T5, Traveller, the Fighter, the Battle Rider, and the Dreadnought

[robject]

Note: As the Cruiser class evolved they eventually were reclassified as: Armored Cruiser (later Heavy Cruiser - (CA)), Light Cruiser (CL) and later also the Carrier (CV - as the first Airplane Carriers were modified Cruisers with a flat-top).

TL;DR. Fighters have to be worthwhile in some functions. Dreadnoughts have to be worthwhile because they're investments.


I dissed the "Carrier" mission code recently, and someone accurately pointed out that the reason Carriers have fallen relatively flat in the Traveller world is because of their (relative) low value in High Guard.

If I understand correctly, it's about the effectiveness of Dreadnoughts compared to Battle Riders and fighter clouds. The fighter is effective, and yet doesn't invalidate Dreadnoughts. Similarly, the Battle Rider is effective, and yet doesn't invalidate Dreadnoughts.

In short, all three should be effective and useful in their applications, and shouldn't have too much overlap.

And the justifications for their existence have to make sense. ESPECIALLY the Dreadnought, since it's Huge and Expensive, and losing one is a big setback.

 

[whulorigan]

Correct. No one is going to build something that is ineffective (or build something that costs far more than its actual value in practical terms). If "fighters" (i.e. small gunboats, attack craft, fire-direction/recon craft, etc.) are a thing, then they need to fulfill a valuable function of some sort (though that function could be different from what we typically might at first think). One role that small craft might have (especially with the rules for Comcasters) is the ability to spread out enough of them to form a massive fire-direction/resolution synthetic-aperture synthesis array to be relayed to the entire fleet for targeting purposes. The question would be, however, would that require manned craft, or would drones be sufficient?

The thing to remember about "Wet Navy" ships and aerial fighters is that those fighters move at 10-20 times the speed of the surface vessels, are much more maneuverable, and can move in a full 3 dimensions whereas the surface ships are confined to the two-dimensional sea-plane. In Traveller, a "space fighter" might only move at 1-3 times the acceleration of a Capital, and both have a full 3 dimensions of trajectory and maneuver. This makes a "fighter" in Traveller space combat much more like a Wet Navy Gunboat by comparison.

Personally I think the issue should be what do we imaging (or realistically believe) starship combat might actually look like, or what do we want it to look like, and then craft the BCS Combat Rules mechanics to reproduce that style. I never really played High Guard as a Fleet Combat game, but I think one of the problems that has come up in discussions is that the High Guard rules in play do not really reflect the setting-material as combat is described or envisioned in the setting.

By any chance have you or someone else played around enough with T5 Starship Combat to determine if a large vessel might be vulnerable to attack by a small craft? (I know T5 currently only has ACS rules, not BCS - but as BCS Combat is being developed, this might be a meaningful exercise).

 

[Spinward Flow]

The biggest thing you could possibly do to make small craft fighters more effective in LBB5.80 styled combat is to permit them to coordinate so as to fly and attack as a formation.

1x fighter can have a triple turret of a single weapon type forming 1 battery (factor: 2)
10x fighters can each have a triple turrets (each) of a single weapon type forming 1 battery (factor:6)

Basically, if you can formation group fighters together to combine their weapons together into a single battery from multiple fighters ... suddenly you've put fighters back into contention as a potential threat. If the RULES permit fighter clouds to "swarm" a target and combine their weapons together into batteries (just like you would on a ship) rather than operating as a stack of "lone wolf" individuals, fighters can claw their way back into relevance in BCS combat between major combatants.

At that point, the "a squadron is 10 fighters" notion also becomes important and relevant again, because with 10 fighters armed with triple turrets of a single weapon type flying in formation and operating as a single collective battery (streamlining combat resolution in the process I might add) ... those fighters stop being a mere nuisance and instead can become very very relevant.

And all it takes is the addition of a Rule that permits "I'll Form The Head!" combination of weapons into larger batteries by fighters operating together cohesively as a formation unit massing their fire.

