Pet peeve: Wet Navy in Space

[mike wightman]

Forget nearly everything you have seen on a TV show or at the cinema (except perhaps The Expanse - unless you want 'unrealistic' cinematic ship combat for your game)

Missiles, rail guns and lasers have ranges measured in hundreds or thousands of km - in CT lasers are accurate at light second ranges.

Traveller fighters are analogous to motor torpedo boats more than aircraft if you want to use a real world paradigm - except they lack the 'torpedo' that would make them a threat.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Someone at Starfleetgames said that SFB carriers were like WW2 carriers, in that fighters acted as fire support. No one fighter, unlike today, could sink a warship. They had to attack en masse.

Are you saying that Traveller CV-fighter doctrine is kind of like that?

 

[McPerth]

The whole fighter affair is also quite versión dependent. ALl you say is quite true in CT:HG or MT, but in MgT1E:HG (IDK in 2E) fighter may be quite deadly even for battleships. Even light 10 dton fighters can be quite effective in this role.

 

[mike wightman]

Mongoose took the decision to make their version more like Star Wars and extremely cinematic - I do not rate it as a space combat system at all.
That said some people want Star Wars fighters in their games so it suits them.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I don't think we can blame Mongoose for that.

MgT1 didn't have dogfights. Fighter supremacy was an, I assume, unintended byproduct of Reinforced Hull.

MgT2 dogfights comes from T5?

 

[McPerth]

MgT1 didn't have dogfights. Fighter supremacy was an, I assume, unintended byproduct of Reinforced Hull.

I don't thing so. In fact the fighter supremacy in MgT1E is due to the easiness to put armour and heavy weapons (PB) on them and the way the barrages work.

If you use RAW, even meson bays barrage fire is affected by armor (unless latter errata has fixed that), as it says (page 74, under Armour):

Armour contributes directly to defense against all types of attacks

Personally, I think meson bays should be an exception to this.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I don't thing so. In fact the fighter supremacy in MgT1E is due to the easiness to put armour and heavy weapons (PB) on them and the way the barrages work.

Fighters had the same armour and weapons as any other craft. Their USP was their reinforceability. A default 40 Dt fighter took 1+1=2 damage point to destroy, you could reinforce it to perhaps 13+2=15 points, a 650% increase.

Since the barrage system took the damage dice of the weapon as a positive DM and there was no size modifier, it was advantageous for big guns, aka bays.

Yes, meson bays were completely crippled by being affected by both armour and screens in the barrage system, but they worked very well in the basic combat system.

 

[McPerth]

Since the barrage system took the damage dice of the weapon as a positive DM and there was no size modifier, it was advantageous for big guns, aka bays.

There's no DM for size, but there's a -4 DM to attack fighter wings (MgT1E:HG, page 80).

Also, the high speed of light fighters make them quite likely to reach close range, where any long range weapon has a -3 (but they have only a -1, as they use the "small craft shooting" column for close range (page 73 table), and if they use the "Fast Strafing Run" order (page 81, 4 initiative cost)m they shoot at +2DM and are shot at -2 DM).

See that the fighter shown in this post would be fired at -19 DM (-15 due to armor, -4 for fighter wings).

Example:

Let's imagine that a wing of 100 such fighters, 5 equal fighters armed with pulse lasers and 5 more with sandcasters (for wing defense), with crews skill pilot2 and gunner 1 (acting as 1 and 0 respectively, as they use both at once) attack Planet Class Heavy Cruiser (MgT1E:HG page 119) with +3 Crew quality. The fighters Dodge whi lthe approach:

Approach:

the cruiser:

• fires its meson bays at -3 DM (+8 per dice, +2 per improvements, +3 per crew quality, +5 per fire control), but can only kill 10 fighters (one per gunner, so I guess one per bay).
• Fires the torpedos at -5 (as they have 6 dice, asuming nukes, and no improvement DMs), but the point defenses subtract 2d-3 more.
• Fires the PBs at -8 (same as mesons, but only 3 dice damage)
• Fires the lasers at -10 (as they only have 1 die damage), so ineffective.
• Fires the missiles at -11 (assuming they are nukes, as they have 2 dice damage, but no improvement DMs).

