Fighters/PT Boats in the Traveller Universe

[AnotherDilbert]

In your opinion, is that a FLAW in the concept of a FIGHTER or a FLAW in the mechanics of LBB5 Combat Rules?

I would say it's a flaw in LBB5.

Should a TL 15 fighter have ZERO chance to take out a turret on a destroyer?
[a philosophical question]

If you can shoot out, you can shoot in.

Fighters should have some effect on capital ships, but probably not be better (more economical) at killing battleships than spinals.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Interesting. I don't know that anyone has ever mentioned or thought of that before (at least not that I have read anyway).

Meson artillery from Striker takes just over 1 Dt and 1 EP, very reasonable in spacecraft terms.
I guess the range isn't great for space combat, and they will not penetrate screens?
I have used them for assault shuttles.

 

[Spinward Flow]

You need something like this to have a shadow of a chance (full computer and bridge, higher factor battery):

FH-0106M91-000000-00003-0 MCr 168 80 Dton
bearing 1 Crew=1
batteries 1 TL=15
Cargo=0 Fuel=16,8 EP=16,8 Agility=6

Spoiler

Dual Occupancy 1 210
USP # Dton Cost
Hull, Streamlined Custom 0 80
Configuration Needle/Wedge 1 10

Manoeuvre D 6 1 14 7
Power Plant 21 1 17 50
Fuel, #J, #weeks J-0, 4 weeks 17

Bridge 1 16 0
Computer m/9 9 1 13 140

Staterooms, Small 1 2 0

Cargo 1

Triple Turret Missile 3 1 1 2

Nominal Cost MCr 209,55 Sum: 1 210
Class Cost MCr 44,01 Valid ≥0 ≥0
Ship Cost MCr 167,64

Very compelling thought experiment.

Fun part is realizing that @ 80 tons, if you have to pay 130% tonnage to stow small craft on a larger parent carrier, those 80 tons of fighter are costing you 80*1.3=104 tons of hangar space each.

At that price, you might as well go for 100 ton fighter "boats" and only need to spend 110% tonnage on stowing big craft on a larger parent carrier, so those 100 tons of fighter are costing you 100*1.1=110 tons of hangar space each.

+6 tons per fighter on the ledger for the carrier = +20 tons available to each fighter

If you're going for nuclear missiles, then you're probably going to want to add a magazine (LBB5.79, p32) to increase combat endurance and enable bombardment(s) to be possible.

If you want to go for "energy weapons" (that do not expend ordnance) your choices boil down to either triple beam laser turret (code: 4 @ TL=15) and increase the size of the power plant to account for the additional EP demand ... or ... install a single particle accelerator turret (code: 2 @ TL=15) and increase the size of the power plant even more to account for an even higher EP demand load.


Always thought the idea of 1000 ton "bay fighters" (that need 1100 tons of hangar space on parent carriers) was kind of a quirky thing to play around with. A 1000 ton starship/boat can mount a 100 ton bay and load a particle accelerator into it (code: 9 @ TL=14-15) which has a base roll to hit before other DMs come into play of ... 4 (LBB5.80, p46).

If you opt for the "turret route" instead, you can spend 10x single turrets on particle accelerators (code: 7, 30 tons and 50 EP @ TL=15, or code: 6, 50 tons and 50 EP @ TL=14) ... where code: 7 has a base to hit roll of 5, and code: 6 has a base to hit roll of 6.

Irony of ironies, for the fire control and power allocation required, a single 50 ton particle accelerator bay (code: 5, 50 tons, 30 EP, MCr20) is a more efficient option @ TL=14 than 10x single Particle Accelerator Barbettes (code: 6, 50 tons, 50 EP, MCr40) ... because code: 5 and 6 both have a base to hit roll of 6. The only difference between the bay and the barbettes would be the automatic critical yield (because code: 5 vs code: 6).

But yeah ... a 1000 ton "fighter" armed with a single 100 ton particle accelerator bay ... sounds like a kind of "poor man's spinal mount" setup ... or a "spnal mount for (bigger) fighters" type of deal.

