Fighters
- Thread starter Renaissance Man
- Start date
It *should* be suicidal. It's not as if fighters in Traveller move in a different medium with a huge speed advatage to compensate for their vulnerability, like aircraft do in modern naval combat. It's more like a PT Boat. Same "ocean", limited speed / manuever advantage... not a solid guarantee of of living to collect you're pension. You would need numbers, confusion or an ambush (i.e. in a gas giant atmosphere) to get the job done and deliver your load without getting blown to bits. If you want some analog of aerial combat you need to get down and dirty in the gravity well / atmosphere. I have both space boats and orbital / atmospheric fighters IMTU along with the boat tenders and carriers that deploy them.
I would suggest that the general perception of Fighters would change if we ran a double blind combat with a Referee enforcing the actual sensor detection and tracking ranges from Book 5. Suddenly invading a system becomes a lot more like submarine warfare and Fighters become the eyes of the fleet - probing for contact.
Speaking of submarine warfare... one way to sneak a ship insystem that would give that feel would be a black globe generator. Turned on with no flicker, it absorbs energy... invisible to sensors but needing to come out occasionally to course correct and see whats happening... That would be a bit tense.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
The Black Globe Submarine is much more effective if it has a Periscope.
I use a cutter-size small craft mounting a Factor 9 computer, extensive sensor suite and a pulse laser.
Thanks to its small size and powerful sensors, the Periscope is able to detect other craft before it is detected by them. It then fires two laser pulses at the Black Globe Sub (the ref may allow low power pulses, but no matter if not).
The Periscope knows where the sub is, obviously, and since the incoming (trivial amount of) energy is absorbed into the capacitor bank, monitoring the capacitor bank will detect the laser pulses.
The time between pulses can be used as a pre-arranged code to pass vital information about a potential target, and at the appropriate time the Sub can drop the globe for one turn, (twenty minutes is more than adequate for an information exchange with the Periscope and a firing solution) fire a salvo of missiles, and raise its globe again, probably without being detected.
It works a bit like a Deep Meson in space - the only way to kill it is to destroy the Periscope(s) and force it to peek. The sub only needs small drives, so there can be LOTS of space to fill with capacitors, making it hard to kill even when the thing is found.
I use a cutter-size small craft mounting a Factor 9 computer, extensive sensor suite and a pulse laser.
Thanks to its small size and powerful sensors, the Periscope is able to detect other craft before it is detected by them. It then fires two laser pulses at the Black Globe Sub (the ref may allow low power pulses, but no matter if not).
The Periscope knows where the sub is, obviously, and since the incoming (trivial amount of) energy is absorbed into the capacitor bank, monitoring the capacitor bank will detect the laser pulses.
The time between pulses can be used as a pre-arranged code to pass vital information about a potential target, and at the appropriate time the Sub can drop the globe for one turn, (twenty minutes is more than adequate for an information exchange with the Periscope and a firing solution) fire a salvo of missiles, and raise its globe again, probably without being detected.
It works a bit like a Deep Meson in space - the only way to kill it is to destroy the Periscope(s) and force it to peek. The sub only needs small drives, so there can be LOTS of space to fill with capacitors, making it hard to kill even when the thing is found.
Not quite where I was coming from. Difficult or impossible to achieve perhaps should not be the same as suicidal. You mention ambush tactics, I'm interested in those & other aspects like design & doctrin for example that serve to convince your pilots that one day they may be both bold & old pilots.
The Israeli's for example with thier Merkava ('70's ?) design led the way in increasing crew survivability in MBT's.
The US with stealth technology increased the survivability of ground attack aircraft in hostile environments.
Neither of these are great examples, ground attack is not the same as flying into the teeth of a Tech 12 Battleship and support craft.
Any thoughts on reducing the 'suicide' part of getting fighters to attack Capital ships?
Cheers!
Matt
Interesting idea, wouldn't be hard to set up a comms system on that basis using the laser as a carrier & reading the capacitor as you suggest. Full marks for that one, I'll use it!
Cheers!
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Consider that idea immediately stol... borrowed.
No reason why the cutter has to be manned, and since it knows the globed ship's vector it doesn't even need to be too close.
Just an additional thought though - if the laser is pulsed you have a digital communication device, and I'm pretty sure the model 9 computer is more than capable of processing a lot of information eeven if its source is the capacitor banks.
Nice idea
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
One, and rather simple I think, and maybe even realistic enough. I haven't been able to play with it but thought about it a bit a while back.
Add a range band to HG combat. Point Blank.
At point blank range ships can't bring batteries, bays or spinals to bear, only single turrets. So while fighters can hit ships (single turret) many ships (those with organized batteries, bays, or spinals) can't hit the fighters. Unless they dedicate turrets and gunners to point defense.
Then all that's needed is a way to introduce a new movement. Point Blank Attack Run.
