Fighters are ineffective in High Guard/TCS???

[tbeard1999]

Tbeard,

While I understand and applaud your desire to create and play in a Small Ship setting, I also am sure that you, as a both wargamer and successful wargame designer, are enough of an autodidact historian to realize that the idea of Tonnage Equates Class is little more than a conceit. Even when limited to a historical era or technological period, there are so many exceptions to this Tonnage Equates Class "rule" that it really becomes no rule at all.(1)

I don't know that I agree. At the end of the day, terms like "fighter" have a rough meaning that my players typically understand. I can, I suppose, override that common knowledge. But I really don't see any reason to do so.

And I did not intend to insinuate that "tonnage equals class". My suggestion is that once broad operational parameters are agreed on -- a small craft, no cargo carrying capacity, armed for combat and patrol missions, etc., -- then tonnage can broadly define the descriptor used. For the simple reason that greater size implies greater capability within a particular type of ship. (And in my own campaign, the link is more explicit -- the 30 ton Vindicator gunship has far greater endurance than the 10 ton Starfire fighter). But I would not, for instance, call an unarmed slow boat a "gunship" merely because it is within the tonnage range of gunships.

Of course, if you don't like my system, change it or don't use it. Okay with me

Having labels suggest or provide an evocation of size for your players is one thing. Having a label actually predict a size is something else entirely. In a nod to reality, there should be enough exceptions to your labels as to make the "prior service" knowledge of former servicemen and the "military trivia" knowledge of ship "cranks" useful to the adventuring party; i.e. Yeah, it's called a gunboat but don't let that fool you. They fiddled with the appropriations bill and used the gunboat money to build something more like a corvette. Believe you me, we should get the hell out of here before it arrives.

Well, I think that if you look over my Commonwealth Starships thread, you'll agree that there's plenty of texture. And that thread only contains about 25% of the ships I've detailed over the years.

 

[rancke]

Real world oddities like this and the others mentioned in the last few posts are what can make a navy in a fictional setting seem more realistic. Rather than just crank out some bland, X Always Means Y, ship list that will have your players yawning, a GM would do well to "pepper" their fleet with a few outliers and oddities. Slap a strange name on a stranger hull, have a couple cruisers bigger than your dreadnoughts, make that lowly "gunboat" something truly dangerous, and have an obsolescent battlewagon working as an SDB tender.

IMTU the Kinunir Class is an example of this. It was a joint project between IN Spinward Marches sector command and several (all?) duchy navies. They were all built in the Marches (Mars Shipyard is named after the god of war, not located on Mars). I haven't figured out how the Regal Splendor (the one that got palmed off on the Vegans) wound up in the Rim, but no doubt there's some perfectly simple explanation (sent from the Marches to the Rim for testing or something?). Anyway, that's why the class was such a limited production run (The IN tends to build more than three squadrons worth at a time).

(It's also why the marines aboard the Luuru don't all have BD skill; they're not IMC marines but Duchy of Regina marines ).


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

Blue Ghost,

Thank you. You've done a gray-headed old fat man's heart a world of good.


Regards,
Bill

I have to admit that it was tempting to write the combat sequences as a World War One flying ace scenario templated into a distance of one AU in stellar space. But that's not what Traveller is all about. Ditto, I was also tempted to write something like "Pilot X felt the thump of the missile as it left its hardpoint and speared towards Enemy-Y...", but that's no better.

It's a compromise between what's needed for the environment, and what the reader needs to comprehend and enjoy story. In a sense it's a real engineering problem of trying to construct something practical for the environment, and something that the reader can relate to. This is part of the whole challenge and allure of Traveller.

Think about it. Combat in a "real" Traveller setting would probably all automated, and that's assuming combat involves both factions are hurling mass and energy at one another to destroy the other. A more real outlook might be something far cleaner, and might not even resemble "combat" as we know it. Hence weapons might be nul and void.

But Traveller is about human beings adventuring in fantastic settings. And as an author I have to chop away things that would make it too easy for the characters to tackle their objective. Traveller, like D&D, is about challenge to the human soul, so to speak. And an outer space "dogfight" or fighter-engagement scenario is going to lend itself to certain cinematic properties.

Hence, again, the challenge is to bring a flavor of something familiar into an unfamiliar setting, but without disrupting the known properties and limitations of that environment. Ergo where I may have the pilot "hauling back on the stick" to turn the fighter, I don't have G-forces piling up on him, nor air buffeting the frame as it fights against physics to make the turn.

It's a careful ballet. And Traveller, and Traveller fans, are pretty sharp and particular. Hopefully anything I conjur will have some interesting qualities.

Regarding some of my inspirations; I always liked the Gunstar from "The Last Starfighter". to me that always seemed to be a very practical design of sorts. Kind of like an attack helicopte with the practicalities and limitations of a vehicle that needs to fight momentum (even though it does move like an atmospheric fighter in the film).

