Fighters other than the Rampart

[sabredog]

I am deleting this previous post because sometimes I can be an a$$hat and this was one of those days. So I shouldn't have taken a cheap shot at Blue Ghost - this is not because he wanted an apology, but because I am making one to him. He doesn't owe me one.

So... on with the discussion.


But there still should be torpedo armed fighters in Traveller dang it and I'll challenge anyone to swords or pistols and greass before breakfats if they say otherwise!

 

[Blue Ghost]

And given that fighters dominate from TL8 through to TL12/13, I personally think by TL14/15, its timely that the Dreadnought gets some time in the spotlight again.

& the reason Dreadnoughts do not fare well, during those earlier centuries? Fighters are simply too effective at mission killing them.

I like fighters & thats a big reason why I enjoy gaming at TL12/13. If you want fighters to be meaningful in a game based on the OTU, stop playing at TL15.

*nods*

I'm not that good at huge spaceship battle stuff, and have read that fighters become ineffective at those scales (tech and size), but could you or someone give me a real gameplay example of what happens to fighters at TL15?

 

[robject]

While we have "missiles", they're not kinetic kill missiles. We don't have kinetic kill weapons in the starship game, in any of the systems.

...

So, a 10 ton fighter, with reasonable mass, accelerating at 6G and colliding with another vessel -- that's just a bright flash and OMG Sparkle Ponies time. In that way, a "fighter" can be a ship killer.

Save, we don't have a system to support that.

We do, tho the entire system (T5) has parts yet to be finalized. It does, however, show how to calculate and inflict kinetic (collision) damage, and has kinetic kill missiles as one of the missile types. In very broad terms, damage is volume, in tons, times speed squared, where speed is on a band-like scale, akin to range bands. (This works, with a minor adjustment, for vehicles and animals as well as spacecraft). So the ten ton fighter smashing into a ship at speed 10, relative to the target, inflicts 1000 points of damage, which would probably result in a critical hit to ships under a few thousand tons. Things get even more devastating when two ships collide head-on.

 

[warwizard]

just calculate the ergs of energy and drop them into the kenetic penetrator warhead table in FF&S II, my 80 G for 1 1/2 hr 250 Kg missile had something like 18,000 damage value where 1 DV penetrates one armour value (1 cm of coherent superdense is 32 AV or something real close to that. let's see that's enough to get through about 6 meters of armour, and incidentally bodilly move a BB a few meters per second with the KE transfer. any surface feature at that point would take heavy damage if not get destroyed completely. Machinery takes something like 10-20 DV per ton of mass (140 to 280 DV per displacement ton for the CT folks) A typical target would be a 19,000 ton light BR with AV=480 that's 15 CM of coherent superdense. A KE missile strike by one of these will blow through the armour with 17,500 DV left and destroy some 70 DT of machinery. A 1/14 73 DV laser will only destroy 2 cubic meters of machinery by comparision. while one hit would not usually be a kill, 14 or so would be 5% of the ship's internals destroyed, and likley to be a mission kill. Battle of Jutland irl generally took the accumulated damage of 20 to 30 battleship shells to sink the battleships, but each hit took out several compartments and generally killed everybody in them, and had less than .1% of the energy of this KK missile. (WWI BB were in the 1000 to 2000 traveller DT range).

 

[steventirey1985]

But there still should be torpedo armed fighters in Traveller dang it and I'll challenge anyone to swords or pistols and greass before breakfats if they say otherwise!

For what it is worth, Mongoose Traveller does allow for torpedo armed fighters. (Normal missiles deal 1d6 damage, nuclear missiles deal 2d6. Normal torpedos do 4d6, while nuclear torpedos deal 6d6. With max armor rating equal to the ships TL, even a normal torpedo could possibly damage a heavily armed ship.) Though most fighters (in the 10-30 ton range) can only carry one, and they each take up 2.5 tons. And since they can be shot down like normal missiles, they are only useful against a military ship if you have multiple fighters launching to overcome the targets point defense. A single torpedo fired by a single fighter against a ship with active point defense will still be useless.

