Fighters in YTU

[atpollard]

As an alternative method to make fighters [small pilot-only fighting ships] more flexible, allow greater than 6G acceleration. A real pilot can withstand in excess of 9 Gees for short periods of time. If Traveller can negate up to 6G, then a 15 G fighter is theoretically possible.

Even if the pilot could not endure sustained 15G performance, the rules would allow the ship to have an agility of 15. A fighter could cruise for a long time at 8G with an agility of up to 15 to avoid being hit.

It would be impractical to operate a large ship with the entire crew in g-suits and acceleration couches, so fighters would once again be small, fast and nimble.

I based these maximums on human endurance limits. The combat rules might require a lower limit for playability and the ship design rules could require a lower limit based on space requirements. But the concept is still valid.

Many rules were bent, but few have been broken.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LordVan:
Since I play the T20 rules...

That's your problem. The resto f us play Traveller and not Dungeons & Dragons in Space.</font>[/QUOTE]Bill,
I thought you have been previously warned about this kind of comment. T20 is Traveller. Stating or implying otherwise is:
1. Poor manners to our hosts, here.
2. Innaccurate according to the material posted by MWM on his website.
3. Inaccurate based on what is published within the actual T20 Handbook.
4. Inaccurate because Hunter purchased a license to produce Traveller material.
5. Shows that you haven't actually attempted to use the T20 rules because they actually give a closer feel to CT than any other version of Traveller.


Further your own comments on other parts of this website show that you don't even play Traveller. Apparently you just sit here to bait people. Personally I am surprised that you are still allowed to post here.

 

[LordVan]

Mr. Cameron,
Although I refrain from taking offense at your comment in regards to calling T20 Dungeons and Dragons in Space, I happen to like the T20 system for its completeness. It is one of the few scifi RPG's I have played with a way for simulating combat in space and on the ground and elsewhere that includes a form of economy for players to pay off the huge debts on the spacecraft they own. Although I have played Traveller 2300 and 2300ad, TNE, and the Original Traveller, I prefer the T20 system for its ease of use and compatibility. I fact their wound point/vitality point should be used to replace the extremely outdated hp system of D&D. I have played many scifi rpg's and by far Traveller is the best, and I use it for my own custom universe. That is the true beauty of the Taveller systems, in it allows you to customize to one's own preference, creating your own scifi universe to your own vision.

 

[flykiller]

Personally I am surprised that you are still allowed to post here.

I'm not. Cantankerous or not, Bill's posts are always, well, usually, worth reading.

Mr. Cameron

Manfully answered, sir.

 

[BetterThanLife]

As far as fighters and the Traveller rules go. Fighters are more difficult to hit than bigger ships. (There is a modifier to hit based on target size.) Part of that may be that the ship is better able to rotate over shorter distances and part of it may be that it is actually more difficult to hit the barn door than the broad side of a barn.

Saying that there is more stress on a bigger ship, or a bigger ship is harder to change direction is correct, if they have the same amount of engine thrust. But if the thrust is proportional, then they will maneuver the same in a Micro Gravity environment. In a microgravity environment the only momentum you would have to deal with is angular momentum. (Rotation of the object as the force experienced by the point furthest from the point of rotation will experience different force from a point close to the point of rotation.)

However for the atmosphere bound people here, consider the following. Is smaller actually more maneuverable in an atmosphere? That depends on how you look at it. An F-16 can turn slightly tighter than an F-15 in the horizontal, but the F-15 is clearly superior in the Vertical. The F-15 has a maximum take off weight of just under twice that of an F-16 and the F-15 has exactly twice the thrust of the F-16. The F-16 lacks the sophisticated EW systems, targeting systems and other high tech refinements. Further the F-15 has half again as much range as the F-16, roughly twice the weapon load and is quite a bit faster.

In fact the F-15 has proven so good in air combat that the F-16, which was designed specifically for Air Combat, is largely delegated to close air support missions.

In fact while the F-15 is being replaced by the F-22, the F-16 is the last of its kind.

Smaller isn't necessarily better.

 

[Ptah]

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....

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

OR you can assume, even if against a canon reference, that the "thrust" can be applied along any axis. A couple of ways come to mind one is the emitter portion of the drive takes up only a fraction of the drive total, the bulk is located in the engineering section and power is just shunted to the appropriate emitter.

A couple of others include the mentioned inenrtial compensators, placing the squishy parts at the center of rotation, etc.