The feature film of the Macross series was of particular interest, because there's a few shots showing the Valkyries using correctional burns to cange course and adjust attitude. That's a more realistic approach to a space "dogfight" scenario than Lucas'es X-Wing fighters. At the same time, like I stated earlier, it's important to keep the human-factor involved, so one can't toss out all cinematic qualities, just keep them on par with what's expected.

Anyway, I hope that helps some.

 

[Whipsnade]

At the end of the day, terms like "fighter" have a rough meaning that my players typically understand.

Tbeard,

Let me suggest that the term "fighter" should have a meaning that your player-characters typically understand.

I can, I suppose, override that common knowledge. But I really don't see any reason to do so.

How about imparting a sense of We're Not In Kansas Anymore?

And I did not intend to insinuate that "tonnage equals class". My suggestion is that once broad operational parameters are agreed on -- a small craft, no cargo carrying capacity, armed for combat and patrol missions, etc., -- then tonnage can broadly define the descriptor used.

Agreed. As I wrote earlier, tonnage is loosely coupled with class.

And I think, after reading those wonderful descriptions in your earlier post, that you've taken exquisite care to create a realistic and interesting navy for your setting.

Of course, if you don't like my system, change it or don't use it. Okay with me

It's one of the better, if not the best, Small Ship settings I've seen.

Thanks for the link to the Commonwealth Starships thread.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

IMTU the Kinunir Class is an example of this. It was a joint project between IN Spinward Marches sector command and several (all?) duchy navies.

Hans,

IMTU, the Kinunir-class were experimental test beds. They were specifically built to carry and operationally test the Imperium's first, wholly imperial made, black globes. All previous black globes used by the fleet had been based either all or in part on Ancient relics.(1) (IIRC, there's a mention in canon someplace about the Imperium finding a huge cache of globe generators.)

The small size of the Kinunirs[/]i, only 1250 dTons, and the limited capabilities of the globe, only a 10% flicker rate, are a direct result of those "home-made" globes. The classification of the ships as "battlecruisers" was part misdirection and part civilian misunderstanding, just as the F-117 is still called a "fighter" by both the media and the USAF when in fact it is actually used as an "intruder".

After the testing program was over, Regal Splendor was given to the Vegans because she and a few of the other Kinunirs test beds were built on the Rim. The Imperial Navy had run their experiment and evaluation program on both of the Imperium's "hot" frontiers, the Marches and the Rim.

Since the successful conclusion of the black globe program, the various Kinunir-class vessels have been put to different uses. Kinunir herself continued on as a testbed and, unfortunately, received a certain computer upgrade. Other vessels have been scrapped, converted into non-naval uses, or given away. A few have been retained by either the IN or the duchy navies for a use well suited to their odd capabilities; that of a stealthy "battle taxi" for missions that require a high level of plausible deniability.

None of the remaining Kinunirs are considered actual warships. The vessels don't carry as many weapons as they should, have a very poor armor layout, and the black globe aboard can be quickly overwhelmed.(2) The presence of Kinunir-class vessels at the Battle of the Two Suns during the 4th Frontier War was wholly due to the Imperium's immediate needs, plus the odd nature of that war, and not due to the class' utility in battle.


Regards,
Bill


1 - IIRC, there's a mention in canon someplace about the Imperium finding a huge cache of globe generators.

2 - The factor-1 globe is either on, off, or flickering at 10%. Off and 10% provide little help to the ship, but On doesn't do much better. IIRC, a single factor-9 nuclear missile strike will completely fill a Kinunir's jump capacitors and, because the ship carries no additional capacitors, the next weapon hit will destroy the vessel.

 

[tbeard1999]

Tbeard,

How about imparting a sense of We're Not In Kansas Anymore?

In this case it would be we're not in Ty's Traveller Campaign anymore

I certainly agree with you that HG fighters do not really act like Star Wars or Galactica fighters (which are really just WWII/Korean War aircraft translated to space). Oddly, enough, however, Book 2 fighters do look more like Star Wars fighters.

And this fits my personal Traveller universe well because I'm intentionally analogizing to a late 1930s naval situation -- battleships and carriers are the capital ships, with neither holding a decisive edge.

But I can see how it might be fun to stress how different Traveller stuff is from tropes like the classic Star Wars fighters.

And I think, after reading those wonderful descriptions in your earlier post, that you've taken exquisite care to create a realistic and interesting navy for your setting.

It's one of the better, if not the best, Small Ship settings I've seen.

Thanks for the link to the Commonwealth Starships thread.
Regards,
Bill

Thanks a lot for the kind words.

 

[jfetters]

1 - IIRC, there's a mention in canon someplace about the Imperium finding a huge cache of globe generators.