So Mongoose Traveller does allow for ship-killing missiles (or at least ship-heavily damaging missiles. Only a possible kill shot if the ship is already heavily damaged), but you still need flights of fighters to make them useful. Though if they were willing to give up 5 tons of space, and get a slightly larger power plant, they could mount a particle beam barbette also doing 4d6 (same as a torpedo), but which has unlimited shots and isn't affected by point defense. But as the P-Beam barbette and the minimum required power plant take up 9.5 tons, this isn't an option for your typical 10-ton fighter. Would have to be 40 tons to be able to mount it. (P-beam barbettes are treated as 2 ship weapons when mounted on a small craft, and a small craft must be at least 40 tons to get 2 weapon slots. For reference, a fighter would also have to be 40 tons to carry 2 torpedos. So once you get to that size, the barbettes are a better option.)

 

[McPerth]

(...) & of course pilot limits are put in precisely to avoid tournament fighter fests, the authors knowing how effective fighters are.

That's why I said my previously stated fighter/drones (see post 22) would be considered by some people as cheatin the system in BCS/TCS tournment...

For what it is worth, Mongoose Traveller does allow for torpedo armed fighters. (Normal missiles deal 1d6 damage, nuclear missiles deal 2d6. Normal torpedos do 4d6, while nuclear torpedos deal 6d6. With max armor rating equal to the ships TL, even a normal torpedo could possibly damage a heavily armed ship.) Though most fighters (in the 10-30 ton range) can only carry one, and they each take up 2.5 tons. And since they can be shot down like normal missiles, they are only useful against a military ship if you have multiple fighters launching to overcome the targets point defense. A single torpedo fired by a single fighter against a ship with active point defense will still be useless.

So Mongoose Traveller does allow for ship-killing missiles (or at least ship-heavily damaging missiles. Only a possible kill shot if the ship is already heavily damaged), but you still need flights of fighters to make them useful. Though if they were willing to give up 5 tons of space, and get a slightly larger power plant, they could mount a particle beam barbette also doing 4d6 (same as a torpedo), but which has unlimited shots and isn't affected by point defense. But as the P-Beam barbette and the minimum required power plant take up 9.5 tons, this isn't an option for your typical 10-ton fighter. Would have to be 40 tons to be able to mount it. (P-beam barbettes are treated as 2 ship weapons when mounted on a small craft, and a small craft must be at least 40 tons to get 2 weapon slots. For reference, a fighter would also have to be 40 tons to carry 2 torpedos. So once you get to that size, the barbettes are a better option.)

But you can build (with MGT rules) a 10 dton fighter with aromor 15, thrust 12 and a P-Beam turret, slightly less effective that your P-Beam barbette armed 40 dton fighter, and quite more quick to close with enemy.

 

[Matt123]

I'm not that good at huge spaceship battle stuff, and have read that fighters become ineffective at those scales (tech and size), but could you or someone give me a real gameplay example of what happens to fighters at TL15?

This a long post and it may not cover the detail you want. Just speak up if you want this expanded. Bolded items are to aid skim reading, its not me yelling...

A general underlying assumption here is that our fighters are fighting an opponent at the same tech level. Ie: a TL15 fighter is facing a TL15 opponent.

The two big things are; the importance of computer size in a battle and the cost in MCr to field those computers.

At TL12 for example, the 54.5 ton Fighter I mentioned earlier has the best TL12 computer and costs 112.75 MCr (after discounts)

At TL15, fighters are too expensive. A 47.4 ton Fighter, Computer-9, Agility-6, the same weapons as the TL12 Fighter, costs 157.43 MCr (after discount). Thats a 40% increase in cost, to get a TL15 fighter to stay combat effective and it basically carries the same weapons as the TL12 fighter. Or to put it another way at TL15 you field only 72% of the fighter weapons you can at TL12.

So the cost implications are large. And it can lead you to conclude that a TL15 140 MCr computer is better utilized on ships with more than 1 hardpoint. For example a 1000 ton TL15 SDB, Armour-15, Computer-9, Agility-6, 10 hardpoints & armed as per our fighter. Costs 742 MCr (after discount) or 74.2 MCr per hardpoint vs the TL15 Fighter at 157.43 MCr. Half the cost, and you get armour. This works for TL12 1000 ton ships to, but the cost per hardpoint difference isn't dramatic enough to make one hull more desirable than ten.

