Fighters in YTU

[Maladominus]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
The rest of us play Traveller and not Dungeons & Dragons in Space.

LMAO. Classic quote, Bill, classic.

I always knew you were a savage, Bill. I'm quite certain that Diplomacy-4 skill is not among your repertoire of skills.

But at least you tell it like it is..... and in the end, that's the only thing that counts.

 

[Scott Martin]

Hey Bill

You can (in CT) Build a TL-15 fighter that carries a Model/9 and a fusion gun (or two) which can actually hit a CT capital ship. If said Cap ships have all dumped armour as "useless weight" then theis type of fighter will do Bad Things to a fleet so equipped.

Of course this is an artifact of CT allowing all ships to carry the same armour value regardless of their size (yup, CT has its holes too) but this is a viable design that can hit cap ships.

Of course you could argue that the only role that such a fighter holds is "keeping designers honest" but I tend to keep a few cap ships with spinal PAW's around for the same reason

And Mal, I think that "Sarcasm-5" can be used as an enabling skill for Diplomacy, but methinks not in this particular case

Scott Martin

 

[flykiller]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Now for the other editions of Traveller I will admit they suck.

You really do have d20 tunnel vision, don't you? There are other ways to play RPGs and other systems with which to play them.</font>[/QUOTE]actually, I think by "they suck" he meant fighters, not the rulesets.

 

[atpollard]

How crazy is it to argue that a small ship should not be able to even hit a large ship because the large ship is too agile?

Imagine that a cigarette racing boat tried to intercept a battleship, but the battleship simply outmaneuvered the racing boat because it had a much bigger computer system on board.

Sounds to me like something in the rules is broken.

 

[veltyen]

How crazy is it to argue that a small ship should not be able to even hit a large ship because the large ship is too agile?

Talking about wetships rather then vacships this isn't out of the question.

Bigger ships are faster then smaller ships.

That's your problem. The resto f us play Traveller and not Dungeons & Dragons in Space.

Y'know Bill, I'm pretty sure all versions of Traveller have wizards and gods. Just called psykers and ancients.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
LMAO. Classic quote, Bill, classic

Mal,

I've reached the age where I no longer suffer fools gladly.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by atpollard:
How crazy is it to argue that a small ship should not be able to even hit a large ship because the large ship is too agile?

Atpollard,

Your atmospheric prejudices are showing.

Please re-read the earlier parts of this thread in which Mr. Denger was given a physics refresher.

If you have the thrust, you have the agility. Period. 10 tons, 1 million tons, it doesn't matter.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[flykiller]

but the battleship simply outmaneuvered the racing boat because it had a much bigger computer system on board.

well the bigger computer is supposed to result in better predictions, better interceptions, and better electronic warfare.

Sounds to me like something in the rules is broken.

if you can say exactly which rule or rules are broken, go for it.

perhaps something along the lines of drive power increases linearly while hull mass increases geometrically.

 

[selunatic2397]

Truthfully, none of my games have had a strong fighter presence...

The smallest ship I've had in my current campaigns is a variant of the "Rumble Fish" hull design.

My players fitted it out as an elint trawler, but did add some guns for some offense...since it ended up as a stripped down stealth job.

Although described by Iron Horse as "A Trawler...Not A Brawler", she did get 2 combat kills in an ambush predator style though.

If I needed a fighter, I usually used a Gazelle instead...the 2 particle barbettes tended to scare my players more than anything else.

type at ya later...selunatic2397

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />but the battleship simply outmaneuvered the racing boat because it had a much bigger computer system on board.

well the bigger computer is supposed to result in better predictions, better interceptions, and better electronic warfare.

Sounds to me like something in the rules is broken.

if you can say exactly which rule or rules are broken, go for it.
</font>[/QUOTE]The law of conservation of momentum was thrown out the window to simplify starship design. I don't think it can be fixed.

perhaps something along the lines of drive power increases linearly while hull mass increases geometrically.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
How crazy is it to argue that a small ship should not be able to even hit a large ship because the large ship is too agile?

Atpollard,

Your atmospheric prejudices are showing.

Please re-read the earlier parts of this thread in which Mr. Denger was given a physics refresher.