 

[whulorigan]

The biggest thing you could possibly do to make small craft fighters more effective in LBB5.80 styled combat is to permit them to coordinate so as to fly and attack as a formation.

1x fighter can have a triple turret of a single weapon type forming 1 battery (factor: 2)
10x fighters can each have a triple turrets (each) of a single weapon type forming 1 battery (factor:6)

Basically, if you can formation group fighters together to combine their weapons together into a single battery from multiple fighters ... suddenly you've put fighters back into contention as a potential threat. If the RULES permit fighter clouds to "swarm" a target and combine their weapons together into batteries (just like you would on a ship) rather than operating as a stack of "lone wolf" individuals, fighters can claw their way back into relevance in BCS combat between major combatants.

At that point, the "a squadron is 10 fighters" notion also becomes important and relevant again, because with 10 fighters armed with triple turrets of a single weapon type flying in formation and operating as a single collective battery (streamlining combat resolution in the process I might add) ... those fighters stop being a mere nuisance and instead can become very very relevant.

And all it takes is the addition of a Rule that permits "I'll Form The Head!" combination of weapons into larger batteries by fighters operating together cohesively as a formation unit massing their fire.

T5 Starship Design (and Combat) has a turret-mounted emplacement available called a Comcaster that allows the coordination of all sensor data between ships so that they can all fire together using the same firing-solution.

 

[whartung]

I should mention, that I have a High Guard combat program that can fling fleets against each other. If folks want to try scenarios and send over fleets to try, I can rapidly mash them together and show results.

You can even codify the tactics your fleet wants to use (well, we can attempt to) in terms of target selection, what ships are in reserve, etc. and things of that nature. It's just a computer, so be gentle, but the hooks are there.

So, I guess I can try the "fighter cloud vs tigress" scenario.

Just need the HG specs.

 

[robject]

Personally I think the issue should be what do we imaging (or realistically believe) starship combat might actually look like, or what do we want it to look like, and then craft the BCS Combat Rules mechanics to reproduce that style. I never really played High Guard as a Fleet Combat game, but I think one of the problems that has come up in discussions is that the High Guard rules in play do not really reflect the setting-material as combat is described or envisioned in the setting.

THIS. This is Don McKinney's advice as well. Decide what combat looks like, then the rules take care of themselves.

I'll go hijack a BCS thread and resurrect it.

By any chance have you or someone else played around enough with T5 Starship Combat to determine if a large vessel might be vulnerable to attack by a small craft? (I know T5 currently only has ACS rules, not BCS - but as BCS Combat is being developed, this might be a meaningful exercise).

T5 is a good stab at reproducing Traveller; larger ships DO NOT benefit from more armor, but rather from a larger volume to damage. Strafing/collateral damage effects are interesting and a good way for big guns to make a bigger splash than little guns.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So, I guess I can try the "fighter cloud vs tigress" scenario.

Just need the HG specs.

Easiest possible scenario would be Tigress vs Tigress ... except the two dreadnaughts are so far from each other that only the fighters can engage in long range skirmishes. Basically just use stock Heavy Fighters out of LBB S9 to run the (simulated) combat. The only combat you really need to simulate then is Heavy Fighter squadrons vs Tigress.

Can try doing all fighters attack individually first before trying to go with a formation massed fire approach as proposed.

The trick with defending against fighters is that you have to "spend" 1 battery to attack each incoming fighter. It's not like 1 anti-fighter battery damages all of the fighters in a formation simultaneously, it only damages 1 of the fighters in that formation per battery. This then gives the fighters the capacity to "soak" incoming damage as individual fighters get damaged and drop out of the fight.

The Tigress will probably shrug off the attack just fine ... but then you can run the same scenario for other LBB S9 ships in a Carrier vs Cruiser battle, where the Cruiser has to fight off the fighter swarm while the Carrier sits (relatively safely) in the Reserve screened by its fighters.