The effect of computer size on combat is significant. If the computer used is the best one for the TL, the effect on combat is the same for all tech levels. (missile-1 or 2 assumed & long range) A 74 Kton Agility-6 ship is hit on 11+ and a 76 Kton ship Agility-0 is hit on 4+. Fighters cannot hit fighters. While the best anti-fighter weapon is a missile-9, hitting Agility-6 fighters on 10+. This is the same in any situation where both sides have the same computer.

Lets look at the Rampart V. It has a 2bis computer, effectively computer-3. (The Rampart IV has a 1bis). The Rampart V hits the 74 Kton, Agility-6 ship on 17+ (impossible on 2d6) and the 76 Kton, Agility-0 ship on 10+ (& its a very large sitting duck...). It cannot hit other fighters with computer-9, but is hit by them on 8+. Missile-9 batteries hit them automatically (virtually guaranteed mission kill). (I'm ignoring the Ramparts battery fire, that is a different discussion for a different thread.)

Right, now for a real life battle report, sent to me by our trusty (& now missing) ref (alas, the perils of on-line gaming). This is at TL12 and involves computer-0 fighters, vs my computer-6 fighters. The to hit numbers involved are exactly the same as discussed for the Rampart V, as the computer penalty is +/- 6 in both cases.

So if you like, read this as a TL15 battle report involving attacking Rampart V's vs my defending computer-9 fighters.

Oh, and this was a sneak attack by an 'ally', while most of my fleet was away, enroute to attack another system.

To: Serendip political leaders
From: Serendip home guard command
Arrival week 3
We observed heavy fleet assets from xxxxx and believed them to be our allies arriving in system but they immediately deployed huge amount of fighters and closed range with our system defense squadrons. We sounded general alert and launched our fighter assets but it looked grim. Our sensors were filled with enemy fighters and analysis revealed them to be nearly 1.5 million fighters. Against them we sent some 16000 brave fighters of M class to try and stop them from long range. Our other assets were also launched but put in the second line at start.

To our surprise we noticed their fighters to be ill coordinated and without a good computer aboard they stood no chance to hit our fighters. Our fighters dodged millions of missiles without a single hit and returned fire with much more effect. We crippled 1600 enemy fighters that were left drifting in space. Another 2500 maneuvered away without any offensive weapons left.

The Enemy realized that they wouldn't win this battle and left another 5000 fighters to screen the retreat of the rest of their fleet that jumped out of system soon after.

We captured 2380 fighters intact and around 4300 damaged. We have taken 6680 enemy pilots alive.

The ref was 'rather surprised' at the result. So was the attacking player. I think he's rather grateful the game has collapsed .

The point here, is that the greater the difference between computer size, the more ineffective your fighter becomes. It dies faster and it struggles to hit targets.

I have to also mention again that fighters have many more uses than just fleet combat. The Rampart V is ideal for many of those uses and is a fraction of the cost of a fleet combat fighter (26.6 MCr vs 157.43 MCr). Sometime quantity has a quality all of its own, just not when fielding low tech computers vs high tech computers.

Oh, & someone will ask. The computer difference DM in HG takes into account sensors, targeting, counter measures, counter-counter measures, etc, etc.

I hope this helps. (& is understandable... )

 

[Matt123]

That's why I said my previously stated fighter/drones (see post 22) would be considered by some people as cheatin the system in BCS/TCS tournment...

yep, read that. I didn't comment because TCS specifies HG & book 2 Starships. Book 8 Robots is not mentioned. Not surprising as it was published 5 years later than TCS.

But regardless of that, a core concept of TCS is equal access to tech. If the ref stated, or all parties agreed that Robots could be used, its no longer a cheat and everyone has access to them.

 

[AndreaV]

At TL12 for example, the 54.5 ton Fighter I mentioned earlier has the best TL12 computer and costs 112.75 MCr (after discounts)

Uhmmm do you have a HGS file or an expanded USP for this? Best I can do is 63 tons for agility 5.

But I can get an agility 6, jump 1 missile boat with 2 factor 2 missile batteries for MCr 218.986 after discounts. This looks like a better option than the fighter, cheaper than two fighters, and can jump itself to safety if required.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Thanks Matt;

Wow, and yes, I do realize your example was an exaggeration. But, having said all that, to me at least, it sounds like there's an issue with the rules allowing for such a tech level disparity. But, then again that's probably be design; i.e. a P51 Mustang isn't much of a match for an F15 Eagle.