If you have the thrust, you have the agility. Period. 10 tons, 1 million tons, it doesn't matter. </font>[/QUOTE]Someone needs to refresh the refreshers. Everything said about equal acceleration applies only along the primary axis. If the ship (fighter or dreadnaught) tries to turn then bending and shear forces will be encountered.

Given two flying bricks of equal proportions, ship 1 (S1) is half the size of ship 2(S2)in every dimension. Both Ships are capable of 6G acceleration.

S2 has eight times the mass and volume of S1. Both ships attempt a tight turn by rotating their engines and applying maximum thrust at a right angle to the spine of the ship to cause the ship to pivot around it's center of mass. The moment exerted on the end of S2 will be 16 times the moment exerted on S1 (2 times the length x 8 times the thrust). The critical dimension for resisting the internal forces (shear and bending) is the height of the ship. Since S2 is twice as tall as S1, S2 is able to resist between 4 times and 8 times the internal stress of S1. Unfortunately the forces on S2 are 16 times the forces on S1 but it can only resist 4 to 8 times the stress. Ship 1 completes the turn, but Ship 2 tears itself in half.

Ship 2 must be designed for 8 times the stress of Ship 1.

Or Ship 2 must turn slower than Ship 1.

Or Traveller must waive its hands once again and say "ignore the laws of physics, they do not apply here".

Agility (the ability to rapidly change direction) appears to be inversely proportional to the square of the mass of the ship.

Arthur.

 

[Arthur Denger]

"There are no facts, only interpretations." — Friedrich Nietzsche, Solomani philosopher

Originally posted by Arthur Denger:

I think some of the roles offered up in this discussion do not even meet the basic criteria based on the definition of 'fighter'...

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
That's due more to the atmospheric prejudices you invest in the term 'fighter' than anything else.

We could call them sub-100dTon warships but fighter is quicker.

I think part of the problem here is semantics: when you say sub-100dTon warship, I immediately think, gunboat. It has nothing to do with 'atmospheric prejudice', as you term it: fighters are by definition, "small, fast, highly maneuverable". The italics are mine, but the definition belongs to Webster. I have found nothing in the CT, MT or TNE canon to contradict that definition, (though I cannot comment on the other rulesets).

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

The topic is only controversial when people speak in absolutes; i.e. fighters are always good or bad regardless of tech level, or when people are unaware of the physics involved; i.e. smaller means more 'agile' regardless of engine thrust.

Now you are equating engine thrust with acceleration. At the risk of sounding pedantic, there really is no such thing as thrust without a mass to push against, and that mass has intrinsic inertia, does it not? Design all the tables, spreadsheets and sub-100dTon warships you please, but in the end their 'agility rating' still depends wholly on some type of 'cold fusion gravitics technology' which (at present, anyway) is in the same scientific category as FTL and The Force. Hey wait — that may just be another name for it. ...not ready to have the Law of Inertia repealed just yet.

 

[atpollard]

Without re-writing the traveller rules, I suggest that ships over 1000 dTons should be capable of a maximum agility equal to their acceleration (agility 6 maximum).

Ships from 100 to 1000 dTons should be capable of a maximum agility equal to twice their acceleration (agility 12 maximum).

Ships below 100 dTons should be capable of a maximum agility equal to three times their acceleration (agility 18 maximum).

Acceleration remains unaffected, but fighters become more nimble than small ships, and small ships become more nimbe than large ships.

 

[flykiller]

... should be capable of a maximum agility equal to three times their acceleration (agility 18 maximum).

uh, hang on.

1) there is no way a ship is going to have an agility higher than its acceleration rating.

2) in HG2 at least, a ship with agility 18 is going to be absolutely invulnerable to all existing traveller weapons unless the rules are completely rewritten. major task.

Or Traveller must waive its hands once again and say "ignore the laws of physics, they do not apply here".

wouldn't bother me. traveller is after all an RPG.

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by atpollard:
Someone needs to refresh the refreshers. Everything said about equal acceleration applies only along the primary axis. If the ship (fighter or dreadnaught) tries to turn then bending and shear forces will be encountered...

Given two flying bricks of equal proportions, ship 1 (S1) is half the size of ship 2(S2)in every dimension. Both Ships are capable of 6G acceleration.

S2 has eight times the mass and volume of S1. Both ships attempt a tight turn by rotating their engines and applying maximum thrust at a right angle to the spine of the ship to cause the ship to pivot around it's center of mass...

