The time per turn and scale of hexes / inches varies by the individual ruleset, but you're largely correct. Unless you alter the time scale / distance scale and compensate for it.
Fighters
- Thread starter Renaissance Man
- Start date
The time per turn and scale of hexes / inches varies by the individual ruleset, but you're largely correct. Unless you alter the time scale / distance scale and compensate for it.
Gents,
This topic has been hashed out for years now on various Traveller fora, but it's a topic that is always good to review.
Basically, the role and utility of fighters in the game depend on tech level. Roughly speaking, before ~TL12 or 13 fighters are the "arm of decision". They can swarm a larger ship and "mission kill" it via "hull scraping"; i.e. inflicting numerous weapon-1 or fuel-1 hits. A "smoke test" run at the 'ct- starships' Yahoo Group in 2001 showed that at those TLs ~80% of a warship's cost in fighters was enough to mission kill the warship in one combat round. (This was with either CT or MT rules.)
If you want fighters in your game, cap your tech levels. It's that easy.
Have fun,
Bill
This topic has been hashed out for years now on various Traveller fora, but it's a topic that is always good to review.
Basically, the role and utility of fighters in the game depend on tech level. Roughly speaking, before ~TL12 or 13 fighters are the "arm of decision". They can swarm a larger ship and "mission kill" it via "hull scraping"; i.e. inflicting numerous weapon-1 or fuel-1 hits. A "smoke test" run at the 'ct- starships' Yahoo Group in 2001 showed that at those TLs ~80% of a warship's cost in fighters was enough to mission kill the warship in one combat round. (This was with either CT or MT rules.)
If you want fighters in your game, cap your tech levels. It's that easy.
Have fun,
Bill
In MT there is pinpoint location rule which allows you to pick what you aim at at visual range. Exceptional success (at least two more than needed after DMs) means you roll on the damage table until you get a hit on the desired location, and then that is the result. I don't know what happens if you can't hit the location because of DMs. Two more than exceptional success gives a critical hit on the location.
Renaissance Man
SOC-12
Ah, at last that solves the mystery for me. In my T4 material, all set in milieu 0, they talked about fighters that way. Question is, what changes at the higher TLs? Bonded/coherent superdense? Cheaper spinal mounts?
Captain Midnight
SOC-12
If you're looking at the High Guard rules, the major factors are "armor rating cannot exceed TL (except for the various planetoid hulls)", which limits the effectiveness of armor, and "factor 7-9 nuclear dampers are only available at TL 15", as it requires a factor-7 missile battery to have any chance of penetrating a factor-9 nuclear damper, and you have to have 10 triple missile turrets or a 50-ton missile bay to get to factor-7.
Since you seem to be looking at T4 materials, let me quickly describe how High Guard handled ship combat. You're either at "short" or "long" range. Various batteries of weapons have a "to hit" number, which is modified by agility and size of the target, relative computer size, and any modifiers due to range. Any weapons that hit have to penetrate active defenses, such as beam weapons in point-defense, or sandcasters, or repulsors. Hits that penetrate roll for damage on either the "Surface Explosions", "Radiation Damage", or "Interior Explosion" table, which has a positive modifier for armor and non-spinal weapons, and a negative modifier for nuclear missiles. It's not terribly difficult to crunch out the possible numbers, as it's a very abstracted system; "hull scraping" can result in a ship that has had all its weapons shot away, but has taken no other significant damage besides perhaps losing a small percentage of its onboard fuel tankage.
You only get into explanations of what the various armor materials are in later rule sets, so that's not really pertinent to the issue. However, the way different rules handle missiles can make a difference, especially if someone comes up with house rules. For one example, in GT (the one I'm most familiar with), there's no "roll to penetrate nuclear dampers" -- unlike meson screens, they're just automatic. The ship can dodge/evade any number of hits, though it's not very likely for big ships against skilled missile operators; however, it's probable that capital ships will be armored to the point that anything except the turrets is essentially invulnerable to standard missiles. GT also puts limits on the number of missiles you can carry and control, although cargo space can allow you to carry a lot more.
epicenter00
SOC-13
It's also important to note that in Traveller the authors have traditionally shown themselves to be anti-fighter / small-ship and pro-big ships. I suspect it has something to do with a romantic attachment to large ships of the line duking it out. If you want to play "straight" Traveller of any flavor, fighters are expensive and not useful against big ships. The benefit is that it does allow for large cruisers and such to "show the flag" without having to worry about the TL14 version of a modified Cessna equipped with a futuristic version of an Exocet fragging the cruiser. The downside is that romantic image of the WW2 style fighter with a torpedo downing a cruiser goes away.
Fighters are the kings of Space Battles until like TL12, as other posters have pointed out. Around TL13 or so, nuclear dampers become very efficient - more efficient than the largest warhead that can be carried aboard a torpedo fighter, and that steady improvements with armor backed up by the (rather boring to me) ability for large ships with inertial dampers to be as agile as fighters makes fighters sort of pointless.
If you want fighters to be the arm of decision, you either need to lower your tech levels, or modify the rules to get the desired result. If you're going to modify rules, I'd suggest starting with some effect you want and working towards it, rather than just toning down Nuclear Dampers, for instance.
A common solution is to play rock-paper-scissors.
