Fighters are ineffective in High Guard/TCS???
- Thread starter Darley51
- Start date
There seems to be a consensus that this does violence not just to the rules balance but also to the intended premise of the game.
Some claim that fighters are the dominant game winning strategy at many of the lower TL's already. (We have a tournament going right now that will illustrate the validity of this theory. Stay tuned.)
At the higher TL's, it appears to be a premise built into the game that fighters "morph" or evolve into bigger tougher larger creatures in order to adapt to the changing technology environment.
(Designs for the TCS tournament to demonstrate that theory one way or another are due at the end of this month. See http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=19009 for more info.)
JAFFAR; (warning, mindless rambling mode on)
I think it really depends on what kind of punch the fighters are supposed to have. A lot of popular sci-fi venues seem to opt for a WW1 and WW2 analogous situation. That is the primary weapon is their "gun", whatever that is (usually a pair of "LASERs"). The concept here is that they'll strafe the enemy into submission, with a rarity that one of them is carry a "heavy weapon" of somekind that saves the day, or finishes off the enemy ship.
As I was reminded in a NEXUS article some 20+ years ago, a single modern jet fighter can wreck a modern cruiser with a single missile. Having some kind of sci-fi fighter roaming space with a similar capability makes having bigger cruisers and larger sizes problematic. So, from a gameing standpoint, it makes sense to go with the World Wars' analogy for space combat.
Having said that one of my battleship history books tells a blow by blow account of the sinking of the IJN Yamato. Two-hundred plus american carrier planes (Hellcats? I can't remember) attacked Yamato and her escorting fleet. Reportidly the Yamato was unaffected (initially at least) by the bombs dropped by the American carrier attack wings. The first bombs are said to have "bounced off" her deck (possibly meaning the forward and after armored decks). Later bomb drops had some effect.
But, the fighters themselves could not have done it without USN Gato class subs, which sent nearly 20 torpedos (maybe more like 15) into the Yamato's hull. Again, the first few were "shrugged off" by the armor. This account seems to be verified by other books.
Now, what does this means in a Traveller scenario? Ultimately it's up to the referee, but, from a fictional standpoint, as I continue to contemplate my story (largely for Whipsnape who wants to read the rest of it
) I would think that a linear progression of firepower would make more sense for the players.
But this is the beauty of Traveller, because ultimately the rules leave it up to you and your group to decide what fits and what doesn't. A Traveller fighter might carry a 1000 Megaton fusion warhead, but that warhead might be absorbed by a black globe. Hence the need for an entire strike group carrying the same kind of weapon to take down a battleship.
(mindless rambleing mode off
)
I think it really depends on what kind of punch the fighters are supposed to have. A lot of popular sci-fi venues seem to opt for a WW1 and WW2 analogous situation. That is the primary weapon is their "gun", whatever that is (usually a pair of "LASERs"). The concept here is that they'll strafe the enemy into submission, with a rarity that one of them is carry a "heavy weapon" of somekind that saves the day, or finishes off the enemy ship.
As I was reminded in a NEXUS article some 20+ years ago, a single modern jet fighter can wreck a modern cruiser with a single missile. Having some kind of sci-fi fighter roaming space with a similar capability makes having bigger cruisers and larger sizes problematic. So, from a gameing standpoint, it makes sense to go with the World Wars' analogy for space combat.
Having said that one of my battleship history books tells a blow by blow account of the sinking of the IJN Yamato. Two-hundred plus american carrier planes (Hellcats? I can't remember) attacked Yamato and her escorting fleet. Reportidly the Yamato was unaffected (initially at least) by the bombs dropped by the American carrier attack wings. The first bombs are said to have "bounced off" her deck (possibly meaning the forward and after armored decks). Later bomb drops had some effect.
But, the fighters themselves could not have done it without USN Gato class subs, which sent nearly 20 torpedos (maybe more like 15) into the Yamato's hull. Again, the first few were "shrugged off" by the armor. This account seems to be verified by other books.
Now, what does this means in a Traveller scenario? Ultimately it's up to the referee, but, from a fictional standpoint, as I continue to contemplate my story (largely for Whipsnape who wants to read the rest of it
) I would think that a linear progression of firepower would make more sense for the players.But this is the beauty of Traveller, because ultimately the rules leave it up to you and your group to decide what fits and what doesn't. A Traveller fighter might carry a 1000 Megaton fusion warhead, but that warhead might be absorbed by a black globe. Hence the need for an entire strike group carrying the same kind of weapon to take down a battleship.
(mindless rambleing mode off
)Blue Ghost,
Check out this link and read all about Yamato's last voyage. (The link is one of my favorites.)
www.combinedfleet.com
There were no US submarines involved in the battle at all. Every torpedo used was air-dropped from US aircraft. And, yes, they pig-piled on Yamato.
... as I continue to contemplate my story (largely for Whipsnape who wants to read the rest of it
I do want to read the rest of it because it was good and I know others will enjoy it to.
Here's hoping you can finish up what's already on your plate and get back to it!
Regards,
Bill
P.S. It just so happens that yesterday, April 7th, was the 64th anniversary of Yamato's destruction.
Last edited:
I may be thinking about the Musashi.
Blue Ghost,
Mushashi was put under by air power alone too. Sibuyan Sea, 24 OCT 1944.
USS Sealion II did sink IJN Kongo on 21 NOV 1944. Sealion II hit the battleship with three torpedoes and damaged Kongo enough that a little over two hours later flooding forced her to slow to stop. Sealion II had been chasing her all that time and, as the submarine moved in to launch more torpedoes, Kongo heeled over, exploded, and sank.