Still, my gut thinking is that the tech level disparities seem a little extreme for what is being presented, and that seems to be a shortcoming of the rules. It seems more logical that (within the Imperium at least) a TL 12 Imperial naval asset would have similar capabilities to a TL 15 asset, but perhaps not the same performance envelope; i.e. an A-6 compared to an FA-18 Hornet (Though that's perhaps not a good example).

A local navy, on the other hand, might have a real TL-12 handicap on their hands, and therefore the rules can justify that performance gap.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying here is that I finally understand the gist of how and why fighters are less economical, but it seems to be more of a matter of the rules as opposed to some manifestation of the fictional setting.

Thank again!

p.s. either way I think I know how to make my adventure work

 

[mike wightman]

You're kidding right?

The whole point of TL difference is to offer a major advantage to the higher TL.

Never mind your aircraft example (only 1 TL difference) think of HMS Victory vs HMS Warrior vs HMS Dreadnaught vs HMS Astute (note I chose a nuclear sub rather than an aircraft carrier for the highest TL example).

A TL15 Imperial warship is unlikely to be bothered by TL12 designs.

 

[Matt123]

Uhmmm do you have a HGS file or an expanded USP for this? Best I can do is 63 tons for agility 5.

I've got my own spreadsheet & tend not to use HGS.

Have you adjusted HGS so fighters can have less than 28 days of fuel? Minimum 1 ton. There may be other errata in Don's collection to look at as well.

Here's the design. Note that in this game, three missiles could be used as three batteries, but required two extra crew.

FM-220111 FM-0606F6#-000000-00001-0 54.447 Ton, Crew 3, TL=12, 112.75MCr
Batteries.........................................3
Fuel=1 (endurance 3.75 days), Agility=6, Size Mod=2, Total Defensive Bonus=8, Computer Size=6
Class development cost= 29.6MCr (Architect fees & 1st ship of class)

...Ton. ...MCr. ...EP.
00.000 04.356 0.00 Flattened Sphere Hull (Streamlined)
09.256 04.628 0.00 MD 6
00.000 00.000 3.27 Agility 6
24.802 74.406 8.27 PP 15.184 (Rated 15)
01.000 00.000 0.00 Fuel (Endurance 3.75 days)
10.889 00.272 0.00 Bridge
00.500 00.025 0.00 Control Couch (allows 3 Crew, 1 Pilot, 2 Gunners)
07.000 55.000 5.00 Model 6 Computer
01.000 02.250 0.00 3 Missle #1 batteries

54.447 140.937 0.00 Totals

let me know if my spreadsheet is wrong...

 

[Matt123]

Still, my gut thinking is that the tech level disparities seem a little extreme for what is being presented, and that seems to be a shortcoming of the rules. It seems more logical that (within the Imperium at least) a TL 12 Imperial naval asset would have similar capabilities to a TL 15 asset

I think you are radically under-estimating the tech level disparities. A TL12 warship is to a TL15 warship, as a TL3 musket is to a TL5 MG42 (very efficient WW2 squad machine gun, 1200 rounds a minute). They both do the same job, but the higher tech one is orders of magnitude more effective and more accurate.

A TL15 anything should in effect be scientific 'magic' to a TL12 society. Picture explaining the TL8 Internet to a TL5 citizen. Before even starting, you have to explain what a computer is and in the process of that, you need to cover TV/video screens, satellites, electronic calculators, transistors, instantaneous communications from Europe to New Zealand (at TL 5 it take 3 months...), etc, etc.

Within the Imperium, a TL12 warship could do a lot a TL15 warship can do. Except be good at fighting TL13-15 warships. In HG terms, the TL12 warship will have a -1 to -3 penalty from the computer size difference. Like the fighter example this penalty makes it difficult to hit targets and much easier to be hit. And thats ignoring tech advances in armour, weapons, drives, screens, etc.

In the TCS campaign, most systems are TL12. The TL11 system has 10x the TL12 budget. The TL13 system has 0.1x the TL12 budget.