For instance, you could introduce a technology that allows for nuclear damper suppressor (NDS), for instance that counteracts the effect of nuclear dampers somehow. Since that's really the same as eliminating ND technology, limits could be introduced to NDS devices to make them more interesting. Perhaps they only can only project a suppression node about 50m wide area with some limited range like perhaps 100km or something - so now you have a field that you have to get close to use. In addition, powerful ND systems can "burn-through" NDS fields if enough of them are focused on a NDS node long enough - so now you encourage people to take have multiple platforms with NDS equipment to defeat ND "burn-through" by dint of saturation. Now if you make the NDS equipment expensive you'll prevent them from being mounted on missiles because of the expense. Finally NDS interact in some strange way with jumpspace - they have some element that becomes "neutered" and useless if they jump "exposed." Replacing the element is expensive and requires hours of calibration by a skilled technician. However, a shielding system was developed that can protect against jumpspace translation. However it requires a massive superdense vault backed up by powerhungry energy fields, precluding it from being mounted in any but the largest ships. Devices can be stored in there and installed into the fighters or bombers at the destination by skilled technicians. So now you've eliminated the "jump torpedo" problem as well as the danger of mounting these fields in "wolfpacks" of smaller ships - navies will tend to mount a few vaults on large ships which will act as carriers and a place for the field-adjustment technicians to stay.
However, I find the idea of fighters being the pure arm of decision a bit dull as well. So IMTU, I made NDS equipment to be expensive and power-hungry precluding their mounting on every fighter. Instead I mounted them on the equivalent of bombers or Torpedo boats - stuff that is heavier and less maneuverable than a fighter, but cheaper than a large starship. (I also reduced the efficiency of G-dampers and power sources because I dislike the Traveller axiom that the larger the ship, the more powerful reactors it can mount on it and thus becomes more agile than smaller ships.) So how there is a rock-paper-scissors arrangement. Large ships are vulnerable to massed torpedo boat strikes but invulnerable to fighters alone. Torpedo boats can hurt large ships but are vulnerable to large ship guns and fighters. Fighters can't significantly hurt large ships, but can tear up torpedo boats. So now you have fighters guarding the torpedo boats as well as suppressing the point-defense systems of the large ships and tangling with enemy interceptors. The big ships launch their own fighters to intercept the incoming fighters and bombers and as well as try to maneuver against enemy large ships - which is a sufficient messy furball of a space battle to satisfy me.
Fighters are the kings of Space Battles until like TL12, as other posters have pointed out. Around TL13 or so, nuclear dampers become very efficient - more efficient than the largest warhead that can be carried aboard a torpedo fighter, and that steady improvements with armor backed up by the (rather boring to me) ability for large ships with inertial dampers to be as agile as fighters makes fighters sort of pointless.
If you want fighters to be the arm of decision, you either need to lower your tech levels, or modify the rules to get the desired result. If you're going to modify rules, I'd suggest starting with some effect you want and working towards it, rather than just toning down Nuclear Dampers, for instance.
A common solution is to play rock-paper-scissors.
For instance, you could introduce a technology that allows for nuclear damper suppressor (NDS), for instance that counteracts the effect of nuclear dampers somehow. Since that's really the same as eliminating ND technology, limits could be introduced to NDS devices to make them more interesting. Perhaps they only can only project a suppression node about 50m wide area with some limited range like perhaps 100km or something - so now you have a field that you have to get close to use. In addition, powerful ND systems can "burn-through" NDS fields if enough of them are focused on a NDS node long enough - so now you encourage people to take have multiple platforms with NDS equipment to defeat ND "burn-through" by dint of saturation. Now if you make the NDS equipment expensive you'll prevent them from being mounted on missiles because of the expense. Finally NDS interact in some strange way with jumpspace - they have some element that becomes "neutered" and useless if they jump "exposed." Replacing the element is expensive and requires hours of calibration by a skilled technician. However, a shielding system was developed that can protect against jumpspace translation. However it requires a massive superdense vault backed up by powerhungry energy fields, precluding it from being mounted in any but the largest ships. Devices can be stored in there and installed into the fighters or bombers at the destination by skilled technicians. So now you've eliminated the "jump torpedo" problem as well as the danger of mounting these fields in "wolfpacks" of smaller ships - navies will tend to mount a few vaults on large ships which will act as carriers and a place for the field-adjustment technicians to stay.
However, I find the idea of fighters being the pure arm of decision a bit dull as well. So IMTU, I made NDS equipment to be expensive and power-hungry precluding their mounting on every fighter. Instead I mounted them on the equivalent of bombers or Torpedo boats - stuff that is heavier and less maneuverable than a fighter, but cheaper than a large starship. (I also reduced the efficiency of G-dampers and power sources because I dislike the Traveller axiom that the larger the ship, the more powerful reactors it can mount on it and thus becomes more agile than smaller ships.) So how there is a rock-paper-scissors arrangement. Large ships are vulnerable to massed torpedo boat strikes but invulnerable to fighters alone. Torpedo boats can hurt large ships but are vulnerable to large ship guns and fighters. Fighters can't significantly hurt large ships, but can tear up torpedo boats. So now you have fighters guarding the torpedo boats as well as suppressing the point-defense systems of the large ships and tangling with enemy interceptors. The big ships launch their own fighters to intercept the incoming fighters and bombers and as well as try to maneuver against enemy large ships - which is a sufficient messy furball of a space battle to satisfy me.
Hello Folks,
I posted the following information on another Traveller mailing list (the CT-Traveller mailing list to be precise) in response to this thread. It is a houserule Idea inspired by the comment made by Whipsnade
The following is a suggestion for a houserule modifying the standard High Guard combat rules. It would be interesting to see the ramifications of such a rule if it were implemented...