You're dealing with a naval crank here. Traveller attracts us in spades.
Regards,
Bill
P.S. IJN designs seem to have had magazine and/or powder handling issues. Several IJN warships exploded while sinking, Yamato and Kongo being the most noticeable examples. To be fair, HMS Barham also exploded while sinking, but such explosions happened to the IJN far more often. IJN battleship Mutsu's #3 turret magazine actually exploded tearing the vessel in half while the ship was at anchor on 8 JUN 1943. There were over 100 air cadets aboard visiting at the time and most were lost, further exacerbating the IJN's lack of skilled air crews.
Last edited:
DOH!
I swear I read somewhere that a Gato helped sink one of the Yamato class ships... thinking here... Shinano? Does that ring a bell? Wasn't she a BB converted to a CVA, but sank on her maiden voyage? Something like that.
Dag-nabbit, a US Sub helped sink one of those bad boys!
I swear I read somewhere that a Gato helped sink one of the Yamato class ships... thinking here... Shinano? Does that ring a bell? Wasn't she a BB converted to a CVA, but sank on her maiden voyage? Something like that.
Dag-nabbit, a US Sub helped sink one of those bad boys!
Blue Ghost,
Bingo! Give the man a cigar!
29 NOV 1944 by USS Archerfish during a voyage to Kure. She was fresh out of the builders' hands and had an extremely green crew aboard. Archerfish put four torpedoes in her so she was most likely lost anyway, but her physical condition combined with a crew that hadn't been long aboard meant she sank relatively quickly. Most aboard were saved, not that there were a lot of IJN ships left for them to transfer to.(1)
The IJN never planned on using her as an attack carrier, her role was going to be more of that of a plane ferry, store ship, and aircraft repair vessel. Oddly enough, she was carrying a half dozen carrying suicide boats and a good number of those suicide rocket planes when she sank, so who knows what the IJN's real plans for her were?
Regards,
Bill
1 - When you look at the sinking reports for October and November 1944, you suddenly realize that the IJN ceased to exist as a fighting force in less than 60 days. Quite a testament to the incredible power the USN had at it's disposal.
I've often wondered if the events of October/November 1944 were the "seed" for GDW's depiction of the fate of the Sword World's Sacnotian Fleet towards the end of the 5th FW.
Ahhh-HA! That was it! In your face history-books :smirk:
The minute I logged off "Archerfish" came to my mind. Anyway, JAFFAR, I hoped some of this helped. :rofl:
The minute I logged off "Archerfish" came to my mind. Anyway, JAFFAR, I hoped some of this helped. :rofl:
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
There are some house rules to this effect, but most of them suffer from one flaw IMO; the fighters suffer little if any penalty for doing this. I would let fighters do this if they had some drawbacks to it; perhaps being easier to kill when "grouping" into batteries. My personal house rule lets you do this with fighters, but every HG hit on the damage tables kills one fighter, so they are much easier to kill
One of the proposed house rules I suggested elsewhere when it comes to Fighter's grouping into battery equivalents was that for Every X number of fighters grouping together, they lose 1 agility rating, and that fighters grouped at the max of 10 fighters, suffered an overall -2 to agility. This makes them easier to hit PER fighter being fired upon. In essense, flying in formation in order to coordinate your weapon fire makes the fighters lose their +2 bonus for size modifiers.
Blue Ghost,
Mushashi was put under by air power alone too. Sibuyan Sea, 24 OCT 1944.
USS Sealion II did sink IJN Kongo on 21 NOV 1944. Sealion II hit the battleship with three torpedoes and damaged Kongo enough that a little over two hours later flooding forced her to slow to stop. Sealion II had been chasing her all that time and, as the submarine moved in to launch more torpedoes, Kongo heeled over, exploded, and sank.
You're dealing with a naval crank here. Traveller attracts us in spades.
Regards,
Bill
P.S. IJN designs seem to have had magazine and/or powder handling issues. Several IJN warships exploded while sinking, Yamato and Kongo being the most noticeable examples. To be fair, HMS Barham also exploded while sinking, but such explosions happened to the IJN far more often. IJN battleship Mutsu's #3 turret magazine actually exploded tearing the vessel in half while the ship was at anchor on 8 JUN 1943. There were over 100 air cadets aboard visiting at the time and most were lost, further exacerbating the IJN's lack of skilled air crews.
I note that from that site you referenced, both ships capsized as they sunk; I wonder if that relates to the additional submerged explosions at all.
Dean,
That's the way the smart money is being bet. HMS Barham capsized too just before she exploded. The night IJN Fuso and Yamashiro were sank at Surigao was very confused, but there are indications that they suffered explosions also.
On the other hand, we've plenty of accounts of other capital ships capsizing with no subsequent explosions; KMS Tirpitz, KMS Blucher, USS Utah, the IJN's Hiei and Kirishima, the list is quite extensive. The IJN just seems to have had more than their share of these incidents however.
Then there's the case of IJN Mutsu which exploded at anchor. No battleship in the post-dreadnought era managed to do that. The IJN hushed that event up so much that no real investigation ever occurred.
I've read some accounts blaming IJN powder storage techniques for this greater chance of explosions. I've also read accounts blaming an anti-aircraft round the IJN developed for use in battleship main batteries. I don't think we'll ever know why the IJN suffered so many explosions.
Regards,
Bill
