[High Guard] Uniting Small Craft into Squadrons
- Thread starter Golan2072
- Start date
Well, let's think about fighters as a combat unit in general, and what possible advantages they may have over something larger.
The first problem is simply scaling the maneuvering system. That is more related to mass than anything else, but maneuver drives already scale. A 6G drive on a 100 dTon fighter is a drive that produces enough force to accelerate the ship by 6Gs. A 6G drive on a 10,000 dTon cruiser is the same thing -- a drive that produces enough force to accelerate the ship by 6Gs. Obviously the 10,000 dTon ships drive must be larger than the fighters drive, but the results are the same -- 6Gs.
That brings in to question the whole "agility" thing. Why can't a 10,000 dTon ship be as "agile" as a 100 dTon fighter? Assuming the ship is properly reinforced of course.
For example, in modern times, one of the advantages a air-to-air missile has over a jet fighter is simply that it can take more G forces and be operational. If a jet fighter can only make an 8G turn before either losing the pilot or simply breaking apart, while a missile can make a 10-12G turn, that means that the missile can turn at higher velocities or at a sharper radius than the plane. It's more agile.
But in space, we don't really have turns like planes do, as we don't have lift from the air. Planes use their wings to turn, not thrust. In space you can simply use your engines to turn. That makes a 6G fighter just as maneuverable as a 6G cruiser.
The only thing that can perhaps make a fighter more nimble than a cruiser is how easily the ship can turn itself around using auxilliary thrusters. It's easy to see how small thrusters on a small ship can make it change it's yaw/pitch/roll much more easily than a cruiser can.
But, at "space" engagment distances -- does that nimbleness really matter?
I can see that it might matter against a sublight impact weapon, specifically a missile. It's easy to see how a 10,000 dTon cruiser is easier to physically hit than a fighter. It doesn't matter how nimble the cruiser is if I'm aiming center of mass on it. There's simply more ship to "get out of the way".
I would argue that "nimbleness" relates to how fast one can turn, not necessarily accelerate.
With it low mass and momentum, a 6G fighter should be able to "out turn" a cruiser simply because it can change its vector faster.
For example, say in game terms using a Mayday style movement system, the fighter can place it's "next" marker anywhere within 6 hexes (i.e. 6Gs) of its plotted destination, whereas, the cruiser has a cone shaped area of change. Such that while the cruiser can certainly speed up by 6G's going forward, it's can't turn the ship off axis from its vector more than, say, 2 hexes. Or, more simply it can only change facing by 2 hex sides each turn (say), and then apply it's 6G vector from there, whereas the fighter can face any direction it wants.
This allows a faster turning ship, even with the same overall acceleration, to turn faster than a larger ship.
But with your generic Mayday system, where you can adjust your next marker by your G rating, a 6G fighter can not out turn a 6G cruiser.
So. Save for overall target size, what benefit does a fighter have then? Anything at all?
I think it's pretty clear that efficiency comes from the best ration of damage efficiency / survivability / cost (both material and staffing).
With speed of light weapons, maneuverability loses much of its charm. With cannons I need you in my sights for a sustained period. With a laser, if I can take a flash photo of you with a big X on your tail, I can send several megawatts of hurt your way as well. Then it becomes dependant on the cycle time of the weapon (i.e. how long does it take to fire a plasma gun from when the trigger is pulled and the gun fired). Simple image processing can tell when the target and the X overlap and the computer can fire the weapon.
So, simply put, I just question the overall efficacy of fighters at all in a battle. The only benefit to a fighter is perhaps overall survivability of the overall combat unit. It's hard to catastrophically take out the entire unit when you can only kill them one at a time. But when large ships are as fast as small ships, I think the draw to smaller sizes is lost in overall innefficiencies. The classic 4 Gun SDB may well overall be more efficient than 4 Fighters. Less crew perhaps, easier maintenance, etc. Ye Olde economics of war.
Of course this is where you get your min-max calculators out and come up with the 9990 dTon pocket cruisers.
The first problem is simply scaling the maneuvering system. That is more related to mass than anything else, but maneuver drives already scale. A 6G drive on a 100 dTon fighter is a drive that produces enough force to accelerate the ship by 6Gs. A 6G drive on a 10,000 dTon cruiser is the same thing -- a drive that produces enough force to accelerate the ship by 6Gs. Obviously the 10,000 dTon ships drive must be larger than the fighters drive, but the results are the same -- 6Gs.
That brings in to question the whole "agility" thing. Why can't a 10,000 dTon ship be as "agile" as a 100 dTon fighter? Assuming the ship is properly reinforced of course.
For example, in modern times, one of the advantages a air-to-air missile has over a jet fighter is simply that it can take more G forces and be operational. If a jet fighter can only make an 8G turn before either losing the pilot or simply breaking apart, while a missile can make a 10-12G turn, that means that the missile can turn at higher velocities or at a sharper radius than the plane. It's more agile.
But in space, we don't really have turns like planes do, as we don't have lift from the air. Planes use their wings to turn, not thrust. In space you can simply use your engines to turn. That makes a 6G fighter just as maneuverable as a 6G cruiser.
The only thing that can perhaps make a fighter more nimble than a cruiser is how easily the ship can turn itself around using auxilliary thrusters. It's easy to see how small thrusters on a small ship can make it change it's yaw/pitch/roll much more easily than a cruiser can.