As it stands, the rules for securing a hit in High Guard is that you roll to hit versus the base "to hit" number based on your weapon type and its USP weapon code. So far, good. Then it suggests that the hull size of the target modifies the to hit value by a value between -2 to +2, which again, makes a certain amount of sense. The larger the target, the easier it should be to hit it. Range penalties? Again, it stands to reason that this would be an issue in targeting solutions. But where things don't make an awful lot of sense in a way, is that of the comparative computer model advantage. As ships grow larger, they enjoy the following advantages over those ships which are smaller in size:
Power Point generation: As a ship grows larger, its power point production outstrips that of the smaller hulls. Case in point, a power plant 6 produces 6 energy points on a 100 dton hull, while it produces 60 power points for a 1,000 dton hull, or 600 power points for a 10,000 dton hull.
Relative Computer model size: As a ship grows larger, the computer takes up less relative volume of the hull. At TL 12, the largest computer possible is the Model 6, utilizing 5 energy points. This requires 7 dtons volume in addition to the 5 energy. At TL 15, the largest computer is the Model 9, which takes up 13 dtons and uses 12 energy points.
Net result? The current rules for HG have a built in bias against fighter craft. At TL 12, A 100 dton craft (let alone a 40 dton craft!) would use 83% of its net energy production for a Powerplant 6 engine, and use up roughly 7% of its internal volume housing the computer. Compare this against the 10,000 dton hull, which uses only .07% internal volume and .83% of its total energy output of a Powerplant 6 engine.
So what's missing here?
This is what my houserule proposes to correct:
Change the rule in the combat section that reads:
"DM's allowed to hit:
+ relative computer size"
To read:
"DM's allowed to hit:
+ relative combat computer size"
Ok, so what is "Combat computer size"? I'm glad you asked that
Combat computer size is the amount of computational power left over after you account for the minimum required ship computational power. For example, if you look at the chart on page 26 of HIGH GUARD, you will note that ships of a given hull volume capacity require a minimum sized computer to function. Thus, for a 10,000 dton hull, you must have a minimum computer of model 4 functionality.
Now, why does this matter across the board instead of just between two comparable sized hulls? What happens when a ship's computer is reduced below its minimual required functionality per the High Guard rules? As best as I can tell, nothing. But if you used the houserule as proposed, then things start to become somewhat more interesting. It also places hulls that are smaller with smaller computers, at a relative parity against larger ships with larger computers - yet, have greater demands placed on the computer(s) in question.
Lets see how this affects game play:
Hull Volume/Minimum Computer required:
less than 100/ Model 0 (per the small craft design rules)
up to 600/ Model 1
Up to 1000/ Model 2
Up to 4000/Model 3
Up to 10,000/Model 4
Up to 50,000/Model 5
Up to 100,000/Model 6
Up to 1,000,000/Model 7
Thus, a 50,000 dton craft requiring a model 5, using a Model 5 computer, has all of its computational power being used for running the ship's functions at full effectiveness. Should it suffer a -1 computer hit, its fuctional computing power is at -1 for combat because its required computataional value is supposed to be 5. At 4, it isn't able to handle the ship's functions, let alone handle the combat requirements.
Lets look at a different example. Suppose we have a 10,000 dton ship holding a model 9 computer? Its combat mod is going to be 9 (for the model) minus 5 (minimum required computer for the hull) or 4 overall. If you have that same hull fight against a 500,000 dton craft, also utilizing a Model 9 computer, the relative mods would look like this:
500,000 dton hull requirement is Model 7. Excess computer power is 9-7 or 2. Combat mod is therefor 2.
50,000 dton hull requirement is model 5. Excess computer power is 9-5 or 4. Combat Mod is therefor 4.
The smaller hull gains a +2 bonus to hit because it has a LOT of excess computation power available.
Ok, lets look at a Fighter example.
40 dton hull has a minimum computation requirement of model 0. Carrying a Model 3 computer, its Combat Mod is therefor 3.
Ok, so how does the combat play out between the following:
TL 15 50,000 dton hull with Manuever 6, Agility 6, Model 9
VS
TL 12 40 dton fighter with manuever 4, Agility 0, Model 5 computer, USP 2 Missile battery.
Standard rules are:
Base to hit: 6+ for missile battery USP 2
Relative Computer Mod: +3 in Larger hull's favor
Size Mod: +1
Agility of target +6
Final to hit: 6+3-1+6 = 14
No chance for the fighter to hit using the original rules.
Houserules:
Base to hit: 6+
Relative Computer mod:
+4 combat computer mod for Larger ship, +3 for Fighter, net +1 in Larger ship's favor
Size Mod: +1
Agility of target +6
Net result: 6+1-1+4 = 10+ to hit.
The other thing to consider is that the fighters become somewhat more effective than similar "batteries" on larger ships - primarily because they're able to gain a proportionately higher benefit from their computers. The thing to keep in mind however, is that a fighter platform contains the added costs for its weapon system than does the standard hull. The added costs are:
One computer PER weapon battery. This adds an overall price of at least 18 MCr when adding a model 3 computer. Each of those computers will require energy points to produce, which in turn increases the cost of those fighters by the amount of energy required to field those computers. Each "hardpoint" that a fighter is equivalent to, costs the carrying ship at least 1.3 x the hull size in internal volume, which for a 40 dton fighter, is 120 dtons - excluding the cost of the launch tubes, stateroom for the fighter, cargo capacity for the munitions used by the fighter, etc.
