Fighters other than the Rampart

[Matt123]

But, since we live in neither a TL12 nor TL15 world (unfortunately), we simply don't know.

Thats 'only' 3 tech levels apart. Today we live in a world ranging from TL0 (lost tribe found in the Amazon, last year IIRC) through to the US pushing TL8. Most of Africa for example would be around TL 4/5 (guess) with South Africa, Europe, Russia, OZ, NZ, Canada, etc TL7. Its a similar disparity as the Imperium, just numerous tech levels lower.

In RL the internet is likely imported to high worth individuals in TL3-6 societies. And TL7 F14's were imported to TL5/6 Iraq (under the Shah). The worlds of the Imperium will be doing similar things.

Yet, for me, based upon what present day computers do, I have a hard time retrofitting a justification for the design criteria.

lol, I can't argue with that. Nobody in 1981 picked the ZX81 personal computer would be anything but a novelty, not even the manufacturers. They produced it as a sideline for their calculator business.

Its the part of the price we pay for playing a 1970's RPG. I could always change up to Mongoose, I assume thats been dealt with, but I enjoy HG.

Look, truth is I just want fighters at all tech levels, and I want them to be really cool.

They are cool. You have access to a TL15 Fighter! The Imperium on average is TL12/13. Go forth and kick some arse! Imperial fighters do not have to be effective vs TL15 opponents, thats what the Imperium has battleships for.

Got a troublesome TL12 world, don't send in the expensive BB's, send in the TL14 (with intercoms, not electronics...) Battlestar Galactica with TL15 computer-9 fighters & a marine contingent & have some fun vs TL12 Dreadnoughts, Fighters, planetary defences, Marine raids, etc.

 

[AndreaV]

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...

Ahhh I see the difference I think, a fractional powerplant, I know that was being discussed for HG3 but I didn't think it was errated in HG2.

HGS has always allowed less than 28 days fuel, it would just showed an "invalid design" warning. Its been suppressed it in the build I'm working on (which adds refitting and hopefully the proposed HG3 changes).

 

[AndreaV]

Which has reminded me to upload another error fix to CT-Starships

 

[AndreaV]

Put a copy of HGS Here http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=375921#post375921

 

[Matt123]

Ahhh I see the difference I think, a fractional powerplant, I know that was being discussed for HG3 but I didn't think it was errated in HG2.

You will have a hard time convincing me that fractional PP's need to be errated. If they are not allowed, every craft that drops or adds something (riders, drop tanks, external fuel tanks) is illegal as it will inevitably result in a fractional PP.

That and as we discussed earlier on this thread, whole number power plants just don't make sense, especially as drives are custom built for the job. And the job is to provide EP's (& meet or exceed the MD & JD ratings).

 

[AndreaV]

You will have a hard time convincing me that fractional PP's need to be errated. If they are not allowed, every craft that drops or adds something (riders, drop tanks, external fuel tanks) is illegal as it will inevitably result in a fractional PP.

That and as we discussed earlier on this thread, whole number power plants just don't make sense, especially as drives are custom built for the job. And the job is to provide EP's (& meet or exceed the MD & JD ratings).

Oh I'd agree wholeheartedly (the abstract number power thing is probably the biggest flaw in HG), but sadly yes they are "illegal" and do make the design invalid under the rules as they stand The craft and drop tanks don't make the rule invalid as its based on the base tonnage. I'd reject a fractional PP in a TCS game unless the house rules allowing them had been spelt out to all players first.

The fix being advanced for HG3 (well last time I looked) was to use a tonnage per EP approach instead and much sounder approach.

 

[Matt123]

Oh I'd agree wholeheartedly (the abstract number power thing is probably the biggest flaw in HG), but sadly yes they are "illegal" and do make the design invalid under the rules as they stand

The approach being advanced for HG3 (well last time I looked) was to use a tonnage per EP approach instead.

On what basis?

 

[AndreaV]

On what basis?

Tonnage per EP? you select how many EP you want, calculate how many tons it needs for the TL, divide that by 1% of tonnage (round down) to get the PP number. Gets basically the same results as a fractional PP, but easier to calculate in your head.

 

[Matt123]

Ahh, sorry. On what basis is fractional PP's illegal.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Interesting tidbit; some of the first aerial kills in Vietnam were done by some old US A-1 Skyraider prop planes against a Mig 17, I think.

 

[AndreaV]

Ahh, sorry. On what basis is fractional PP's illegal.

The best authority I have is that I asked when I was writing HGS and yes they are supposed to be integers. Throughout HG integers are assumed unless stated otherwise. I'd reject a fractional PP if umpiring a TCS game unless all players had been informed of a house rule allowing them.

Yes I think the rule is wrong, but there you are.

 

[mike wightman]

Go read the example fighter in TCS.