Possibly...
Any ship or ships that can match or exceed the maneuver rating of the opposing fleet can attempt to close to Point Blank range. If the ship or ships attempting to do so exceed the maneuver rating of the opposing fleet closing is automatic. If the maneuver ratings are equal the opposing fleet may maintain it's distance by losing it's offensive fire turn. The ship or ships attempting to close forfeit their agility rating for the turn.
It lacks still an effective attack mode for the tiny fighters. Some mechanism needs to be added to reflect the close up nature of the attacks. If one presumes that most of the standard turn is made up of many shots fired and few actually hitting for effect, then perhaps that is the factor when close enough that every shot hits for effect. So bump up the USP of weapons when at Point Blank range. How much I'm not sure, finding the right number to be fun and not unbalanced will be tricky.
Renaissance Man
SOC-12
I'm starting to think of fighters less as weapons platforms and more as recon/intelligence/deception vehicles.
Especially if one brings some kind of sensor and commo-jamming rules into the mix. I can't help but think of AEMS and PEMS jamming as a "spotlight" rather than ambient affair. Essentially jammers are painting the enemy ships and their sensor arrays with a focused, broad-spectrum em beam that makes target acquisition more difficult - like shining a flashlight in somebody's eyes on a moonless night.
Having multiple fighters out there running sensor jams, or feeding sensor scans and target locks to their host capital ship gives an advantage back to having lots of small craft. Brings a whole new meaning to Bush Sr's "thousand points of light."
This is analagous to my thinking on high-TL ground warfare, where drones and spy vehicles are zipping through the air by the thousands providing an ever evolving real-time map of the battlefield. Since Sun Tzu, we have known that war is fundamentally about intelligence vs. deception. At higher TL's this should become ever more apparent, especially in space, where targeting distances are so extreme that sensor ops become as important as the size of your spinal mount.
Especially if one brings some kind of sensor and commo-jamming rules into the mix. I can't help but think of AEMS and PEMS jamming as a "spotlight" rather than ambient affair. Essentially jammers are painting the enemy ships and their sensor arrays with a focused, broad-spectrum em beam that makes target acquisition more difficult - like shining a flashlight in somebody's eyes on a moonless night.
Having multiple fighters out there running sensor jams, or feeding sensor scans and target locks to their host capital ship gives an advantage back to having lots of small craft. Brings a whole new meaning to Bush Sr's "thousand points of light."
This is analagous to my thinking on high-TL ground warfare, where drones and spy vehicles are zipping through the air by the thousands providing an ever evolving real-time map of the battlefield. Since Sun Tzu, we have known that war is fundamentally about intelligence vs. deception. At higher TL's this should become ever more apparent, especially in space, where targeting distances are so extreme that sensor ops become as important as the size of your spinal mount.
Last edited:
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Consider that idea immediately stol... borrowed.
No reason why the cutter has to be manned, and since it knows the globed ship's vector it doesn't even need to be too close.
Just an additional thought though - if the laser is pulsed you have a digital communication device, and I'm pretty sure the model 9 computer is more than capable of processing a lot of information eeven if its source is the capacitor banks.
Nice idea
Thanks.
Yes, I've been happy with the pulsed commo idea IMTU, the 'two big thumps' was a guard against rules lawyers really.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
I've used ranges of Long, Short and Close for a long time. I also developed a 'squadron rule'.
Fighters are much more effective against smaller ships though. One weapon I have used is the 'Hornet's Nest', a dispersed structure craft of under a thousand tons with a swarm of fighters attached to its hull. (IIRC HG allows fighters down to about 6dT without houseruling, and each one is allowed a laser or missile launcher.) A Hornet's Nest has many times the firepower of a conventional ship of similar size.
A squadron of Hornet's Nests can bring a pretty amazing number of weapons to bear against ships of 'Book 2' sizes.
One way to save fighters
Right now, I'm working on a High Guard style set of rules to satisfy me until the T5 version comes out.
One thing I thought of was that at short ranges beam weapons ought to have a very high armour penetration (though the same damage) because they can be much more accurately focused. Secondary weapons, then, could be very effective at very short ranges.
The US Navy has, since before WW II, specified armour not based on thickness but on immunity at a certain range to a given size of shell - usually the same as the ship's main armament. For example, the South Dakota's belt armour is immune to penetration by 16"/45 fire outside of 18,000 yards.
Inside of 18,000 yards, though, the South Dakota is in trouble. At very short ranges it might even be penetrated by 14" fire or less.
In TNE, lasers are the kings of penetration (as opposed to just slopping on the damage points, like particle accelerators.) A large battlewagon, then, might be in danger if it were faced with lots and lots of laser-armed fighters at short range.
I'm still working through the system I have in mind, so I'll fill you guys in as I come up with concrete playable stuff.