Ship 2 must be designed for 8 times the stress of Ship 1.

Or Ship 2 must turn slower than Ship 1.

Or Traveller must waive [sic] its hands once again and say "ignore the laws of physics, they do not apply here".

Agility (the ability to rapidly change direction) appears to be inversely proportional to the square of the mass of the ship.

Arthur.

Great illustration! One of the best things about the LBBs (IMHO) is that while they necessarily sacrifice much of the hard physics & math to aid playability, at no point do they just throw science out the window altogether, making it possible for the ref to allow a 'fudge factor' (that beloved dimensionless quantity!). Do players want trajectory calculations carried out to the nth decimal place? If so, maybe they should go to work for JPL, NASA or ESA. Players want to suspend reality, not be divorced from it! Some things stand to reason in the physical universe (even in the far future), while others do not. Those rules which do not pass the 'basic common sense' test should be amended, altered or axed, by the ref if need be: that's his job.

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by atpollard:
Without re-writing the traveller rules...

...Acceleration remains unaffected, but fighters become more nimble than small ships, and small ships become more nimbe than large ships.

I question how your numbers would play out, but I think your premise is a valid one.

 

[aramis]

No, quite simply, the design rules do not account for the ability to bring thrust to bear on a new vector.

In CT, the difference between a few seconds and half a minute is below the time resolution of the turn-scales (Bk2 is several minutes minutes; Mayday is an hour!)

Agility is NOT ability to bring the nose around, OR agility is broken and needs revision to reflect the slower come-around of big ships.

it should, however, be noted that the ability to deflect one's axis of thrust in a short time will affect the shape of the probable location circle, which, given the ranges, is a potential miss. For a battleship, the cone of movement at CT engagement ranges is still within the initial cross-sectional area.... Mind you, this is based upon time-to-target and time to sensor calcs. Above about 40 tons, your probable location cone is smaller than your cross-section, and so agility becomes unimportant in avoiding hits.

Distance moved calculation for a ship being fired at with lasers and assuming full-aspect thrust:
(0.5(C + (2xD)))^2 x (10 x A)
D is distance in LS
A in Traveller G's (canonically 10m/s/s instead of 9.8m/s/s, hence the preceding 10)
C is calculation time to fire.

You calc for time to target, given canonical CT fighters, has to move you at least 2m to allow for a miss by anything other than calculation error or targeting resolution issues. At 6G, you need at least 0.18 seconds to be off location, or about 0.09+ LS.

For a ship of 100 Td, you will need about 10+m, so that's 1/6th of a 6g maneuver-second, or about .55 sec, for about 0.275 LS.

For a ship of 1000Td, you need about 20m... about 0.7 seconds, or 0.35LS

as the ship gets bigger, the ability to get out of it's own initial position takes longer and longer ranges.

This justifies fighters, especially ones with small frontal aspects...

but just barely.

The ability to damage, however, is the reciprocal of the ability to hit.

Note also: real-world G's make the calcs slightly longer ranges... but not major.

Bill's tirade not withstanding, size DOES matter.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by atpollard:
Someone needs to refresh the refreshers. Everything said about equal acceleration applies only along the primary axis. If the ship (fighter or dreadnaught) tries to turn then bending and shear forces will be encountered.

[snip]

Agility (the ability to rapidly change direction) appears to be inversely proportional to the square of the mass of the ship.

Arthur.

Traveller ships are protected from lateral forces due to movement by their acceleration compensators...

it's a handwave alright

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Arthur Denger:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
Without re-writing the traveller rules...

...Acceleration remains unaffected, but fighters become more nimble than small ships, and small ships become more nimbe than large ships.

I question how your numbers would play out, but I think your premise is a valid one.

</font>[/QUOTE]I probably got the solution backwards. From a game mechanics perspective, it might be better to allow sub 100 dTon ships to have a maximum agility of 6, 100 to 1000 dTon ships a maximum agility of 3 and ships over 1000 dTons a maximum agility of 1.

Agility 12, 6 and 3 might also work.

 

[atpollard]

What do you think agility is?

How does a ship use agility to avoid being hit if agility does not represent the ability of a ship to rotate and apply its thrust in a new vector. Is this not how a ship "jinks"?

The concept that [a larger ship turns slower than a small ship, but this does not affect agility because the combat round is so long] sounds problematic.