The fighters:
Fire their PBs at -4 DM (-10 per armor, +3 per dice, +3 FC), -6 if the cruiser is dodging. If the crews have.

Once at close range:

All cruiser weapons are subject to an additional -3, and missiles (and I guess torpedoes) cannot be used; so only the Mesons can be effective, but fire at -6

The fighters fire at -5 (-7 if the cruiser is dodging).

If strafing:

The cruiser bays are at additional -2, so firing at -8

The fighters fire at -3/-5.

And the fighters wing about MCr 3300 in total, while the cruiser costs MCr 55537. Assuming the same Budget and 66% of the fighter's one needed for carriers, the wing could be about 600 fighters....

Of course, against the armor 15 BB shown in page 101 the situation is less bright for the fighters, but the Budget is increased to MCr 138236, so, with the same premises (33% of th ebudget spent in fighters), about 1500 fighters could attack it...

 

[Blue Ghost]

I remember last year cracking my Trillion Credit Squadron book, and that chart is the reason I don't design ships, even though I have, but have never liked it, and why I prefer the RP aspect to Traveller and not the warsim portion.

Here's a question, since we're comparing fighters today with fighters in the 3I; the USMC act as the US Navy's army, and also air force. Does the Imperium have a similar organization?

Again, from the SFB site, I remember someone citing a foreign officer making the following paraphrased statement about the US military; "I understand why your navy needs an army, but why does your navy's army need its own air force?"

I think the reason is that fire support of troops is a different role than what naval aviators are typically trained for. But I wonder if that same division of labor holds true for the Imperial navy, or any other power in the OTU.

 

[flykiller]

why does your navy's army need its own air force?

world war ii was horrifically expensive, costing billions of dollars and killing tens of millions of people and culminating in the use of weapons that appeared to render expensive armies obsolete. elements in the u.s. army air corps told congress, "in the future, wars will be fought using aircraft delivering nuclear weapons. you should form a fourth branch of service, the air force, to fight these wars strategically. we dominate the world in aircraft and nuclear weapons and technology, thus with this new strategic branch we will win all future wars in a few hours at a fraction of the cost in money and men." congress agreed.

when the korean war started the united states realized it could not necessarily go straight to nuclear weapons without being nuked in return, and waged a conventional war. the new air force, however, said it could bomb the enemy back into the stone age using conventional weapons, and was given permission to do so. the air force promptly took charge of ALL aircraft in theater, declaring them all strategic assets subject to their command - this included all navy aircraft and all navy ground support aircraft. when the marines called for air support, the air force said, "we're a strategic arm, we don't do that", and refused, leaving marines to die.

the marine corps has never forgotten this, and never will. thus they (and the navy) push so hard for 1) naval aircraft 2) that perform ground support 3) and have no strategic value to and thus no use by the air force.

that's why.

 

[pendragonman]

Gentlemen,

It will still come down to the basic design philosophy of each navy. Anyone can make a specific type of ship that counters the other guys advantage. The real skill is your fleet mix and how you assign ships where for your meeting engagements.

Fleet carriers will not always find targets vulnerable to fighters, nor will they always run into target optimized to kill fighters.

And without a fleet logistics requirement there is no cost to firing even if you only hit on boxcars.

 

[Silverhawk]

It will still come down to the basic design philosophy of each navy. Anyone can make a specific type of ship that counters the other guys advantage. The real skill is your fleet mix and how you assign ships where for your meeting engagements.

Fleet carriers will not always find targets vulnerable to fighters, nor will they always run into target optimized to kill fighters.

And without a fleet logistics requirement there is no cost to firing even if you only hit on boxcars.