Best part is that a code: 9 meson gun (100 ton bay @ TL=15) is still going to have trouble dealing with any kind of meson screen, and the "credible configurations" for defeating meson guns (configurations: 1, 7, 9) are all going to be "relatively sturdy" against a code: 9 meson gun. In other words, meson gun bays are only "effective" against targets unlikely to have meson screens (even minimal ones), so meson guns that aren't spinal mounts are either VERY EFFECTIVE (against unprotected targets) or EXTREMELY INEFFECTIVE (against meson screen protected targets).

Consequently, particle accelerator (bays) become preferable in this displacement class for "reliable hits" and therefore damage throughput ... because particle accelerators don't care about any protection schemes except computer model, black globe (yeah, right) and armor.

• Sandcasters? Useless against particle accelerators.
• Repulsors? Useless against particle accelerators.
• Nuclear Dampeners? Useless against particle accelerators.
• Meson Screens? Useless against particle accelerators.
• Hull Configurations? Useless against particle accelerators.
• Computer Model? Reduces chance to be hit.
• Black Globe + Armor? Reduces damage taken when hit.

 

[kilemall]

Meson artillery from Striker takes just over 1 Dt and 1 EP, very reasonable in spacecraft terms.
I guess the range isn't great for space combat, and they will not penetrate screens?
I have used them for assault shuttles.

Check those sphere volumes for the starship versions- what got me thinking dtons for starship damage bypassing percentages and letter drives.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Fun part is realizing that @ 80 tons, if you have to pay 130% tonnage to stow small craft on a larger parent carrier, those 80 tons of fighter are costing you 80*1.3=104 tons of hangar space each.

At that price, you might as well go for 100 ton fighter "boats" and only need to spend 110% tonnage on stowing big craft on a larger parent carrier, so those 100 tons of fighter are costing you 100*1.1=110 tons of hangar space each.

Yes, but the 80 tonner is more difficult to hit. As fighters are already difficult to hit that extra DM-1 is a huge deal.

A small craft can, according to errata, have less fuel than a full four weeks worth, down to a single Dt. A 100 Dt craft with a large computer, Ag-6, and some weapons must have ~20 Dt fuel by the rules.

The good thing at 100 Dt is: planetoids. Armour 20 is no fun for the enemy...
E.g.:

FH-1906C91-L00000-00003-0        MCr 231         195 Dton
bearing               1                            Crew=2
batteries             1                             TL=15
                      Cargo=1 Fuel=23,7 EP=23,7 Agility=6

I just cheated a little bit with a single stateroom, instead of the required two.
Can only be damaged by spinals, and even they will struggle with the agility and size.

If you're going for nuclear missiles, then you're probably going to want to add a magazine (LBB5.79, p32) to increase combat endurance and enable bombardment(s) to be possible.

They are not in LBB5'80, and have nothing to do with space combat, just bombardement.

If you want to go for "energy weapons" (that do not expend ordnance) your choices boil down to either triple beam laser turret (code: 4 @ TL=15) and increase the size of the power plant to account for the additional EP demand ... or ... install a single particle accelerator turret (code: 2 @ TL=15) and increase the size of the power plant even more to account for an even higher EP demand load.

The obvious choice is a single Fusion gun (factor 5), leaving a slot for a missile rack or sandcaster. Higher factor, better to hit, and some chance of size crits against small targets, even less power requirement. Range is a problem, so has to be manipulated. Still can't inflict damage on armour 14+.

Fusion guns are also highly effective in ground combat, against vehicles.

Always thought the idea of 1000 ton "bay fighters" (that need 1100 tons of hangar space on parent carriers) was kind of a quirky thing to play around with. A 1000 ton starship/boat can mount a 100 ton bay and load a particle accelerator into it (code: 9 @ TL=14-15) which has a base roll to hit before other DMs come into play of ... 4 (LBB5.80, p46).

If you opt for the "turret route" instead, you can spend 10x single turrets on particle accelerators (code: 7, 30 tons and 50 EP @ TL=15, or code: 6, 50 tons and 50 EP @ TL=14) ... where code: 7 has a base to hit roll of 5, and code: 6 has a base to hit roll of 6.

Make it 1300 Dt, combine a bay with some turrets to fill out the USP for better damage resistance. The size DM-1 to hit is tasty.
Load it into a 3000 Dt transport built out of Z-drive magic to make it very cheap...