--Devin
Right now, I'm working on a High Guard style set of rules to satisfy me until the T5 version comes out.
One thing I thought of was that at short ranges beam weapons ought to have a very high armour penetration (though the same damage) because they can be much more accurately focused. Secondary weapons, then, could be very effective at very short ranges.
The US Navy has, since before WW II, specified armour not based on thickness but on immunity at a certain range to a given size of shell - usually the same as the ship's main armament. For example, the South Dakota's belt armour is immune to penetration by 16"/45 fire outside of 18,000 yards.
Inside of 18,000 yards, though, the South Dakota is in trouble. At very short ranges it might even be penetrated by 14" fire or less.
In TNE, lasers are the kings of penetration (as opposed to just slopping on the damage points, like particle accelerators.) A large battlewagon, then, might be in danger if it were faced with lots and lots of laser-armed fighters at short range.
I'm still working through the system I have in mind, so I'll fill you guys in as I come up with concrete playable stuff.
--Devin
I used a less abstract combat system for a while. To satisfy the Luke Skywalker in all of us, I allowed fighters at point blank range to target areas on a ship which would not have the full hull armour value. Airlocks, boat bays, sensor arrays, turrets, launch tubes, and yes spinal mount muzzles among others all had lesser armour values. It gave the fighters something interesting and effective to do. At point blank range only turrets, missiles, and other fighters could track and target them. Of course they had to close to point blank range first and then stay there... It gave that Death Star feel to fighter actions.
Many have noted the comparative invulnerability of battleships to fighters. In fact that is nothing new. Despite the myth, fewer battleships were sunk in wwii then is thought. Allied anti-aircraft technology had more or less caught up with the airplane by 1942(enemy battleships remained at a disadvantage). Battleships in wwii remained in the "second fiddle" place to which they had been relagated. But at the same time, they could be quite a bother to sink.
But still they could be sunk from the air alone or in tandem with other elements.
As I understand, battleships in Traveller have their power increased from that, making it far harder to destroy them with fighters alone. But not necessarily impossible. Like wwii battleships they were tough but not impossible.
To continue the analogy, the ideal target for aircraft was not battleships but other types of vessels that could put up less of a fight. The same might be true in Traveler. There can be only so many battleships, whereas other types of ships are more vulnerable. And of course transport and service vessels are meat for the slaughter if caught unprotected.
But still they could be sunk from the air alone or in tandem with other elements.
As I understand, battleships in Traveller have their power increased from that, making it far harder to destroy them with fighters alone. But not necessarily impossible. Like wwii battleships they were tough but not impossible.
To continue the analogy, the ideal target for aircraft was not battleships but other types of vessels that could put up less of a fight. The same might be true in Traveler. There can be only so many battleships, whereas other types of ships are more vulnerable. And of course transport and service vessels are meat for the slaughter if caught unprotected.
A major problem facing battleships was the mass of deck armour required to stop a 2000 lb AP bomb. Basically, there wasn't any way to do it without going above 100,000 tons. (Correct me if I'm wrong there, but I do know the US Navy studied it when designing the never-built Montana class and deemed it highly impractical.) The Repulse and Prince of Wales were destroyed by torpedo-bombers, but they had no air cover and little AA weaponry to speak of.
Battleships in Traveller don't sink. In High Guard, fighters can only do surface damage to a battleship with any amount of armour (factor 4+). At best they can hit the maneuver drive with nuclear missles - not really an option with high-tech nuclear dampers, and at other TLs a 1000-ton missile boat will beat an equivalent cost in fighters, picking them off one by one.
Fighters in TNE suffer from similar problems. A large battleship, with a very good volume/surface area ratio, can pile on the sandcasters and armour to make nuclear-pumped x-ray laser missiles iffy solutions at best.
So historical comparisons with wet-navy ships are problematic. The best solution I've seen so far is to find an alternate role for fighters: scouts, screening forces, pickets and commerce raiding. In High Guard a convoy will foil a 15,000 dton cruiser easily by scattering. Not so a similar-sized carrier.
--Devin
The key feature of fighters vs battleships is that fighters used a different type of drive than battleships, and were capable of carrying weapons that would hurt battleships. If there was, say, some useful type of drive that didn't scale up past 100 dtons, and weapons which could be carried by a fighter that have a reasonable chance of hurting a battleship, there might be a role for fighters (depending on what useful effect the drive has).
At low tech levels, fighters with nuclear missiles are competitive.
At low tech levels, fighters with nuclear missiles are competitive.
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Fighters...Great for role play, bad in stragetic warfare.
That's very clever.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
How did you implement this? Was it a blanket 'subtract x from armour at point blank range', or did you have different armour ratings for different targets and a roll to hit table? Or something else?
I use a 'close range fighters can only be hit by turrets' rule, but I haven't used a special targeting table (yet). I use a group battery rule instead. Your idea sounds like an interesting option.