The gnat has fractional md, pp, pp fuel and eps

 

[AndreaV]

Go read the example fighter in TCS.

The gnat has fractional md, pp, pp fuel and eps

May well, unfortunately the source that informed me of the integer rule was Marc, which kind of trumps that (kind of trumps pretty much anything in Traveller)

 

[AndreaV]

Go read the example fighter in TCS.

The gnat has fractional md, pp, pp fuel and eps

Just checked, nope, fractional tonnages, but the actual USP numbers are all integers.

 

[aramis]

May well, unfortunately the source that informed me of the integer rule was Marc, which kind of trumps that (kind of trumps pretty much anything in Traveller)

But where did he put it in writing?

 

[AndreaV]

But where did he put it in writing?

I may well still have the email (we are talking something like twelve years ago though). I had to document the project fairly thoroughly. Will see if I can dig it up.

 

[sabredog]

Interesting tidbit; some of the first aerial kills in Vietnam were done by some old US A-1 Skyraider prop planes against a Mig 17, I think.

Yup.

It was a shared kill by 2 A-1 Skyraiders and it was most awesome: the Mig bounced them but his cannons missed when he fired too soon and the A-1's jinked right and left. So the MiG turned around to make a head-on pass...and both Skyraider pilots opened up with all their 20mm guns (8 total) as the Mig shot between them...one guy hit the tail and the other shot it up along the side and they both got to paint half a red star on their A-1's! Oh, yes...proof TL might not matter ALL the time...sometimes it s a gutsy pilot and the skills he has.

BTW: the other coolest kill was one by the only F-105 to get 3 kills: #320 out of Takhli....one kill was with a well-placed AIM-9B, the second with the 20mm cannon.

But the third kill by 320 is the most controversial (not gun camera confirmed), but supposedly 320 had a MiG-17 trapped at its six o'clock and the MiG was getting tracers close to the aircraft. The crew wasn't able to evade fast enough and the pilot pulled the emergency jettison handle to dump everything off the aircraft so he could clean up and bug out. Another F-105 was rolling in on the MiG about the time 320's pilot punched off its externals and saw the centerline MER (Multiple Ejection Rack - big enough to carry 6 750lbs bombs) tumble off the underside of the scared Thud and right into the face of that MiG-17.

There are rumors of a Thud that made a pass right over a landing MiG-17 because he was out of ammo and when he passed over the Mig at mach1+ the shockwave tumbled the Mig right into the ground. The pilot supposedly didn't get credit because US pilots weren't allowed to attack landing or landed MiG's, but apocryphal or not its stories like these that ........

IS YET ANOTHER REASON FOR COOL FIGHTERS IN HG THAT WORK RIGHT!

 

[mike wightman]

Just checked, nope, fractional tonnages, but the actual USP numbers are all integers.

The EPs and fuel in the data block are both fractional still.

 

[Blue Ghost]

To me, the functionality of a piece of equipment dictates everything. It's why the bayonet charge is still listed in the army tactic's manual. It's why bayonets are still issued as pieces of equipment (though it's really just a knife now).

A Sopwith Camel, given the right circumstances, could down an F15 or SU-27, but those circumstances would probably be pretty extraordinary. Yet the realm of performance (note; not envelope) dictates that they both engage one another on the same playing field. Now, squeeze down the disparity of tech levels to say something like an MiG-17 and an F-15, and things even out. Not much, mind you, but some. Narrow the gap even more, and even though that F-15 sill maintains superiority (no Eagle has ever been shot down, even by the premier Soviet interceptor the Mig-29, or the superiority fighter SU-27), but winds the F-15 pilot has to work a little bit harder to get that kill.

Onto different matters regarding fighters;
I remember years back I asked about a squadron of standard Ramparts verse standard Type-S scouts. In my head I had it that the scout ship, because it had a turret, might have some kind of advantage in space. Loose analogy; a B-17, B-24 or 29 with its many turrets doesn't have too much of an advantage with its gunners because it's essentially relying on mark-1 eyeballs. A scout ship on the other hand has a gunner, but has advanced targeting hardware equivalent or better than an F-15. But, according to the rules, the fighters come out on top. The counter to that is that the Ramparts also have the same hardware/software running. But, the Rampart is only armed with pulse lasers.

The point here is that, in my opinion, the rules tend to breakdown a little. The truth is we don't know what's actually happening. Maybe the Ramparts are constantly out maneuvering the scouts by staying on their bellies. I'll note that, so far as I can remember, TL was not an issue because both were assumed to be the same TL.

So, what I saying with this? Fighters, in my opinion, have yet to be fully addressed in Traveller.

 

[aramis]

I may well still have the email (we are talking something like twelve years ago though). I had to document the project fairly thoroughly. Will see if I can dig it up.

If it is not written in rules nor official errata, it's not a rule...