Agree. Brings back memories of a late 80s friend who wanted to have it out with TCS. His philosophy was strictly big battleships. But I went for a mix of a couple of carriers and a lot of cruisers that also had small fighter contingents. He took one look and said the deal was off. :devil:

 

[kilemall]

I would want to make space naval combat have some nautical flavor, but be it's own thing too, use the enviornment to bring home the Space Hurts metatheme.

As such, I have four principles that can make fighters, escorts and other naval memes work predicated on space.

1. As ships get closer to each other, their weapons have an easier time hitting, harder to EW spoof, less time to make agility count as the ships only have subseconds to move, and the beam weaponry can both concentrate on less potential endpoints to cover and spread less, delivering more damage. Bay weapons may get to spinal levels of damage. Spinal weapons annihilate their targets.
2. Ships or fighters escorting a large ship can datalink with the mothership's higher computing power, maybe a negative 1-2 DM, to act as anti-missile screens.
3. Both missiles and anti-missile energy weapons can fire faster then the one shot per turn, the EW going to a point defense mode using a fraction of power to take close range shots.
4. Missiles acquire greater levels of damage the greater the combined kinetic energy they impart on impact. Fighters generally have maximum G maneuver, that becomes a weapon as they make a run at their target, again unleashing at close range so computer/EW level spoofing is not a major factor, and potentially dealing bay or spinal levels of damage if the missiles are released at high-vee.

 

[flykiller]

Ships or fighters escorting a large ship can datalink with the mothership's higher computing power

in that paradigm there's no reason it has to be the carrier computer, could be a dedicated "fighter squadron control corvette" or something. and there's no reason for the fighters to have computers at all.

 

[kilemall]

in that paradigm there's no reason it has to be the carrier computer, could be a dedicated "fighter squadron control corvette" or something. and there's no reason for the fighters to have computers at all.

Certainly, although at a certain point the power and cost of high end ship computers suggests at least 1000+ tons just so it isn't so easily blown away.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Modern carrier groups already share data with their airwings. Traveller fighters are meant to be cinematic, that is they're manned and are not UAVs with combat capability.

 

[McPerth]

[m;]Posts relating to fighter combat in MgT have been moved to this thread to avoid hijacking this one [/m;]

 

[Tikon]

Ah ha! I think this was exactly along the lines I was talking about.
A vessel designed for the medium of space travel and colonization. Basically a traveling colony factory. Rather than another bulk hauler, or wet navy analogue of the Mayflower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olxI7X7eac8

 

[Ex_Pendable]

Ah ha! I think this was exactly along the lines I was talking about.
A vessel designed for the medium of space travel and colonization. Basically a traveling colony factory. Rather than another bulk hauler, or wet navy analogue of the Mayflower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olxI7X7eac8

It's a nice ship, and it's great if you have really cheap star drives.

Jump drives in Traveller aren't quite that cheap - for a business, it makes little sense to send a ship to set up a colony, tying up a functional jump drive for years as automated factories churn out whatever facilities you need there. You're not likely to be jumping blind into the system - with the Imperial Scout Service, your new colony should have a good survey of the system to work with, so they know what to expect.

You'd be better off constructing a modular ship that brings in your autofactories, powerplant (possiby one or more no-maintenance nuclear batteries), low berth banks and other supplies/gear. On arrival, these modules separate from the ship to land on the planet while the main section with the jump drive heads back.

If these modules are containerized without their own maneuver drive units, they can be loaded into shuttles for delivery on the planet below.

The modular ship returns on a contracted date to recover the various modules after the colony has established itself. Please note that failure to return these rented modules/equipment suitable for refurbishment by the contracted date can result in replacement fees and/or a colonial lien.

Colonists can have a contracted trader appear periodically to bring in supplies/personnel/mail, and a retired scout ship can be stationed on planet for emergencies.

Now, for a fleet, I can see the appeal of having a few dedicated factory ships to churn out replacement parts and weapons.