But, at "space" engagment distances -- does that nimbleness really matter?
I can see that it might matter against a sublight impact weapon, specifically a missile. It's easy to see how a 10,000 dTon cruiser is easier to physically hit than a fighter. It doesn't matter how nimble the cruiser is if I'm aiming center of mass on it. There's simply more ship to "get out of the way".
I would argue that "nimbleness" relates to how fast one can turn, not necessarily accelerate.
With it low mass and momentum, a 6G fighter should be able to "out turn" a cruiser simply because it can change its vector faster.
For example, say in game terms using a Mayday style movement system, the fighter can place it's "next" marker anywhere within 6 hexes (i.e. 6Gs) of its plotted destination, whereas, the cruiser has a cone shaped area of change. Such that while the cruiser can certainly speed up by 6G's going forward, it's can't turn the ship off axis from its vector more than, say, 2 hexes. Or, more simply it can only change facing by 2 hex sides each turn (say), and then apply it's 6G vector from there, whereas the fighter can face any direction it wants.
This allows a faster turning ship, even with the same overall acceleration, to turn faster than a larger ship.
But with your generic Mayday system, where you can adjust your next marker by your G rating, a 6G fighter can not out turn a 6G cruiser.
So. Save for overall target size, what benefit does a fighter have then? Anything at all?
I think it's pretty clear that efficiency comes from the best ration of damage efficiency / survivability / cost (both material and staffing).
With speed of light weapons, maneuverability loses much of its charm. With cannons I need you in my sights for a sustained period. With a laser, if I can take a flash photo of you with a big X on your tail, I can send several megawatts of hurt your way as well. Then it becomes dependant on the cycle time of the weapon (i.e. how long does it take to fire a plasma gun from when the trigger is pulled and the gun fired). Simple image processing can tell when the target and the X overlap and the computer can fire the weapon.
So, simply put, I just question the overall efficacy of fighters at all in a battle. The only benefit to a fighter is perhaps overall survivability of the overall combat unit. It's hard to catastrophically take out the entire unit when you can only kill them one at a time. But when large ships are as fast as small ships, I think the draw to smaller sizes is lost in overall innefficiencies. The classic 4 Gun SDB may well overall be more efficient than 4 Fighters. Less crew perhaps, easier maintenance, etc. Ye Olde economics of war.
Of course this is where you get your min-max calculators out and come up with the 9990 dTon pocket cruisers.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
You could use carriers for system defense, or some kind of covert bases on asteroids and the like.
Larger fighters (with small craft staterooms and other long-duration fittings) could act as very small SDBs, in the sense that they can go on medium-duration (a week or two, maybe up to a month) missions all on their own.
Running out of munitions (missiles, sand) would likely be a more serious handicap for fighters in the SDB role, rather than running out of life support or fuel.
Larger fighters (with small craft staterooms and other long-duration fittings) could act as very small SDBs, in the sense that they can go on medium-duration (a week or two, maybe up to a month) missions all on their own.
Running out of munitions (missiles, sand) would likely be a more serious handicap for fighters in the SDB role, rather than running out of life support or fuel.
Whartung,
Okay, everything was going well until that last bit.
A 'vector' is nothing more than 'velocity' with a 'directional' tag attached. There is no reason why a small craft should be inherently better at changing its vector than a larger craft. Let me quote your next bit so I can sue it as an example:
Okay, in your air combat example you correctly pointed that turning and other such maneuvers depend on drag from the atmosphere. Yet, here you fall into the trap of assuming that 'drag' or 'resistence' should still prevent large craft from changing 'facing' as quickly as smaller craft. That isn't the case.
Turns in [CT, Mayday, and HG2 are measured in minutes, even tens of minutes. That enough time for any vessel to change its 'orientation' or 'facing'. If the game terms were measured in seconds your 'Can't Change Orientation Quickly Enough' excuse could come into play. However, the effect would not be as great as you would wish it to be.
You also seem to be confusing a vessel's 'thrust' with its 'gee rating'. The two are not the same. One, in fact, is derived from the other.
For example, a vessel does not produce 6-gees of thrust. Instead, it produces a certain amount of thrust which - when applied the the vessel's mass - results in 6 gees of acceleration. With a smaller mass, a fighter uses a smaller drive than the larger mass cruiser to produce the same 6 gees of acceleration. However, relative to the size of the craft they are installed in, those drives are the same size!
Traveller's upper limit for manned craft of 6 gees is the 'trouble' here, not agility or the speed at which a vessel can change its orientation.
Have fun,
Bill
What I was thinking off was the Solomani and the Aslan using SDCs (System Defense Carriers) or SDSs (System Defense Squadrons) rather than SDBs; SDSs could be based on planets, preferrably on airless, low-gravity astroids and moonlets that are easy to take off from.
Low-tech (TL9) fighters are also effective against corsairs and their ilk and are DAMN CHEAP and take one month to produce - and a well-populated TL9 world with a Starport-B could produce many at the same time, and export the excess to other systems.
Low-tech (TL9) fighters are also effective against corsairs and their ilk and are DAMN CHEAP and take one month to produce - and a well-populated TL9 world with a Starport-B could produce many at the same time, and export the excess to other systems.