Knorbes, as referenced in Adventure 12.

 

[rancke]

After the testing program was over, Regal Splendor was given to the Vegans because she and a few of the other Kinunirs test beds were built on the Rim. The Imperial Navy had run their experiment and evaluation program on both of the Imperium's "hot" frontiers, the Marches and the Rim.

Unfortunately, the Regal Splendor was built at the same shipyard (Yard 17) as two of the ships specifically mentioned as being present in Regina subsector, the Agidda and the Luuru. So either way you get one or two of them sent either from the Rim to the Marches or vice versa.

However, I could see the IN building them for testing purposes, then quickly transferring them to defenseless allies and ducal navies to get rid of them once the testing is over .


Hans

 

[Whipsnade]

Knorbes, as referenced in Adventure 12.

JFetters,

Thanks. Wasn't there also some hints in MT regarding Pluto/Charon?


Regards,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Unfortunately, the Regal Splendor was built at the same shipyard (Yard 17) as two of the ships specifically mentioned as being present in Regina subsector, the Agidda and the Luuru. So either way you get one or two of them sent either from the Rim to the Marches or vice versa.

Hans,

What? The Imperium can't have two facilities named Yard 17?

Actually, I was aware of that when I fashioned MTU's explanation for the Kinunir-class vessels. I chose to either ignore it or assume there was another Yard 17 on the Rim as those options were less "suspender snapping" in my opinion. The idea of the IN dispatching a relatively useless 1250 dTon "battlecruiser" entirely across the Imperium just so they could give it to the Vegans boggled my mind a wee bit too much.

The real problem here is the ur-Traveller nature of A:1 Kinunir. It was written very early and well before the size of the Imperium, her fleets, and her ships were determined. When A:1 was penned, did the authors know where "Vega" would be? Or just how far the Marches would end up being from Vega? They could have added those few lines about Regal Splendor being handed over assuming that Vega was only a few subsectors away and not an entire Imperium away. We''l never know.

Of course, everyone has to create is own solution to these canonical oddities. You can send Regal Splendor off on a year-plus journey to the Rim or you can have two yards named "Yard 17". Make your choice and move along.

However, I could see the IN building them for testing purposes, then quickly transferring them to defenseless allies and ducal navies to get rid of them once the testing is over.

Oh, so could I.... cue evil laughter

In fact, I've an adventure seed in my slush pile that touches on that very topic...


Regards,
Bill

 

[jfetters]

Thanks. Wasn't there also some hints in MT regarding Pluto/Charon?

Well, IIRC, they kept it kind of open for interpretation. I think it's from the Traveller's Digest issue detailing Terra and they mention a heavy Navy presence at Pluto, but keep the reasons all theoretical.

Of course, that was also back in the heady days when Pluto was an acutal planet.

 

[tbeard1999]

Tbeard,

While I understand and applaud your desire to create and play in a Small Ship setting, I also am sure that you, as a both wargamer and successful wargame designer, are enough of an autodidact historian to realize that the idea of Tonnage Equates Class is little more than a conceit.

Oh, I wanted to thank you for introducing me to the delightful word "autodidact".

I like it and will use it in the future.

But for the record, I actually have a B.S. degree (1) in History and got about 40% of the way to my PhD before selling out for law school. So, I wonder if I'm actually an autodidact historian. I am an amateur (I don't make a living doing history) so maybe that makes me an autodidact...

(1) I always thought that the Bachelor of Science had a particularly appropriate abbreviation...

 

[Icosahedron]

Ergo where I may have the pilot "hauling back on the stick" to turn the fighter, I don't have G-forces piling up on him, nor air buffeting the frame as it fights against physics to make the turn.

If your fighter uses Harrier-style vectored thrust or grav-power, you could get a certain amount of inertial G-forces acting in the cockpit, and provided that your dogfight took place at relatively slow ('zeroable') speed, it might not be too dissimilar to an aerial dogfight.

Just another idea for the mix.

 

[Blue Ghost]

If your fighter uses Harrier-style vectored thrust or grav-power, you could get a certain amount of inertial G-forces acting in the cockpit, and provided that your dogfight took place at relatively slow ('zeroable') speed, it might not be too dissimilar to an aerial dogfight.

Just another idea for the mix.

Ico; you're awsome

I actually juggled that notion this afternoon. If the nose jets fire to start changing the fighters X-plane orientation, what kind of force would the pilot and crew feel? How about when it stopped turning? Reversed course? I started contemplating that, and I think I have the answer. Right now I'm waiting to get some real inspiration to get into a writing groove.