All things considered, the Houserule does make it possible for fighters to compete in the High Guard Universe, and even grants a sort of built in advantage to the smaller ships because they require less computational power to run their ships. Having not had the chance to playtest the idea yet, I can't say whether it is worth using or not (which is more or less why I proposed this here, to let YOU playtest it)
I posted the following information on another Traveller mailing list (the CT-Traveller mailing list to be precise) in response to this thread. It is a houserule Idea inspired by the comment made by Whipsnade
The following is a suggestion for a houserule modifying the standard High Guard combat rules. It would be interesting to see the ramifications of such a rule if it were implemented...
As it stands, the rules for securing a hit in High Guard is that you roll to hit versus the base "to hit" number based on your weapon type and its USP weapon code. So far, good. Then it suggests that the hull size of the target modifies the to hit value by a value between -2 to +2, which again, makes a certain amount of sense. The larger the target, the easier it should be to hit it. Range penalties? Again, it stands to reason that this would be an issue in targeting solutions. But where things don't make an awful lot of sense in a way, is that of the comparative computer model advantage. As ships grow larger, they enjoy the following advantages over those ships which are smaller in size:
Power Point generation: As a ship grows larger, its power point production outstrips that of the smaller hulls. Case in point, a power plant 6 produces 6 energy points on a 100 dton hull, while it produces 60 power points for a 1,000 dton hull, or 600 power points for a 10,000 dton hull.
Relative Computer model size: As a ship grows larger, the computer takes up less relative volume of the hull. At TL 12, the largest computer possible is the Model 6, utilizing 5 energy points. This requires 7 dtons volume in addition to the 5 energy. At TL 15, the largest computer is the Model 9, which takes up 13 dtons and uses 12 energy points.
Net result? The current rules for HG have a built in bias against fighter craft. At TL 12, A 100 dton craft (let alone a 40 dton craft!) would use 83% of its net energy production for a Powerplant 6 engine, and use up roughly 7% of its internal volume housing the computer. Compare this against the 10,000 dton hull, which uses only .07% internal volume and .83% of its total energy output of a Powerplant 6 engine.
So what's missing here?
This is what my houserule proposes to correct:
Change the rule in the combat section that reads:
"DM's allowed to hit:
+ relative computer size"
To read:
"DM's allowed to hit:
+ relative combat computer size"
Ok, so what is "Combat computer size"? I'm glad you asked that
Combat computer size is the amount of computational power left over after you account for the minimum required ship computational power. For example, if you look at the chart on page 26 of HIGH GUARD, you will note that ships of a given hull volume capacity require a minimum sized computer to function. Thus, for a 10,000 dton hull, you must have a minimum computer of model 4 functionality.
Now, why does this matter across the board instead of just between two comparable sized hulls? What happens when a ship's computer is reduced below its minimual required functionality per the High Guard rules? As best as I can tell, nothing. But if you used the houserule as proposed, then things start to become somewhat more interesting. It also places hulls that are smaller with smaller computers, at a relative parity against larger ships with larger computers - yet, have greater demands placed on the computer(s) in question.
Lets see how this affects game play:
Hull Volume/Minimum Computer required:
less than 100/ Model 0 (per the small craft design rules)
up to 600/ Model 1
Up to 1000/ Model 2
Up to 4000/Model 3
Up to 10,000/Model 4
Up to 50,000/Model 5
Up to 100,000/Model 6
Up to 1,000,000/Model 7
Thus, a 50,000 dton craft requiring a model 5, using a Model 5 computer, has all of its computational power being used for running the ship's functions at full effectiveness. Should it suffer a -1 computer hit, its fuctional computing power is at -1 for combat because its required computataional value is supposed to be 5. At 4, it isn't able to handle the ship's functions, let alone handle the combat requirements.
Lets look at a different example. Suppose we have a 10,000 dton ship holding a model 9 computer? Its combat mod is going to be 9 (for the model) minus 5 (minimum required computer for the hull) or 4 overall. If you have that same hull fight against a 500,000 dton craft, also utilizing a Model 9 computer, the relative mods would look like this:
500,000 dton hull requirement is Model 7. Excess computer power is 9-7 or 2. Combat mod is therefor 2.
50,000 dton hull requirement is model 5. Excess computer power is 9-5 or 4. Combat Mod is therefor 4.
The smaller hull gains a +2 bonus to hit because it has a LOT of excess computation power available.
Ok, lets look at a Fighter example.
40 dton hull has a minimum computation requirement of model 0. Carrying a Model 3 computer, its Combat Mod is therefor 3.
Ok, so how does the combat play out between the following:
TL 15 50,000 dton hull with Manuever 6, Agility 6, Model 9
VS
TL 12 40 dton fighter with manuever 4, Agility 0, Model 5 computer, USP 2 Missile battery.
Standard rules are:
Base to hit: 6+ for missile battery USP 2
Relative Computer Mod: +3 in Larger hull's favor
Size Mod: +1
Agility of target +6
Final to hit: 6+3-1+6 = 14
No chance for the fighter to hit using the original rules.
Houserules:
Base to hit: 6+
Relative Computer mod:
+4 combat computer mod for Larger ship, +3 for Fighter, net +1 in Larger ship's favor
Size Mod: +1
Agility of target +6
Net result: 6+1-1+4 = 10+ to hit.