 

[Starviking]

Thanks Matt;
Wow, and yes, I do realize your example was an exaggeration. But, having said all that, to me at least, it sounds like there's an issue with the rules allowing for such a tech level disparity. But, then again that's probably be design; i.e. a P51 Mustang isn't much of a match for an F15 Eagle.

A complete aside here, but during the UK's Confrontation with Indonesia the RAF were worried that Indonesian Mustangs would be hard to target from high-speed jets, and not 'hot' enough for IR missiles to lock-on to.

 

[Antony]

In my campaigns (admitedly I use TNE/FF&S) it worked out that for say TL11 fighter carriers they would often be carrying TL12 fighters, the logic used was that technology for the smaller fighting craft upgraded faster ie it took a lot longer to build a big vessel and hence a lower replacement rate than the small fighters. This can be seen in the real world, what fighters did the Nimitz class carriers originally commission with compared to what they now have and what is coming. Even allowing for upgrades of carrier systems a large portion of the vessel is lower tech than the craft it now carries.
Of course in the 3I with its stagnation in tech who known what craft a carrier would be carrying - TL11 Fighter carrier with TL15 fighters for example.

 

[steventirey1985]

But you can build (with MGT rules) a 10 dton fighter with aromor 15, thrust 12 and a P-Beam turret, slightly less effective that your P-Beam barbette armed 40 dton fighter, and quite more quick to close with enemy.

Probably true. But that P-Beam turret only does 3d6 damage (Average 10.5). While it is still possible, you would need to roll high to get through armor on a TL 15 ship. The torpedo/p-beam barbette does an average of 14 damage, which still isn't enough to get through that armor, but is at least a lot closer. You just have to roll slightly above average instead of trying to get near max like you would have to for a P-Beam turret. And the 40-ton fighter can also have armor 15, and thrust 12, and be harder to destroy at the same time as it has more hull points.

As for the armor, well thats what the rules do allow. Personally, I have problems with the smallest fighters being able to be as well armored as the largest dreadnaughts.

But really my point was, is that while Mongoose Traveller does allow for a fighter to have ship-killing (or heavily-damaging) missiles, there are better options.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I think you are radically under-estimating the tech level disparities. A TL12 warship is to a TL15 warship, as a TL3 musket is to a TL5 MG42 (very efficient WW2 squad machine gun, 1200 rounds a minute). They both do the same job, but the higher tech one is orders of magnitude more effective and more accurate.

A TL15 anything should in effect be scientific 'magic' to a TL12 society. Picture explaining the TL8 Internet to a TL5 citizen. Before even starting, you have to explain what a computer is and in the process of that, you need to cover TV/video screens, satellites, electronic calculators, transistors, instantaneous communications from Europe to New Zealand (at TL 5 it take 3 months...), etc, etc.

Within the Imperium, a TL12 warship could do a lot a TL15 warship can do. Except be good at fighting TL13-15 warships. In HG terms, the TL12 warship will have a -1 to -3 penalty from the computer size difference. Like the fighter example this penalty makes it difficult to hit targets and much easier to be hit. And thats ignoring tech advances in armour, weapons, drives, screens, etc.

In the TCS campaign, most systems are TL12. The TL11 system has 10x the TL12 budget. The TL13 system has 0.1x the TL12 budget.

Quite likely I am. I guess when I think of the Imperium as a whole, I think of a government or interstellar state that has a certain variance in technological capabilities from system to system. That's something most of us can live with, and it makes for a rich empire and gaming experience. But the empire as a whole, to me at least, would probably have units compatible within the Imperial military framework. But the rules state that TL12 stuff is different from TL 15 stuff for these reasons... *blah blah blah*, which makes one wonder if that isn't just a manifestation of the rules as opposed to some real example.

But, since we live in neither a TL12 nor TL15 world (unfortunately), we simply don't know. Yet, for me, based upon what present day computers do, I have a hard time retrofitting a justification for the design criteria. I guess in my mind I have this notion that a TL12 fighter is an aged F4 Phantom II from the Vietnam Era, where a TL15 fighter is a JSF. Not true, but if you think about how the Imperial Navy would benefit from hardware (fighters in this instance) that could be easily interchanged with one another, then I think you can see my perspective some

Look, truth is I just want fighters at all tech levels, and I want them to be really cool. The rules' stigma of designing TL13, 14, 15 fighters might be more a matter of the ref hand-waving the rules to fit his campaign.