Your physics are certainly correct with respect to the further away from the center/axis of rotation the greater force, but have you calculated these numbers? You might find that at least the materials can take it, even if the squishy parts can't.

In sort, it doesn't take ignoring the laws of physics, even with a drive which must rely on heretofore unknown physics, to provide a reasoned explaination of Traveller precepts.

Whether you like the role that assigns to fighters or not is another question. But you can certainly change the rules to give fighters whatever role you desire and people will suggest changes that can achieve that if you don't have any yourself. I think CotI smiles on house-rule as there are plenty of he+ around here.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by 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.

...

Aramis, not to selectively quote, but this observation could also be the reason for size modifiers to hit, not due to the physical cross-section but the large probability cone for smaller ships all other things being equal.

At the distances of stellar combat, a 10 meter cross-section isn't much different from a 100 meter cross-section or larger. The signature and the probability cone are much more likely to dominate your ability to hit.

 

[BetterThanLife]

One other minor little point. In HG and MT two equal fighters can not normally score a hit against each other. Making fighters even useless against themselves.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by atpollard:
As an alternative method to make fighters [small pilot-only fighting ships] more flexible, allow greater than 6G acceleration.

I think this is reasonable.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
As an alternative method to make fighters [small pilot-only fighting ships] more flexible, allow greater than 6G acceleration.

I think this is reasonable. </font>[/QUOTE]I concur, and wish I had seen atpollards suggestions before my last posts. It's the approach I take in house-rules and actually like to bring the big ship (100,000+ dTon) G down to 4G max so as not have to raise the fighter and missile so much.

I also use the idea of trading agility for targeting, at least with fixed weapons, which is what a fighter usually has. Niether of which are unique house-rules.

There was once a thread on grouping ship fire, as well as ways to get them better hit chances /sensor locks.

 

[mike wightman]

In first edition High Guard it was implied that fighters fought as a squadron unit.

The rules didn't really clarify this much

Allowing fighters to attack as squadrons, with higher effective attack factors (and, as Oz once suggested, higher computer ratings) helps to redress the balance.

 

[far-trader]

Here's a thought my brain just flashed on...

In HG terms since that comes easiest to mind...

How about if "Fighters" (basically any attacking craft much smaller than the target, say a difference in Target Size DM) is allowed a special attack form (bear with me... ) which we'll call point blank (by all means suggest a better term if you have one).

To make a point blank attack the Fighter must first move to close range. For purposes of Fighter attacks when determining Initiative the side with the smaller ships (as determined by comparing the largest ships of each in the line) is granted a plus 1 per size difference.

Once Fighters have moved to close range by winning initiative they declare their point blank attack.

The defender can then choose to stand or break-off by jumping.

If the defender chooses to stand they may fire at the Fighters. The Fighters may not fire this turn.

In the next turn any surviving Fighters may attack the defenders that did not break-off by jumping. This attack is made with no defense (active, passive or armor) applied. Further the defender may not attack Fighters in this turn.

In the turn following the point blank attack the Fighters are automatically at long range and the defender has the initiative.

Does anyone think this looks like a root solution to make Fighters a force to be reckoned with again yet not too unbalancing? You know, so that all those cannon Carrier designs don't seem so implausible without resorting to tricks of agility limits and squadron bonuses and such. It may need some tweaking so that the attack run isn't too suicidal for the Fighters or too devestating for the defender. And I may be overlooking something since it's just off the top of my head.

Comments?

 

[flykiller]

How about if "Fighters" ... is allowed a special attack form ... which we'll call point blank (by all means suggest a better term if you have one).

I toyed around with that idea, called it contact range. gave up on it for two reasons. 1) space is big, and many combat turns will elapse before fighters can achieve contact range, and 2) if the fighters hit more often at contact range then so do the enemy ship's defenses, and the fighters get slaughtered.

 

[veltyen]

2) if the fighters hit more often at contact range then so do the enemy ship's defenses, and the fighters get slaughtered.

Flykiller, the secret is to stay so close that

1. Other ships cannot fire on the fighters without potentially damaging their own ship.

2. The ship you are attacking with the fighters can only get a limited number of weapons to bear on the fighters, who conversely can fire all of theirs.

Only useful against very large ships though. That and "collided with target" is going to be very common with the range measured in metres rather then kilometres.

