Fighters

[Whipsnade]

Very good observation. In High Guard, surface hits basically don't matter...

Devin,

Re-read the section on fuel hits again. Surface hits are killers for ships under a certain size.

They either "spill" 1% of tankage or 10 dTons.

During the ct_starships Fighter Smoke Test at Yahoo Groups several years ago, fighters mission-killed their opponents primarily through fuel hits. If the fighters can hit - a very big if, as your excellent example earlier in this thread showed - a "swarm" of fighters costing roughly 80% of a warship's worth in MCr can mission-kill the warship in one combat round.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[dccarles]

Devin,

Re-read the section on fuel hits again. Surface hits are killers for ships under a certain size.

They either "spill" 1% of tankage or 10 dTons.

I know, which is why I said 'basically'. Small ships, i.e. ones without spinal mounts, are of limited use in the battle line for this (and many other) reasons. I've designed frigates where I added additional fuel not because it needed to go further, but because it needed a reserve for sopping up fuel hits.


--Devin

 

[pendragonman]

I've designed frigates where I added additional fuel not because it needed to go further, but because it needed a reserve for sopping up fuel hits.
--Devin

Heh. That is something I have done on many different size vessels, not just frigates.

 

[Jame]

Lately I've been doing this with manuever fuel, primarily to provide extra in-system endurance. Most of the time I prefer to leave room for cargo, as justification for "make the users figure out how to use it."

 

[dccarles]

Lately I've been doing this with manuever fuel, primarily to provide extra in-system endurance. Most of the time I prefer to leave room for cargo, as justification for "make the users figure out how to use it."

For me, cargo space is the Swiss Army Knife of ship systems. No ship (other than, say, a pure combatant like a fighter) should have some. Not only can it carry cargo, it also serves as growing room for a design: usage often shows small deficiencies in an otherwise well-thought-out design, and if there's no expansion space, something else will have to be removed to correct it.

--Devin

 

[Jame]

For me, cargo space is the Swiss Army Knife of ship systems. No ship (other than, say, a pure combatant like a fighter) should have some. Not only can it carry cargo, it also serves as growing room for a design: usage often shows small deficiencies in an otherwise well-thought-out design, and if there's no expansion space, something else will have to be removed to correct it.

--Devin

Then don't you mean "every ship (other than, say, a pure combatant like a fighter) should have some?"

 

[spank]

self sealing tanks

Maybe there should be a design option for self sealing feul tanks?

 

[far-trader]

Maybe there should be a design option for self sealing fuel tanks?

I think the fact that you only lose a little bit of fuel* points to a very effective self sealing and partitioned fuel tanks. No option needed or useful. It's as good as it gets

* usually, there is that big killer "Fuel Tanks Shattered" where you lose it all

 

[spank]

I think the fact that you only lose a little bit of fuel* points to a very effective self sealing and partitioned fuel tanks. No option needed or useful. It's as good as it gets

* usually, there is that big killer "Fuel Tanks Shattered" where you lose it all

Maybe so, I don't actually know how effective self sealing tanks are in aircraft, or how long they take to seal.

Another thought I had was that it might be useful to reduce feul tankage by using denser feul of some sort maybe radioactives for example or a small tank of hydrogen brought to near fusing conditions, smaller feul supply means less chance of a hit, and would be easier to armor as well. But again, I don't go in for space battles so much in traveller.

 

[far-trader]

Maybe so, I don't actually know how effective self sealing tanks are in aircraft, or how long they take to seal.

It's related to how big the hole is, and holes on spaceships from hits by spaceship weapons are going to be huge and messy

There's also the issue of having the fuel tanks open enough to provide the fast fuel flow needed for jump drives.

You're alternate fuel idea isn't bad but there'd probably be other issues to deal with then. A hit on radio-actives might contaminate the rest of the ship killing everyone slowly, so any fuel hit might just be a slow critical. Or it might be that while smaller and less likely to be hit, one hit would destroy all the fuel.

In HG at least it's all an abstraction that doesn't specifically factor fuel size or hardiness, nor allow you to armor sections.

It comes down to a simple game rule to make combat work is all really. It'd be a bit boring with just "hit = kill" despite the realism of it. So instead we have "hit = fuel" etc. to make us "feel" the combat and consider options like retreating.

 

[dccarles]

Then don't you mean "every ship (other than, say, a pure combatant like a fighter) should have some?"

Sorry, first day with a new brain. I meant 'no ship should be without it.'

I also add a few extra staterooms on my ships - first, to handle crew expansion, and second, ..."Well, the admiral needs to get to Maydupwirld in a hurry. Along with his staff. Aaand you're the first ship available."

-Devin

 

[pendragonman]

Sorry, first day with a new brain. -Devin

Be careful during the breaking in. Early damage can have really far reaching effects

 

[sabredog]

My group used fighters in units as mobile weapons batteries. 10 beam laser fighters equaled the same factor under High Guard as a battery of laser turrets. Fusion and plasma gun armed ones acted as batteries of turret or bay weapons depending on class and weight of weaponry designed into them.