The short answer is that with grav plates, like in a pinnace, scout ship or larger, the crew wouldn't feel much of anything. But it's still worth contemplating

 

[Maccat]

In some of the traveller variants, ex T4 there were um, G-couches, like low berths which were required for high G maneuvers, or increased your max G over what the grav-plates could do. Then again i never could find any real write up on it, nor rules lol. Anyhow that is some of the SDSS stuff i think.
Regarding what they feel, well the real issue is what happens when the G-plates go out/get shot up, etc, no? And then with weapon/turret limits, is a zero G EVA necessay to get the spare missiles from cargo into the launcher? lol. Or a fighter taken out by a fuel hit, and um, gravity attracts as it were, the unpowered reentry. Might have to rig the missiles for retrofire as well! Lots of possibilities!
I should mention thanks to this thread I actually made up and included some fighters for the 10BCr action, TLC and so:

Class: FMH Shrike
Type: Heavy Missile Fighter
Architect: AM
USP FM-0106D61-000000-00002-0 MCr 160.750 75 Tons
Bat Bear 1 Crew: 1
Bat 1 TL: 12
Cargo: 0.250 Fuel: 9.750 EP: 9.750 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
Architects Fee: MCr 1.608 Cost in Quantity: MCr 128.600

smallest i could get with the /6 in it and 6agility. we'll see how they play out!

 

[aramis]

See, the AG wasn't targetable in TNE/T4 (both of which had those G-Tolerance boosting seats), so killing it wasn't an issue; to kill it, kill the PP. Kill the PP, no controls nor maneuver, so G-Tolerance boosting was no longer an issue.

FF&S1 had allowed tolerances for AG/IC by tech level

 

[Icosahedron]

Ico; you're awsome

I actually juggled that notion this afternoon. If the nose jets fire to start changing the fighters X-plane orientation, what kind of force would the pilot and crew feel? How about when it stopped turning? Reversed course? I started contemplating that, and I think I have the answer. Right now I'm waiting to get some real inspiration to get into a writing groove.

The short answer is that with grav plates, like in a pinnace, scout ship or larger, the crew wouldn't feel much of anything. But it's still worth contemplating

Aww shucks, thanks.

A lot depends on how much turning force is delivered, how quickly, and how far from the centre of mass the pilot is seated. I was thinking more of a vectored main thrust jet rather than nose jets, but it's just detail.

Like Maccat, I don't have Grav plates in fighters - you need decks to have deck plates - fighters just have acceleration couches. That's what they're for.

Imagine you're sitting on a see-saw (facing out) and someone drops a very large rock on the other end. That is perhaps similar to the effect a pilot would feel sitting in the nose of his craft when a vectored main thrust gunned into life at the rear.

The forces could be lateral too. (Picture a car crashing into the other end of your see-saw).

The fulcrum of the lever is equivalent to the centre of mass. The further from it the pilot is, the more whipash he'll get (this, and possible lack of visual sighting needs may influence ship design - maybe there's a reason for those flying saucers ).

The only way to stop the ship turning is to fire the thrust in the opposite direction, so the forces on the ship (and pilot) are reversed.

Contrary to 'anti-TV' thought patterns, the craft might actually be programmed to adopt 'pseudo banking' manoeuvres in order to lessen or redirect these G-forces. Particularly if the main thrust is delivered via grav rather than fusion exhaust.

One difference, though, is that these turning forces would occur for a very short time. Only whilst the craft was rotating about one of its axes to bring the main thrust to bear in the optimum direction. There are no wide sweeping turns in space, just rotations and straight thrusts. How quickly these follow each other depends on the ratio of speed to acceleration (how 'zeroable' your thrust is).

Does that concur with your contemplations?

 

[Blue Ghost]

It's geling... it's geling.

I think for a Rampart/F-16ish interceptor size craft, you're right, there would be no grav plates. I'm still debating for something slightly larget with a very small crew. Something with maybe the interior space of a UPS delivery van ... not sure really. I'll play with it a bit more.

Otherwise, yeah, that's about right

 

[Icosahedron]

If it helps...

In my game, grav plates are integral to accommodation space and are used to aid mobility.

I use LBB5. If staterooms or a bridge are fitted, there will be g-plates. If only acceleration couches and a computer are fitted and crew mobility is not integral to craft function, there are none.

Imagine the flight deck/cockpit of a 747. The crew perform their normal functions from their seats - no grav plates are necessary. On the bridge of the USS Enterprise, however, crew are expected to move around in order to carry out their duties - grav plates are fitted.

A passenger shuttle might be a grey area. Theoretically, passengers remain in their acceleration couches for the duration, but passengers being what they are, there may be some gravity to help keep their lunch where they put it (both before and after consumption) and to aid cabin staff in seeing to their needs. A lot would depend on the length of the journey, perhaps.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Okay, I've got a tentative 3rd draft of two chapters that need some reading and feedback. Whipsnade, are you up to the task?