 

[flykiller]

The ship you are attacking with the fighters can only get a limited number of weapons to bear on the fighters, who conversely can fire all of theirs.

if the fighters are bunched up on one side, yeah. but then all the larger ship has to do is roll to uncover unused batteries.

"collided with target" is going to be very common with the range measured in metres rather then kilometres.

ships with big closing vectors leaping around with agility ratings of 4 to 6 may have proximity issues, yes. playing chicken might even be a standard tactic of a heavily armored ship facing incoming fighters.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by flykiller:
if the fighters are bunched up on one side, yeah. but then all the larger ship has to do is roll to uncover unused batteries.

Ahh, but if ships could roll in HG combat there would be no need to figure batteries bearing, and damage from lasers could be mitigated by denying much time to burn through the hull at a given point

 

[BetterThanLife]

Mass fighters at those ranges are going to have issues running into each other, while avoiding the outbound AAA. Further armor and screens aren't going to be less effective at those ranges. Against some weapons they will actually be more effective. (Nukes rendered harmless before they are even launched, comes to mind.)

If those rules were to reflect actual starship combat then large combatants would also adopt weapons to deal with that kind of fighter attack. Mass drivers and MRLs would be extremely effective against this kind of attack, kind of like using a shotgun against a bat that thinks the pellets are a bunch of mosquitos. For ships without dampers but serious armor, small nukes detonated off the skin of the large ship would kill fighters in droves with no appreciable damage to the large ship. Use the Zero-G equivalent to barrage Balloons is another option.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flykiller:
if the fighters are bunched up on one side, yeah. but then all the larger ship has to do is roll to uncover unused batteries.

Ahh, but if ships could roll in HG combat there would be no need to figure batteries bearing, and damage from lasers could be mitigated by denying much time to burn through the hull at a given point

</font>[/QUOTE]If I remember correctly, there was a size cutoff for batteries bearing in CT High Guard. Ships below a certain size could bring all of it's batteries to bear in one round. It is not too great of a streach to assume that this is due to the ability to roll by small ships and the inability to roll by large ships. (Although I freely admit that other explanations are quite possible).

 

[flykiller]

It is not too great of a streach to assume that this is due to the ability to roll by small ships and the inability to roll by large ships.

it is indeed too big of a stretch. a ship with 6G can't roll in a twenty minute turn?

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Arthur Denger:
Now you are equating engine thrust with acceleration.

Didn't you understand anything from a few pages ago? Apply a given thrust to a given mass and you'll produce a given acceleration. Thrust does equate 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?

Newton help us. You still don't understand, do you? There's a gross conceptual error at work here, isn't there?

...not ready to have the Law of Inertia repealed just yet.

Good sweet Christ. The US school system has failed another one. </font>[/QUOTE]

One must not be tempted to blame the quality of the institution or the quality of the instruction for the intellectual failings of the individual.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Personal computers were all but non-existent when the game came out and pocket calculators were expensive. The game was designed to be played with a paper and pencil. Strict accuracy was modified for ease of play. The same is true with any game.

I completely agree.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
In Traveller, given enough power, a battleship is as 'agile' as a fighter. This seems counterintuitive to our real world experiences, but those real world experiences do not take place in a vacuum. Agility in Traveller works the same way as gee ratings; X amount of power will provide a 100 dTon ship with a certain agility and six times that amount will provide a 600 dTon ship with the same agility.

Shhould (sic) a million dTon skyscraper be able to flip end for end or slew as rapidly as a 10 dTon fighter? Given enough power it theorectically (sic) can, although the stresses involved would be incrediable. However, that million ton behemoth needn't flip as fast as the fighter to have the same agility rating for game purposes. A CT combat turn is 16.67 minutes and a HG2 combat turn is 20 minutes. That gives the behemoth plenty of time to 'jink'. Again, strict accuracy - accuracy that would require computerized gaming aids that weren't available in the late 70s - was modified for ease of play.

Intuition may be a boon or a bane (just ask anyone who has encountered the Zhodani, chirpers or anolas!). I fear in this instance, mine is working against me. The (innate?) 'atmospheric prejudice' you have referred to has not been helped by Hollywood; I can think of few tewdies, other than 2001:A Space Odyssey, which even make the attempt to simulate realistic vector motion in the vaccuum of space. Perhaps you have missed your calling: you should have been a technical advisor for Lucasfilm!

Are there specific computerized gaming aids which you would recommend, in this case?

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
I hope this finally puts this topic to rest.

What? When we were just getting started? This is way too much fun!