The other thing to consider is that the fighters become somewhat more effective than similar "batteries" on larger ships - primarily because they're able to gain a proportionately higher benefit from their computers. The thing to keep in mind however, is that a fighter platform contains the added costs for its weapon system than does the standard hull. The added costs are:
One computer PER weapon battery. This adds an overall price of at least 18 MCr when adding a model 3 computer. Each of those computers will require energy points to produce, which in turn increases the cost of those fighters by the amount of energy required to field those computers. Each "hardpoint" that a fighter is equivalent to, costs the carrying ship at least 1.3 x the hull size in internal volume, which for a 40 dton fighter, is 120 dtons - excluding the cost of the launch tubes, stateroom for the fighter, cargo capacity for the munitions used by the fighter, etc.
All things considered, the Houserule does make it possible for fighters to compete in the High Guard Universe, and even grants a sort of built in advantage to the smaller ships because they require less computational power to run their ships. Having not had the chance to playtest the idea yet, I can't say whether it is worth using or not (which is more or less why I proposed this here, to let YOU playtest it)
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I like it Hal, I like it a LOT!
(of course that could be the insomnia talking )
(of course that could be the insomnia talking
)Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Hmm, I like it too. I can see it working its way into my house rules. 
The thing that still bothers me is that 50,000dT monster with Agility 6 and the 40dT fighter with Agility 0.
Somehow that is still counter-intuitive.
The thing that still bothers me is that 50,000dT monster with Agility 6 and the 40dT fighter with Agility 0.
Somehow that is still counter-intuitive.
Hmm, I like it too. I can see it working its way into my house rules.
The thing that still bothers me is that 50,000dT monster with Agility 6 and the 40dT fighter with Agility 0.
Somehow that is still counter-intuitive.
Part of the problem if you want to call it that, is that so much of the energy required to feed the computer is diverted from the Manuever drives.
Hmm. That brings me to a new question if you will. What happens to a computer when the energy required to power it drops below its mandated levels?
For example, lets say you need a powerplant 8 to get enough juice to run your computer, and the power plant drops to powerplant 7? Does that automatically get treated on a functional level as a full computer hit dropping it to zero? Ughhhh.
I guess that's the price you pay for flying in a flying eggshell so to speak.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Hal has an interesting house rule (relative combat computer size) but the way around it is to put "fire control computers" on the big ships: extra systems dedicated to the weapons, and so not involved in "running the ship."
Big ships have the tonnage to carry extra computer systems so they still would/should have their "usual" advantage.
I have thought of a houserule to reduce the Agility of some ships. There are two limits to any ships' Agility: the raw thrust of the drive (G-rating) and the ability to point the nose of the ship in the direction you want to build vector (pivoting). The G-rating of the drive is a matter of EP (in Traveller/HG) and if you put enough tonnage to it any ship can accelerate at up to 6 Gs. Pivoting depends on the strength of the maneuvering thrusters or other pointing system (pivoting on an internal gyroscope, al la SOM) and the ships' lateral moment of inertia, which is based on the shape (configuration) of the vessel. Ships that have their structure spread out more have more trouble turning since more of the mass is further from the center of mass. A table like this might be used:
My thinking here is that the more compact shapes don't lose much Agility, but either longer shapes (Needle/Wedge) or more spread out shapes (Dispersed Structure) or shapes that must have more mass near the surface of the shape (Planetoid, Buffered Planetoid) will tend to lose more Agility.
Big ships have the tonnage to carry extra computer systems so they still would/should have their "usual" advantage.
I have thought of a houserule to reduce the Agility of some ships. There are two limits to any ships' Agility: the raw thrust of the drive (G-rating) and the ability to point the nose of the ship in the direction you want to build vector (pivoting). The G-rating of the drive is a matter of EP (in Traveller/HG) and if you put enough tonnage to it any ship can accelerate at up to 6 Gs. Pivoting depends on the strength of the maneuvering thrusters or other pointing system (pivoting on an internal gyroscope, al la SOM) and the ships' lateral moment of inertia, which is based on the shape (configuration) of the vessel. Ships that have their structure spread out more have more trouble turning since more of the mass is further from the center of mass. A table like this might be used:
Code:
Configuration Agility Modifier
Needle/Wedge -3
Cone -2
Cylinder -1
Close Structure -1
Sphere None
Flattened Sphere -1
Dispersed Structure -3
Planetoid -1
Buffered Planetoid -2My thinking here is that the more compact shapes don't lose much Agility, but either longer shapes (Needle/Wedge) or more spread out shapes (Dispersed Structure) or shapes that must have more mass near the surface of the shape (Planetoid, Buffered Planetoid) will tend to lose more Agility.
Renaissance Man
SOC-12
That neatly sums up what I was thinking about big vs. little when it comes to combat speed. But I'm not sure... with inertial dampeners and the fact that the M-Drive is essentially a shaped gravity field (?) we actually might have the strange sight of massive ships with irregular hulls that spin and whirl around like houseflies on speed. Given my understanding of what an M-Drive is, thrust G-forces are equal to pivot Gs because it isn't "thrust" in the conventional sense (i.e. you don't have manouever jets spread out along the hull to push the nose around or anything like that) - you have directed "pushes" against the background contour of spacetime.
Anyway, I'm definitely getting out of my depth here. I so far like the sound of the HG ship combat rules, and they have the additional advantage of a lot of playtesting and players with a robust knowledge base, but I'm definitely awaiting the T5 rules set. That's the rules I'm likely to go with, since I'm largely a Traveller virgin and won't have the burden of a million other rules from ages past sitting in my head telling me that this or that doesn't make sense. But it looks like I'll have to get the CT cd and draw on HG in order to get the house rules I want.
As I've mentioned before, my lack of rules knowledge has led me to look at these problems at a conceptual/logical level rather than a practical rules-based level, so the point is well taken that space combat rules are an abstraction. However, this discussion is giving me very good BG for approaching the rules-set with a view to achieving my conceptual/logical goals.