Or just make it a 1000 Dt rock:

FM-A906992-L09000-00009-0        MCr 668       1 000 Dton
bearing               1                           Crew=13
batteries             1                             TL=15
                        Cargo=120 Fuel=90 EP=90 Agility=6

Immune to anything but spinals, can damage anything with armour 19-.
And that is why you want PA spinals...

Irony of ironies, for the fire control and power allocation required, a single 50 ton particle accelerator bay (code: 5, 50 tons, 30 EP, MCr20) is a more efficient option @ TL=14 than 10x single Particle Accelerator Barbettes (code: 6, 50 tons, 50 EP, MCr40) ... because code: 5 and 6 both have a base to hit roll of 6. The only difference between the bay and the barbettes would be the automatic critical yield (because code: 5 vs code: 6).

But yeah ... a 1000 ton "fighter" armed with a single 100 ton particle accelerator bay ... sounds like a kind of "poor man's spinal mount" setup ... or a "spnal mount for (bigger) fighters" type of deal.

Meson spinals bays can't penetrate meson screens.
PA bays can't do damage if the target has armour 14 or better. Fighters are vulnerable to size crits.
A 50 Dt missile bay has a better to hit, and can do damage to anything but hi-tech fully armoured rocks.

A large meson bay takes 100 Dt + another 400 Dt for power and fuel = 500 Dt and almost MCr 700. Toss in a few engineers for good measure.
A large PA bay takes 100 Dt + 120 Dt for power and fuel = 220 Dt and almost MCr 220.
A missile bay is 50 Dt, MCr 12.5 and nothing more. And it's more effective.

I'll take the missile bay...

Consequently, particle accelerator (bays) become preferable in this displacement class for "reliable hits" and therefore damage throughput ... because particle accelerators don't care about any protection schemes except computer model, black globe (yeah, right) and armor.

The problem is that armour protects against everything but mesons, so warships tends to have a lot of it...
Armour 14+ and the PA bay is worthless (except against sub-300 Dt craft).

 

[whartung]

As guilty as I am as anyone, I wish folks would just make up some large squadrons, and throw them against each other for a few rounds and see what happens. The simple truth is that after 4 or 5 rounds, the battle is typically decided as someone will have the numeric advantage, more rolls, more damage, degrading the other side simply faster and faster.

Roll up some fleets, post your results. With all the B5 spreadsheets, shouldn't take that long to try some pet theories out.

 

[kilemall]

I don’t understand the assertion that LBB5 meson spinals can’t penetrate screens. The larger ones certainly can, and their internal hits make up for the higher miss rate. Did you mean meson bays?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Did you mean meson bays?

Yes, of course. Thank you.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Did you mean meson bays?

LBB5.80, p46:

Best part is that a code: 9 meson gun (100 ton bay @ TL=15) is still going to have trouble dealing with any kind of meson screen

In other words, meson gun bays are only "effective" against targets unlikely to have meson screens (even minimal ones), so meson guns that aren't spinal mounts are either VERY EFFECTIVE (against unprotected targets) or EXTREMELY INEFFECTIVE (against meson screen protected targets).

Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Yes, but the 80 tonner is more difficult to hit. As fighters are already difficult to hit that extra DM-1 is a huge deal.

Good point.
Sacrificing the additional -1DM for being a small craft is "worth" the effort to remain under 100 tons of displacement.

The obvious choice is a single Fusion gun (factor 5), leaving a slot for a missile rack or sandcaster. Higher factor, better to hit, and some chance of size crits against small targets, even less power requirement. Range is a problem, so has to be manipulated.

The advantage of 1x Fusion Gun (code: 5 @ TL=14+, 2 tons, 2 EP, MCr2) versus 3x Beam Laser (code: 4 @ TL=13+, 1 ton, 3 EP, MCr3) is pretty marginal and is limited to Short Range. Lasers can still be used at Long Range, so I personally consider the tradeoff for a Fusion Gun to be a bit of a downgrade in overall capability. The required to hit roll for code: 4 and code: 5 beam weapons is identical (6), so the only meaningful advantage that the Fusion Gun would have is that it's better at penetrating Sandcasters (by a net +3, relative to lasers).

Fusion Guns CAN be used as point defense against missiles, so the extra +1 code factor is "nice to have" there in a defensive role ... but not enough that I would want to sacrifice the offensive potential at long range in order to obtain it.

