Fighters in YTU

[atpollard]

I am not sure I communicated my point very well in my earlier post, so please excuse me while I try again.

An aircraft with less than 2G of thrust can use it's airframe to alter it's course by 90 degrees at 9G of lateral turning force.

A spacecraft with 2G of thrust could vector his thrust 90 degrees and alter it's course by 90 degrees at only 2G of lateral force. The aircraft will make a tighter 90 degree change of course than the spacecraft.

If the spacecraft had the Classic Traveller maximum 6G thrust, it could vector its thrust 90 degrees and alter it's course by 90 degrees at 6G of lateral force. The aircraft will still make a tighter 90 degree change of course than the spacecraft.

Therefore, given the above observations, an aircraft with a 2G engine is more maneuverable than a spacecraft with a 6G engine. Aircraft are simply more maneuverable than spacecraft.


PS. Thank you for the clarification on maximum aircraft thrust. I knew that there were a few aircraft capable of sustained vertical flight (greater than 1G thrust) and I was pretty sure that they were not above 2G acceleration, but I did not know what the exact figures were.

 

[Whipsnade]

Gentlemen,

First, my most sincere apologies to everyone involved in this thread. I have not been myself since returning from Nigeria.

Next:

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
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.

Bruce - I know we tangled over your claims regarding the 'stopping power' of handguns. The link to the FBI Academy report I posted pretty much destroyed your anecdotal evidence. However, I did not realize you felt this strongly. You have my apologies for any slight on my part; actual or percieved.

It is true that I no longer play Traveller on a regular basis. However, I did play the game regularly between 1978 and 1995/96. I got 'stuck' GMing early on and mostly played on that 'side' of the table.

Since the break up of my last purely RPG gaming group, I've run various 'one offs' for the wargaming and minis groups I belong to along with quick Traveller scenarios at various game nights and mini 'cons. Just this summer before leaving the US on business, I ran a modified version of Across the Bright Face as a scenario generator for squad level, minis combat. Earlier this year I also helped referee d20 'gladiator' nights at a local FLGS.

T20 is d20 rules in a Traveller setting. I strongly believe that Traveller is much more than a setting however. It is also a certain style of RPG play, a certain tone or feel.

Speaking as someone who remembers when RPGs began in the 1970s, Traveller was very different. All of them, D&D, Tunnels and Trolls, even Chainmail, presented player-charecters as larger-than-life figures, figures who could kill 'normals' with little or no worry. Even the very early, three-levels-only, D&D operated in this manner. In every RPG other than Traveller, PCs were extraordinary people in extraordinary situations.

I remember playing those games and then playing Traveller. The very first combat session opened our eyes and caused us to fall in love with the game. The game mind you, not the setting. There was no setting to speak of until JTAS began publication and LBB:5 came out.

Traveller was different because the PCs are ordinary people in extraodrinary situations. The only difference between PCs and NPCs wasn't some level, feat, or other gizmo marked down a page. The difference was in the player's mind and the rules. The ruels weren't automatically stacked against the NPCs, it was up to the player to out think the NPC and not merely rely on a level, a feat, or some other trick the rules allowed only him to use.

Because of this, I don't consider T20 to actually be Traveller. It is an RPG in the OTU setting, nothing more. My opinion of GT is much the same. In GURPS, PCs are routinely built at higher point totals than normals, something that simply isn't Traveller.

Both are great RPG rules and both are not Traveller.

As for FFE pronouncing T20 and GT canonical, Paranoia Press' work was canonical once too, ditto the fleet budget rules in TCS, and ditto many other products, articles, and rules. Seen a winged minor human race in the Beyond Sector lately?

That's my take on this. I'll be signing out of this thread now. Again, my apologies to all.


Sincerely,
Bill

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Gentlemen,

First, my most sincere apologies to everyone involved in this thread. I have not been myself since returning from Nigeria.

Next:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
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.

Bruce - I know we tangled over your claims regarding the 'stopping power' of handguns. The link to the FBI Academy report I posted pretty much destroyed your anecdotal evidence. However, I did not realize you felt this strongly. You have my apologies for any slight on my part; actual or percieved.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually that is water long under the bridge. The slight to our host here bothers me more than anything else you have ever said. And knowing that you continue to do that, even in this post, in spite of being told to not do that by the mods. It is in bad taste and as I pointed out, inaccurate.

T20 is d20 rules in a Traveller setting. I strongly believe that Traveller is much more than a setting however. It is also a certain style of RPG play, a certain tone or feel.

Speaking as someone who remembers when RPGs began in the 1970s, Traveller was very different. All of them, D&D, Tunnels and Trolls, even Chainmail, presented player-charecters as larger-than-life figures, figures who could kill 'normals' with little or no worry. Even the very early, three-levels-only, D&D operated in this manner. In every RPG other than Traveller, PCs were extraordinary people in extraordinary situations.

I remember playing those games and then playing Traveller. The very first combat session opened our eyes and caused us to fall in love with the game. The game mind you, not the setting. There was no setting to speak of until JTAS began publication and LBB:5 came out.

Traveller was different because the PCs are ordinary people in extraodrinary situations. The only difference between PCs and NPCs wasn't some level, feat, or other gizmo marked down a page. The difference was in the player's mind and the rules. The ruels weren't automatically stacked against the NPCs, it was up to the player to out think the NPC and not merely rely on a level, a feat, or some other trick the rules allowed only him to use.

Because of this, I don't consider T20 to actually be Traveller. It is an RPG in the OTU setting, nothing more. My opinion of GT is much the same. In GURPS, PCs are routinely built at higher point totals than normals, something that simply isn't Traveller.

Both are great RPG rules and both are not Traveller.