Sheesh, I DO blabber a lot!
Last edited:
As I mentioned at the ct-starships list, there is a minor issue with the concept of using multiple computers in a linear fashion than with the rules as written. For example, the Model 1 computer has 2 active slots and 4 storage slots available for the computer type itself. One could purchase two such computers and have 4 active slots and 8 stoarage slots for use in combat situations as compared against a model-2 computer that has 3 active slots and 6 storage slots. Two model-1 computers cost only 4 Mcr versus the Model-2 cost of 9 Mcr.
Granted, there is the advantage of the Model 2 in that you can use it to run a single 3 slot program while two model-1 computers working in tandem have an upper limit of 2 for the program size. None the less, using two model-1 computers in a classic traveller combat situation is often better than using a single Model-2.
Much of High Guard is an abstracted combat system. If you note, the modifiers for "to hit" based on size of target hull ranges from -2 to +2 on a 2d6 system. In general, the computational power differential can be as different as -9 to +9 on 2d6. This is an obscene variation that seems to imply that although larger target size is limited to +/-2 at best, computational power of computers can outdo or even undo the limits imposed by the size of a given target? It could be construed that the "abstract" of computing power is that you need the entire system working together - manuever plus targeting, in order for either of the ability to dodge incoming fire or direct fire at any given target in space.
The thing to keep in mind here is that adding lasers to a battery isn't a linear effect, but an abstraction based on the idea that out of 30 lasers firing in tandem with each other, at least ONE of them will hit in a 20 minute period of time. Take for example, the prospect of assigning 10 turrets to either a single battery of 10 turrets, or 5 batteries of 2 turrets. The odds of securing a single hit with the single battery of 10 lasers is 4+ on 2d6 or roughly 92% chance. The odds however, of securing a single hit with 5 batteries of those self-same lasers becomes 99.8%. The odds of securing 2 hits with those 5 batteries becomes roughly 99% still.
My point is - adding a separate "combat targeting" computer in a linear fashion to the ship computer system value seems to violate the "abstraction" concept utilized in HIGH GUARD. You can't really add anything together in HIGH GUARD in a linear fashion and not expect it to violate the degree of abstraction involved in the whole process. What precisely is "Agility" that makes it different from the ability to move in a given direction in a variable way, constrained by the Max Thrust of a manuever drive? What does the "computing power" abstraction really mean in High Guard? If you looked at the orignal ship combat rules in Traveller Book 2, you will note that the highest value of "Defensive" mod you can get via a program is equal to a pilot's piloting skill. Ie, the Manuever/Evade Program will only permit you to add the FULL pilot skill to the defensive modifier is when you use the program Manuever/Evade 4 or 5. That is presuming of course that you have a pilot who has the max skill of Pilot-5 no? Maneuver/Evade 6 is the ONLY program that will let you get the full -5 regardless of the skill of the pilot. Manuever/Evade 6 only requires 3 active slots. Even a relatively low end computer can handle the 3 slots required if it is a Model-3 or better computer.
In conclusion? What makes Traveller's HIGH GUARD system work as an abstract system is that you're not required to account for ever single item aboard the ship much like Megatraveller or TNE or GURPS does. It merely requires that you have a system where you have only ONE computer type in action, only one manuever drive in action, only one spinal mount in action, etc. Abstracted so as to make the game either more playable or to make the game attractive for its relative quick resolution system.
The closest game system I've ever seen that matches High Guard in its simplicity is STAR FIRE. Probably my all time favorite combat system for starships is STARFLEET BATTLES (the early era, not the squadleader of space in the later time period).
My suggestion is that if you do impliment the combat computing mod rule, that you answer any other player in your "traveller universe" saying "Things do not stack in the Traveller universe in a linear fashion. Two computers combined in a linear fashion are better than one computer that is the next model up. Since there are so few 3 unit sized programs on up, it stands to reason that adding up computers in a linear fashion is not normal in the tactical version, let alone the abstract version. If they press you harder just state "in order for the targeting programs to work, they have to know what the ship's movements will be. Manuever at the slightest without that knowledge and you will turn your ship into an unstable (and thus inaccurate) firing platform." If they push it further? Well, then you have the luxury of saying "Listen dude, we can play it as the rules are written with all the abstractions inherent to the game and not know what those abstractions are, or we can modify the abstractions in a manner that suits THIS game master".
Truth be told? If you look TOO closely at the abstract system of HIGH GUARD, you're going to start seeing the thing's imperfections and cracks and such in an unflattering light.
Granted, there is the advantage of the Model 2 in that you can use it to run a single 3 slot program while two model-1 computers working in tandem have an upper limit of 2 for the program size. None the less, using two model-1 computers in a classic traveller combat situation is often better than using a single Model-2.
Much of High Guard is an abstracted combat system. If you note, the modifiers for "to hit" based on size of target hull ranges from -2 to +2 on a 2d6 system. In general, the computational power differential can be as different as -9 to +9 on 2d6. This is an obscene variation that seems to imply that although larger target size is limited to +/-2 at best, computational power of computers can outdo or even undo the limits imposed by the size of a given target? It could be construed that the "abstract" of computing power is that you need the entire system working together - manuever plus targeting, in order for either of the ability to dodge incoming fire or direct fire at any given target in space.