 

[Marcatlas]

Based on the rules I cannot see them as economically viable in high tech fleets. Bang for buck; I don't see them in any significant numbers in a combat fleet. Given the M-drive rating and the Newtonian movement they just don't have any real advantages that offset the weaknesses.

 

[infojunky]

Against a battleship:
To Hit: 5 - 2[Size] + 6[Ag] + 0[comp] = hit on 9+ on 2D (28% hit chance)
Penetrate Damper: 16+ (no chance), no damage...

So, shoot non-nuke missiles instead:
Damage: 2D + 6[non-nuke] + 15[armour] = 2D + 21 = best case 23, no damage...


Against warships with defences, fighters are just out of luck at TL-15 with LBB5.

Only kinda, 1st your forgetting the order of battle. yah maybe not a real hot alpha strike, but for clean up their grand. 2nd this fleet ops, and you need to think about these sorta questions from that point of view.

Fighters come in to their own after the 1st round.

 

[infojunky]

Based on the rules I cannot see them as economically viable in high tech fleets. Bang for buck; I don't see them in any significant numbers in a combat fleet. Given the M-drive rating and the Newtonian movement they just don't have any real advantages that offset the weaknesses.

Depends on a lot of things, Fighters are how you force boardings, scrub off the weapons and maneuver after the larger fleet elements slow them down.

 

[mike wightman]

There is a nifty little boardgame hidden within HG80, but it requires lots of "new" house rules.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Only kinda, 1st your forgetting the order of battle. yah maybe not a real hot alpha strike, but for clean up their grand. 2nd this fleet ops, and you need to think about these sorta questions from that point of view.

Fighters come in to their own after the 1st round.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean.

The fighter will still be equally incapable of damaging a warship with defences in the second round.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The advantage of 1x Fusion Gun (code: 5 @ TL=14+, 2 tons, 2 EP, MCr2) versus 3x Beam Laser (code: 4 @ TL=13+, 1 ton, 3 EP, MCr3) is pretty marginal and is limited to Short Range. Lasers can still be used at Long Range, so I personally consider the tradeoff for a Fusion Gun to be a bit of a downgrade in overall capability. The required to hit roll for code: 4 and code: 5 beam weapons is identical (6), so the only meaningful advantage that the Fusion Gun would have is that it's better at penetrating Sandcasters (by a net +3, relative to lasers).

Agreed, the same to hit means they are equally bad. I guess I generally see them as ablative armour.

The relative advantages are range for lasers, and a second weapon for fusion. An extra missile rack has the same to hit possibility.

The differences in size and cost are insignificant for a MCr 100 fighter.
Triple Laser: 1 Dt + 3 Dt(power) = 4 Dt, MCr 3 + MCr 9(power) = MCr 12.
Single Fusion: 2 Dt + 2 Dt(power) = 4 Dt, MCr 2 + MCr 6(power) = MCr 8.

 

[atpollard]

The fighter will still be equally incapable of damaging a warship with defences in the second round.

Assuming that EVERY ship in your fleet does not miss, in round 2 some ships will no longer be AGILITY 6 and some ships will no longer have all their SCREENS ... YOUR Fighters can concentrate on THOSE ships (especially if one of those ships has lost BOTH its agility and screen advantage).

[I think that was his point.]

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Assuming that EVERY ship in your fleet does not miss, in round 2 some ships will no longer be AGILITY 6 and some ships will no longer have all their SCREENS ... YOUR Fighters can concentrate on THOSE ships (especially if one of those ships has lost BOTH its agility and screen advantage).

Presumably those ships will be in the reserve repairing?

 

[coliver988]

As guilty as I am as anyone, I wish folks would just make up some large squadrons, and throw them against each other for a few rounds and see what happens. The simple truth is that after 4 or 5 rounds, the battle is typically decided as someone will have the numeric advantage, more rolls, more damage, degrading the other side simply faster and faster.

Roll up some fleets, post your results. With all the B5 spreadsheets, shouldn't take that long to try some pet theories out.

after reading about using the asteroids, I saw that last line as "shouldn't take that long to try some pet rocks out"

enjoying reading this, though never played HG battles (but designed a LOT of inefficient and badly designed ships over the years)

 

[atpollard]

(but designed a LOT of inefficient and badly designed ships over the years)

Yup, me too.