders and tenders carrying battleriders in the 9000 dT range. Then it's a matter of maneuver to make sure the right force hits the right target and doesn't get overtaken by the opponent-type that can kill it - which is a problem because even a high agility battlerider tends to have low-G drives, so it would usually come down to the fighters chasing down their target and then dancing on it till the job is done.

There's a 900 dT escort that works well for killing fighters: it marshalls up lasers in a single battery to do the job, and the fighters can't hit it. But, it pays for agility with a low-G drive and no armor, so the fighters just leave when they see it and send something big to kill it. Or, they ignore it and eat whatever it's escorting, even with all the lasers marshalled, its odds of hitting are pretty low.

The game honestly looks a lot more like Battlestar Galactica than your traditional Traveller milieu.

 

[HG_B]

Uh, no.

Do up a full scale battle. I did quite a few after MT came out. The side with those type of fighters will get taken out.

 

[Carlobrand]

Do up a full scale battle. I did quite a few after MT came out. The side with those type of fighters will get taken out.

I've done a Referee's Sourcebook-style mathematican engagement - you know me and math. Comes off a lot like High Guard that way, but some elements obviously don't get emulated. Differences would include the sensor lock rules (but the fighters have good sensors and actually are a wee bit harder to detect at long range) and maneuver. Pulse lasers have a range disadvantage, but that's not an issue if the target's big and lumbering. Missiles have a range advantage, means they hit on a 10 instead of 11, fighters take some extra hits while closing up to planetary range, but keeping their desired range when they have 6G and the target has 1-3G isn't terribly difficult. If there are large numbers of targets, they can disperse so the other ships can keep the fighters at long range while the fighters are picking on any one target, but in an even game that also means more fighters.

Really, the only thing I'm seeing is that ships with more than 88 factors of armor and a damper can't be touched by fighters, which means if you rely on fighters then that part of your fleet is useless from the getgo if the enemy brings uber-turtles. However, the uberturtles are vulnerable to meson fire, and if you've given decent weight to SDBs, you've got several spinals for his one.

You've fought the battles on a map. What was different? Fewer fighters? More ships with armor values of 88 or higher? Something isn't making sense.

 

[McPerth]

Each of those fighters has one hardpoint with three weapons. The Fighting Ships model carries two pulse lasers as two batteries of Factor 2 and one missile launcher as one of Factor 2. So, each wing of ~2500 fighters is sending out more than 5000 laser rolls and 2500 missile rolls per turn. Each has agility-6. Each is -2 to hit due to size.

I'm not sure the two Plasers in a single turret may be divided as 2 factor 2 batteries. While MT is not clear in this aspect, it seems to say that multiple batteries can only be organized when the máximum is reached (something I don't believe to be it's intent), but, even if not accepting that, I guess a single turret's equal wepons must be in the same battery, as it would be quite difficult to fire at diferent targets

See that this would be coherent with CT:HG, where equal weapons in the same turret must be in the same battery, and MT is direct descendent of HG and (as too often in MT) some unclear points in MT can be clarified by referring to HG.

I can show you a 25 dT TL15 fighter with 6Gs, agility-6 and just enough armor to eliminate criticals from anything but nukes and spinal mounts. Like its big cousins, it can fight and then get fixed quickly afterward.

I'd like to see this design. To eliminate those criticals, you'd need mínimum armor 67 (else, a factor 9 battery would mean at least a critical, regardless what weapon are we talking about), and to have such an armor the weight multiplier is over 10 times that of an armor 40 fighter, so to have agility 6 becomes quite difficult...

And see that even this fighter will be quite vulnerable to rapid pulse fusión guns, should personal combat rules apply to visible range as you suggested.

The game honestly looks a lot more like Battlestar Galactica than your traditional Traveller milieu.

In BG the fighters were hard to hit, but not imposible, and fighters dogfighting is quite common...