As for FFE pronouncing T20 and GT canonical, Paranoia Press' work was canonical once too, ditto the fleet budget rules in TCS, and ditto many other products, articles, and rules. Seen a winged minor human race in the Beyond Sector lately?

That's my take on this. I'll be signing out of this thread now. Again, my apologies to all.

Actually this is precisely why I like T20. It isn't D&D in space. It may use similar rules as a base but anyone that tries to play with the same attitude as they would play in D&D is still in for the same shock as going from D&D to CT. (I started a little later than you did, D&D in Fall of 1979 Traveller in Spring of 1980.) It may look like something strange an unusual but it plays like CT. IMHO it is closer to a CT feel than even MT. It even puts the small ship combat back into a thing that works. T20 starship combat breaks at the other end, which is annoying for some of us that like big ships but when dealing with typical Traveller, as FASA called them, Adventure Class Ships, works well.

I suggest that you actually break out the rules and game a couple of sessions before you pronounce it "Not Real Traveller!" The rules on the surface, look like they could be what you claim they are, but in practical game play doesn't work that way. Further you can abuse any game system if the GM lets you.

Combat in T20 compared to CT, you don't go down quite as fast in T20 as you did in CT (In CT, the first hit generally putting you down, regardless of armor.) and Brawls can be truly epic in T20, but getting shot or stabbed, will hurt and getting shot twice, regardless of the weapon or the person shooting it will kill most unarmored people. (And even armor will only keep you standing for so long, unlike MT.)

Back to the topic at hand, 2 seat fighters in T20 actually have a role and, unlike LBB5 and MT can shoot each other down. In large numbers they can seriously damage lightly armored capital ships and Ships with real Armor can pretty much ignore them, but only pretty much. Against real armor there are rules for squadron firing missions, which extends the Fighter usefulness, though only in vast numbers, even farther. (Though the typical Fleet Carrier Wing won't do much more than get shot up by a CruRon of Atlantics plus escorts.)

Fighters in T20 work better than they do in LBB5 or later. Though they still have some serious limitations and are still not generally worth the time, energy or money to field them in a Naval Engagement, but to herd Merchants, or for Close Air Support they are right for the job.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by atpollard:
I am not sure I communicated my point very well in my earlier post, so please excuse me while I try again.

An aircraft with less than 2G of thrust can use it's airframe to alter it's course by 90 degrees at 9G of lateral turning force.

But that is only maneuvering on one axis. A 6G fighter may not be able to turn with that +/- 9G lateral acceleration on the X-Axis, but when it comes to maneuvering in the vertical (Y-Axis), or pure acceleration (Z Axis), the Airframe is in serious trouble. Further because the Thrust of the 6G fighter need not be applied along the direction of flight, it is likely to actually be able to turn inside that 9G turn. Remember the most important Fighter Jock Axiom, "Speed is life!" To pull a 9G turn you are bleeding off serious energy and velocity. A full 9G turn is generally a Pitch up, hard bank and slow, then nose over and tight spiral down (generally flying about 3/4 inverted), trading both speed and altitude for that turn. A 6G fighter (Even a 2G Merchant) can go vertical roll and come down inside your "Max Performance Turn," surrendering neither Energy nor altitude. (Which is how F-4 pilots were taught to beat MIGs, or P40 and other US WWII fighters, except the P51s were taught to beat Zeros.)

A spacecraft with 2G of thrust could vector his thrust 90 degrees and alter it's course by 90 degrees at only 2G of lateral force. The aircraft will make a tighter 90 degree change of course than the spacecraft.

If the spacecraft had the Classic Traveller maximum 6G thrust, it could vector its thrust 90 degrees and alter it's course by 90 degrees at 6G of lateral force. The aircraft will still make a tighter 90 degree change of course than the spacecraft.

Therefore, given the above observations, an aircraft with a 2G engine is more maneuverable than a spacecraft with a 6G engine. Aircraft are simply more maneuverable than spacecraft.

Not exactly. See above. It sounds like it should be, but it isn't an accurate assessment. And that is in the atmosphere, outside of the atmosphere the aircraft has no maneuverability.

PS. Thank you for the clarification on maximum aircraft thrust. I knew that there were a few aircraft capable of sustained vertical flight (greater than 1G thrust) and I was pretty sure that they were not above 2G acceleration, but I did not know what the exact figures were.

No Problem. I had to do some looking to get the figures for the F-22 I knew the F-15 was only about 1.1G and that used to be about as good as it got.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
And knowing that you continue to do that, even in this post, in spite of being told to not do that by the mods.

Bruce,

Because I'm on your ignore list, I've had to pop back in here to respond to this.

No COTI moderator has ever contacted me for any reason or commented on any of my posts. Seeing as the site has only had mods for less than a year, I'd guess that very few have been contacted by the mods in any fashion.

My opinions regarding T20 are well known and those opinions have never been held against me by QLI. I'd guess they'd rather have someone who presents constructive criticism than just another syncophant.

YMMV.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[BetterThanLife]

There doesn't appear to be a way to clear an ignore list. (And it doesn't do what I thought it would when I did that.) PM's I don't mind. If I could ignore people in the forums then it would have utility.

The particular comment I was referring to are the first two entries by MJD of this page in this thread.

 

[mike wightman]

Go to "my profile" at the top of the page. Click on it.

On your profile screen you will find a way to do it. Between the “My Profile” section and the “Incoming Private Messages” section you will find two buttons labelled as "Ignore List / Buddy List", just above “Unread messages are in bold”.

Clicking on "Ignore List" takes you to the screen to manage your ignored users (which only affects PMs).

 

[BetterThanLife]

Thanks Sigg,
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion on fighters.