The thing to keep in mind here is that adding lasers to a battery isn't a linear effect, but an abstraction based on the idea that out of 30 lasers firing in tandem with each other, at least ONE of them will hit in a 20 minute period of time. Take for example, the prospect of assigning 10 turrets to either a single battery of 10 turrets, or 5 batteries of 2 turrets. The odds of securing a single hit with the single battery of 10 lasers is 4+ on 2d6 or roughly 92% chance. The odds however, of securing a single hit with 5 batteries of those self-same lasers becomes 99.8%. The odds of securing 2 hits with those 5 batteries becomes roughly 99% still.
My point is - adding a separate "combat targeting" computer in a linear fashion to the ship computer system value seems to violate the "abstraction" concept utilized in HIGH GUARD. You can't really add anything together in HIGH GUARD in a linear fashion and not expect it to violate the degree of abstraction involved in the whole process. What precisely is "Agility" that makes it different from the ability to move in a given direction in a variable way, constrained by the Max Thrust of a manuever drive? What does the "computing power" abstraction really mean in High Guard? If you looked at the orignal ship combat rules in Traveller Book 2, you will note that the highest value of "Defensive" mod you can get via a program is equal to a pilot's piloting skill. Ie, the Manuever/Evade Program will only permit you to add the FULL pilot skill to the defensive modifier is when you use the program Manuever/Evade 4 or 5. That is presuming of course that you have a pilot who has the max skill of Pilot-5 no? Maneuver/Evade 6 is the ONLY program that will let you get the full -5 regardless of the skill of the pilot. Manuever/Evade 6 only requires 3 active slots. Even a relatively low end computer can handle the 3 slots required if it is a Model-3 or better computer.
In conclusion? What makes Traveller's HIGH GUARD system work as an abstract system is that you're not required to account for ever single item aboard the ship much like Megatraveller or TNE or GURPS does. It merely requires that you have a system where you have only ONE computer type in action, only one manuever drive in action, only one spinal mount in action, etc. Abstracted so as to make the game either more playable or to make the game attractive for its relative quick resolution system.
The closest game system I've ever seen that matches High Guard in its simplicity is STAR FIRE. Probably my all time favorite combat system for starships is STARFLEET BATTLES (the early era, not the squadleader of space in the later time period).
My suggestion is that if you do impliment the combat computing mod rule, that you answer any other player in your "traveller universe" saying "Things do not stack in the Traveller universe in a linear fashion. Two computers combined in a linear fashion are better than one computer that is the next model up. Since there are so few 3 unit sized programs on up, it stands to reason that adding up computers in a linear fashion is not normal in the tactical version, let alone the abstract version. If they press you harder just state "in order for the targeting programs to work, they have to know what the ship's movements will be. Manuever at the slightest without that knowledge and you will turn your ship into an unstable (and thus inaccurate) firing platform." If they push it further? Well, then you have the luxury of saying "Listen dude, we can play it as the rules are written with all the abstractions inherent to the game and not know what those abstractions are, or we can modify the abstractions in a manner that suits THIS game master".
Truth be told? If you look TOO closely at the abstract system of HIGH GUARD, you're going to start seeing the thing's imperfections and cracks and such in an unflattering light.
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Starfire is fine as a tactical system, and the strategic economic system is ok, but the tech level/ship design stuff is a bit rough.
As to Star Fleet, I agree. I have played it since the little (not necessarily black, but the same size) books from the 70's. In the last 15 years or so, though, the rules nazi's really have made the game very tabletop squad leaderesque.
There are serious problems with fighters in any of the rules systems used. (Please note: I'm making observations, not saying what the role of fighters should be.)
The first is surface area/mass ratio. A battlewagon has a tremendous advantage over an equivalent displacement of smaller craft, because of the cube-square advantage. The smaller ships are harder to hit, but not enough to offset the advantage of tons of armour in TNE. (In TNE you can make a large ship immune to nuclear missiles, natch.)
Note that this isn't really a problem in High Guard, but fighters become very cost-ineffective at higher TLs, what with buying those power-gobbling computers and all. HG fighters are not eggshells armed with sledgehammer; they're bricks armed with feather dusters.
The second is the medium in which they move. In Real Life, the slowest aircraft is much faster than the fastest ship. But when everybody moves in space, there is no speed advantage to making your ship smaller. (Think of fighters less as airplanes than as torpedo boats.)
The third is missiles. Fighters can't really carry powerful energy weapons (though a TNE fighter with a large battery-powered laser with limited shots is an interesting concept.) They can, however, carry missiles.
If missiles are powerful (TNE), then fighters can have a strong combat role. They carry missiles to the enemy. But why do we need the fighter? Why not just make a very long-range missile, rather than putting several nuclear eggs in one small basket? And if missiles are weak (HG) then what is a fighter for except scouting/picket duty?
Fighters can be useful in HG providing a screen when retreating from battle; in BL, they can extend the sensor coverage of a fleet substantially. But they have little place in the battle line: we're not playing Flattop, after all.
--Devin
The first is surface area/mass ratio. A battlewagon has a tremendous advantage over an equivalent displacement of smaller craft, because of the cube-square advantage. The smaller ships are harder to hit, but not enough to offset the advantage of tons of armour in TNE. (In TNE you can make a large ship immune to nuclear missiles, natch.)
Note that this isn't really a problem in High Guard, but fighters become very cost-ineffective at higher TLs, what with buying those power-gobbling computers and all. HG fighters are not eggshells armed with sledgehammer; they're bricks armed with feather dusters.
The second is the medium in which they move. In Real Life, the slowest aircraft is much faster than the fastest ship. But when everybody moves in space, there is no speed advantage to making your ship smaller. (Think of fighters less as airplanes than as torpedo boats.)