Same deal again with testing all fighters attack individually before trying to go with a formation massed fire approach.

I'm kind of curious to see how much more dangerous the fighters can become if the coordinated massed fire option gets put into play.

 

[tjoneslo]

In pure HG combat, the ship computer difference as a to hit modifier ensures fighters will never be able to hit any ship of any real size. And the ship will be able to cut apart a fighter squad at will.

I recall decades ago having this pointed out, and trying to build a fighter around a model 9 computer and a PA mount.

 

[robject]

Consider the fun Tigress-versus-Tigress scenario in Agent Of The Imperium. The impression I got was that that scenario would be decided by the first hit -- I hope our spine hits his spine before he hits us with his spine.

It looks as though Marc sees capital ship combat as strategic and decisive. Whether you win depends on your units and how you place them. Combat proper is dominated by critical hits.

It's rock-paper-scissors. It might even not require dice rolls for a hit: If your ship's spine attack factor is greater than the target's primary defense factor, then it's Out Of Operation. Maybe the uncertainty is in whose spine bears first.

That plays into Craig's HG1-like overwhelming volley of missiles attack. It can't be stopped, and your ship is toast if the missile attack factor exceeds your missile defense screen. The uncertainty then lies in the opening moves...

 

[whartung]

The impression I got was that that scenario would be decided by the first hit -- I hope our spine hits his spine before he hits us with his spine.

Well, it's always been thus.

The size and armor of the Tigress make it very difficult. The armor removes the threat of turret weapons, save the nuclear missile. But the dampers contain that (especially against a fighter). PAs, even the largest spinals, can not crit the Tigress, nor can it reach down and hit the crew. At best they burn off weapons and leak fuel.

The only thing that can crit a Tigress is a meson gun, the bay weapons aren't big enough to get through the screens. So, that means lots spinal mesons. And those mesons need to be big enough, and armored enough, to weather the zillion missiles the Tigress is going to be sending out (480 bays).

Fighters can't touch the Tigress until the armor is crit down. One crit, and the Fleet Carriers 300 fighters should be able to make 2-4 weapon hits per round (but they can well be readily attrited by the Tigress missile bays, much less its internal 300 fighters).

Below TL 15 (specifically, armor 15), fighters can start to make sense because they can actually do damage (even if just a weapon hit). Are they worth more than a similar bay weapon? Only in that the ships are limited to how many bay weapons they can equip in contrast to how many fighters they can carry.

The two disadvantages of the Tigress are its sheer size and its sphere configuration (makes it more hittable by mesons). The heavy fighter, all said and done, is only at a -1 DM against the tigress.

For TCS fans, a Tigress Batron of 8 Tigress with its complement of Fighters costs a mere 3,154,560MCr.

Could be fun to find the cheapest counter to that.

 

[Condottiere]

A lot of iron nickel planetoids.

 

[robject]

^ Maybe so. They're cheap. What's not to love?

Their armor isn't very good, but maybe that's fine to a point.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Well, it's always been thus.

In HG and derivatives. Yet that was criticised above for not being story-compliant.

And spinal one-shot kills invalidates battleships.

T5 is different, as a spinal just punches a big hole through the target, doesn't kill it outright, at least in the ACS system.

The size and armor of the Tigress make it very difficult. The armor removes the threat of turret weapons, save the nuclear missile. But the dampers contain that (especially against a fighter). PAs, even the largest spinals, can not crit the Tigress, nor can it reach down and hit the crew. At best they burn off weapons and leak fuel.

Missile bays... Enough will strip a Tigress of it's meson spinal quite handily, at least according to HG.

A swarm of 1 kDt missile boats with a bay each, will mission-kill a Tigress quite quickly by degrading the spinal. That's just a few months in the yard, but with transport time, that Tigress is out of the fight for many months.

The only thing that can crit a Tigress is a meson gun, the bay weapons aren't big enough to get through the screens. So, that means lots spinal mesons. And those mesons need to be big enough, and armored enough, to weather the zillion missiles the Tigress is going to be sending out (480 bays).