This way they were very useful for not just screening the capital ships from missiles but also for taking on smaller ships like couriers, destroyers, tenders, and battlerider tenders. Essentially they were 6-g support ship killers good for breaking the line and taking the fight to the rear.

 

[dccarles]

My group used fighters in units as mobile weapons batteries. 10 beam laser fighters equaled the same factor under High Guard as a battery of laser turrets.

I never liked this solution as a referee. I was always thinking about what I'd say when a player asked 'Well, why can't I combine the fire of several batteries on one or more larger craft to get a better factor?'

That objection aside, it is a simple and easy solution to the problem. If your players don't ask this sort of question, then it's probably the best.

-Devin

 

[sabredog]

My players didn't ask that question because we all came from a wargaming background playing a lot of miniature naval games. You can't get a higher factor from combining the weapons of separate ships because if you think in penetration (ie., "drop-through" value against armor belts and decks) of a weapon then no matter how many you use, if they individually won't punch through they won't hurt anything of value. And in High Guard all that "nuisance damage" doesn't count in the big picture. Just like when playing with battleships and destroyers. And thats how we always saw High Guard actions as.

Thats where fighters acting as cohesive squadrons/wings/flights comes in. It simulates on the large scale how those are used in fleet interdiction (read F-14's intercepting incoming anti-ship cruise missiles...Hellcats trying to take out Kate and Val bombers...and then when the missile/bomber interdiction is over, they go after the support craft. Or even as torpedo boat destroyers acting as pickets for the line ships.

Plus, we have AWACS and similar systems today (think Aegis) for coordinating the actions of fighter wings to maximize thier effectiveness so I always figured that in the future it would be less like a free-for-all over London '41 than a heavily managed battle. If the carriers and flagships lost control over the fighters (which were linked specifically to the mother ship and flagships only), then they no longer had the ability to coordinate attacks to create these roving batteries and were "off the board".

 

[Ishmael]

IMTU, because I use my own ship building rules, fighters have very high accelerations, whereas heavy ships don't. Pilots use direct neural interfaces and pilot from fluid immersion g-baths with hydraulic tubing and other cybernetic stuff for life support. You can tell a fighter pilot because of the various hydraulic ports grafted into their bodies ( and their attitude because they think they are indestructable....they block the high casualty rates out of their minds ).

High G's are good because the G's are allocated between manuever ( closing range ) and evasion/agility.

Fighter sacrifice everything for acceleration and hard hitting weapons...usually missles. Fusion guns for close in work.

Thet're not expected to take on heavy ships and destroy them any more than a F4U-4 Corsair could take out the Yamato.

I'm pretty sure I have pics of fighters from mtu in the gallery section...

 

[Icosahedron]

I never liked this solution as a referee. I was always thinking about what I'd say when a player asked 'Well, why can't I combine the fire of several batteries on one or more larger craft to get a better factor?'

That objection aside, it is a simple and easy solution to the problem. If your players don't ask this sort of question, then it's probably the best.

-Devin

My reply would be simple: "Your weaponry on the larger ship(s) is already arranged as a battery. You can have batteries of turrets but not batteries of batteries or batteries of bays - now shut up and get on with the game."

 

[dccarles]

A battery of secondary weapons with a factor > 9 would be very useful, even if it didn't benefit from the -6 on the damage table modifier, or the additional damage rolls. I've pointed out before that High Guard high-agility frigates (<2000 tons) can be very difficult to hit; being able to improve the to hit and penetration roll target numbers would be helpful.

--Devin

 

[mike wightman]

There is a way - crew skill =)

A lot of people overlook the section in HG with regard to PC skills and the combat tables. Now the average NPC is assumed to have a skill of 2, so what is needed is an NPC crew quality system:

green - NPC skill level 1
regular - NPC skill level 2
veteran - NPC skill level 3
elite - NPC skill level 4

 

[far-trader]

But you need at least skill level 3 for a plus 1 and how many characters get skill level 3 in the required skills? A few in Pilot, perhaps, if you're in the Scouts but then this is the Navy right.

And there's no official skill add for Gunnery which would help. I'm ok adding it in mtu and have done.

The thing is, where is the Navy going to put it's best (and very limited) elite Pilots, Gunners, and Tacticians? In the apparently expendable and pointless fighters? No, in the big ships of the line of course where they will count the most.

And it all balances out in the end. If your Navy has elite NPCs then so does mine right?

It's a good reminder that the rule is there but I don't see it helping much with the problem

I think it was there to allow PCs a small edge by which they might survive encounters. So the PC fighter pilots in a blended RPG/Fleet game will live through the battle and score some kills, while most of their fellow fighter pilots die or do little to affect the outcome.