The third is missiles. Fighters can't really carry powerful energy weapons (though a TNE fighter with a large battery-powered laser with limited shots is an interesting concept.) They can, however, carry missiles.
If missiles are powerful (TNE), then fighters can have a strong combat role. They carry missiles to the enemy. But why do we need the fighter? Why not just make a very long-range missile, rather than putting several nuclear eggs in one small basket? And if missiles are weak (HG) then what is a fighter for except scouting/picket duty?
Fighters can be useful in HG providing a screen when retreating from battle; in BL, they can extend the sensor coverage of a fleet substantially. But they have little place in the battle line: we're not playing Flattop, after all.
--Devin
A lot in the fighter debate stems from Luke Skywalker syndrome & his desire to blow up the biggest ship in known space, plus the aforementioned torpedo bombers of WW2. But in Traveller the primary role of Fighters in main fleet actions is to screen the battle line before the big ships engage.
The biggest risk a Battleship Fleet Commander faces is having his Battleship capacity reduced before facing the opponent he is tasked to defeat, the enemys Battleship Fleet. To this end, he doesn't want Battleships engaging nuisance threats, not because they cannot defeat them but because his job is to stay fully mission capable of defeating another Battleship Fleet.
This is where Fighters, Escorts, Destroyers & Cruisers come into effect in the battle line. They progressively defeat thier opposing numbers, ultimately leaving the capital ships to slug it out without the constant hassle of nuisance attacks.
As a Fighter rules addition,
I have always liked the 'Squadron rule' which in effect allows fighters with the same weapon systems & agility to work together to form a battery. It increases the effectiveness of fighters without going OTT. The idea has been in canon for a while, altho' not explicitly (eg: the mention in Challange in an article on the Rampart fighter) and it doesn't meet with universal appeal.
Cheers!
Matt
:rofl:
I like that description.
In my opinion, Classic Traveller lacks an effective 'Torpedo Boat'. Fighters are limited to the equivalent of a quad 50 to attack a battleship with ... where are the 'torpedos'?
I think those issues are somewhat lessened if structural houserules such as C.Thrash's ( hope I spelled it right..apologies if not ) are used. They tend to limit the amount of thrust large ships can handle without collapsing. For small ships, even thin armor is enough to allow for insane accelerations. while this is not 'speed' it does allow small ships/fighters to build up vectors and make huge battleships lumber along by comparison. Naturally, using mass instead of volume helps here too, as fighters could be lightly armored for better performance compared to a BB with 10 meter thick BSD.
Why do we need fighters in our modern world?
We have long range cruise missiles and SAMs for anti-air and anti-missile work.
imtu, I just say the human brain is more intuitive and adaptable than Trav's AI, so is better than the smallish comps in the missles. Using pilots with DNI's while immersed a hi-g acceleration tub allows both the precision/speed of comps and the 'quickness' of a brain together.
I believe that Fighter are part of the mystic of large battles
As for rules or how they work in a future setting.
I kind of liked part of the way Robtechs (RPG) handled them. Big ships had big guns for figthing big ships with big guns and planets.
Fighters were small things with some ability to hurt the big ships. Kind of like a fly biting a human (opinion). But guns had a hard time hitting the fighters with their big guns (some times like a -8 to the die roll and some ships still got to make a dodge roll against being hit by a big gun).
And like the fly bite. Whats one or two bites to a human, humm. But take say 100 bites and the human gets distracted. OK, maybe Luke Skywalker is only a fiction concept even in Traveller but what if you got a bite on say your eye lid or one up your nose etc.
The point is I beleive that if the cost of figthers is low and you can produce many of them then you can add to the attack value of a cruiser or two against a battle ship or so.
Also in general fighting mindsets. A lone figure or tank charging against you across the battle field is not as terrifing as 200 humans charging you across the battle field.
Think if you looked up into the sky today and saw one big 6 mile long space ship versus if you saw say 1000 small space ships in the same area.
Sometimes its the numbers that add to atmosphere.
Also, what if the world/military can not produce large ships like a battleship. Either due to time constraints or building capacity. I think that a military would settle on any thing that could fight at the right time than waiting for just that one big ship that might be built by the time the war is over.
Dave Chase
As for rules or how they work in a future setting.
I kind of liked part of the way Robtechs (RPG) handled them. Big ships had big guns for figthing big ships with big guns and planets.
Fighters were small things with some ability to hurt the big ships. Kind of like a fly biting a human (opinion). But guns had a hard time hitting the fighters with their big guns (some times like a -8 to the die roll and some ships still got to make a dodge roll against being hit by a big gun).
And like the fly bite. Whats one or two bites to a human, humm. But take say 100 bites and the human gets distracted. OK, maybe Luke Skywalker is only a fiction concept even in Traveller but what if you got a bite on say your eye lid or one up your nose etc.
The point is I beleive that if the cost of figthers is low and you can produce many of them then you can add to the attack value of a cruiser or two against a battle ship or so.
Also in general fighting mindsets. A lone figure or tank charging against you across the battle field is not as terrifing as 200 humans charging you across the battle field.
Think if you looked up into the sky today and saw one big 6 mile long space ship versus if you saw say 1000 small space ships in the same area.
Sometimes its the numbers that add to atmosphere.
Also, what if the world/military can not produce large ships like a battleship. Either due to time constraints or building capacity. I think that a military would settle on any thing that could fight at the right time than waiting for just that one big ship that might be built by the time the war is over.
Dave Chase