BUT, if you wanted to write about an adventure involving really hot and fast moving fighters at various tech levels, then you have to make certain decisions about where your thing fits in the scheme of things.

Your example of the weapons comparison is probably more apt than I want to admit. Because even the CT and GURPS Mercenary books state that pretty much every military unit and technological piece of equipment is used somewhere within the Imperium. Now, we all know that that means that there's some backwater balkanized TL5 world in the throes of a crusade or something, but you can't help but wonder that, by the strict interpretation of the rules, that there's an all-sling armed regiment standing to at parade in full Imperial dress uniform, but with wrist rockets and a sack of rocks hanging off their belts.

Just me.

 

[steventirey1985]

Lower the armor values available to allow more weapons to penetrate and deal damage, and make missiles harder to shoot down. Both would come close to allowing fighters to work at all tech levels. Because as it is right now, fighters (which can not mount entire weapons batteries) simply can not damage a decently armored ship with beam weapons. And missiles, which could damage the ship, can't be fired in enough numbers to penetrate the point defense.

So by changing both of those things, fighters can still stay useful. Of course, that does make it easier on bigger ships as well.

(By lowering the maximum armor rating from TL to 2/3rd TL, that means the most heavily armored TL 15 ship would have 10 armor rating. For Mongoose Traveller, [that means that torpedos and P-Beam turrets can usually damage a heavily armored ship, and also means that if you get lucky, so can the 2d6 nuclear missile or beam laser (or pulse laser, if you use the changes made in High Guard.] Normal missiles and the 1d6 pulse laser [beam laser with the High Guard changes]still couldn't hurt it, though. I have no idea how this idea would work out for other versions of Traveller, as I don't know much of anything about them.)

 

[sabredog]

A complete aside here, but during the UK's Confrontation with Indonesia the RAF were worried that Indonesian Mustangs would be hard to target from high-speed jets, and not 'hot' enough for IR missiles to lock-on to.

But only because IR seeker heads weren't sensitive enough to pick up friction heat off the rest of the plane. Soon after the were that sensitive and could engage from any angle and a much lower level of heat, yet also from a greater range and short time required for lock.

So once again a TL advantage is evidenced.

 

[sabredog]

Thanks Matt;

Wow, and yes, I do realize your example was an exaggeration. But, having said all that, to me at least, it sounds like there's an issue with the rules allowing for such a tech level disparity. But, then again that's probably be design; i.e. a P51 Mustang isn't much of a match for an F15 Eagle.

You're right, Eagles have cannon with computerized, radar locking gunsights that show even the path the rounds will take to hit the target....intersect the waving line with the target and pull the trigger - no more P-51. You'd have to make the Eagle all dirtied up to slow it down, but the Mustang wouldn't have a chance because of the TL advancement unless it's pilot could force the Eagle pilot to fight within the envelope the Mustang was best in. But that is always the case with such things which is the number one rue of ALL combat: make the enemy react to you, not the other way.

That could work (in a less abstract system that HG) for the TL disparities your are talking about, too.

Still, my gut thinking is that the tech level disparities seem a little extreme for what is being presented, and that seems to be a shortcoming of the rules. It seems more logical that (within the Imperium at least) a TL 12 Imperial naval asset would have similar capabilities to a TL 15 asset, but perhaps not the same performance envelope; i.e. an A-6 compared to an FA-18 Hornet (Though that's perhaps not a good example).

One way you could help factor that in is remember that warplanes, ships, and the like are upgraded all the time. The F-16 Block 40-50's just went through another upgrade called the MLU ("Mid-life Update")...gotta love the creativity there) and had reinforcing work done to the airframes, new avionics and fire control systems installed to use night vision among other things, new sensors and countermeasures, and the abilities to use some newer weapons. Now a lot of them have a whole new "TL".

Not all, but that's something that you can do, too....some world can afford to buy some older TL-12 Ramparts, and then later find its cheaper to maybe buy the kits to upgrade at least some of them to TL-13 or 14.

In fact, that sort of thing is usually how it's done now even with new aircraft purchases: the huge costs are not just for the plane: they also will include later upgrades, scheduled part replacements, etc.

And the shipbuilding rules allow for upgrades.