No, the missiles will just strip a few weapons off one of them, while the rest of the meson sleds will kill the Tigress with crits.

Against a decent meson sled, the Tigress' 430 missile bays will only inflict ~10 weapon hits, degrading the spinal two factors. The Tigress will not survive the first round to make any more attacks...

The natural outcome of High Guard is many small combatants, hence the pilot limitation in TCS to force fewer, larger ships. Size is no defence, hence use, in HG nor any other system with one-shot kills.

MgT2 makes a decent case for battleships, missiles, and fighters by doing away with the one-shot kill mechanic (and some careful balancing).

Fighters can't touch the Tigress until the armor is crit down. One crit, and the Fleet Carriers 300 fighters should be able to make 2-4 weapon hits per round (but they can well be readily attrited by the Tigress missile bays, much less its internal 300 fighters).

Fighters' small batteries can't penetrate and can barely hit even a barn-door, sorry Tigress. Fighters are not combat-viable at higher TLs, only possibly at very low TLs.

Note: In HG fighters can't hit each other, much less attrit each other.

But with the very limited detection ranges in Traveller, they should work very well as recon and possibly skirmish units.

For TCS fans, a Tigress Batron of 8 Tigress with its complement of Fighters costs a mere 3,154,560MCr.

Could be fun to find the cheapest counter to that.

In TCS that's dead meat, just as most (all?) ships in FS.

 

[robject]

^ This is why HG is needed to inform BCS. I don't want BCS to make new mistakes -- so it needs to be tested and retested and redone and retested -- but I also don't want to make the old ones, either.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The biggest thing you could possibly do to make small craft fighters more effective in LBB5.80 styled combat is to permit them to coordinate so as to fly and attack as a formation.

As whulorigan already pointed out, that is already quite possible in T5. Yet the piddling little weapons of T5 fighters will not penetrate warship armour, so they are still rather useless in combat.

Squadrons of small ships works well and can penetrate any armour with the right weapons.

And all it takes is the addition of a Rule that permits "I'll Form The Head!" combination of weapons into larger batteries by fighters operating together cohesively as a formation unit massing their fire.

That would make them possible, but not affordable. Ten m/9 computers (w/ power) is rather expensive for a marginal missile battery...

To make them effective, they would need a bonus to effective computer factor.

 

[Garnfellow]

When evaluating the viability of certain tactics, organizations, or ship designs, it's vital to remember that we need to consider a wide range of tech levels. What is dominant at one TL is not at another.

When people say fighters are useless, I think they are envisioning a TL15 force versus a TL15 or TL14 force. Imperials vs. Zhodani, or Imperials vs. Solomani. And fighters do seem to be useless in those situations.

But those sorts of naval engagements are the least likely to actually occur. I bet 99% of all Imperial naval actions are going to be against member worlds. Breakaway republics, warring systems screwing up megacorp trade, local governments too repressive for even a sector duke to ignore, anarchy worlds. These are likely TL15 forces against TL12, TL13 forces -- in which case fighters can be a great choice.

IMO, the reason the Rebellion was such a cluster was that it featured TL15 navies battling TL15 navies, which is its own sort of mutually-assured destruction. There's probably no useful naval doctrine for TL15 v. TL15 other than "Don't. Just Don't."

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Fighters have an obvious use at any TL: Being cheap and difficult to hit they are ideal to form a battle-line to cover a retreat, either by break off or jump.

 

[aramis]

Correct. No one is going to build something that is ineffective (or build something that costs far more than its actual value in practical terms).

There are a dozen fighter types the USAF and USN deployed that were paper tigers - utterly worthless as fighters...

There have been a number of combat vehicles noted for being more dangerous to their operators than to the enemy.

Many things are built that don't work as intended. The question of why has many potential answers.

For a number of the fighters, it was not knowing what would be effective and finding out the hard way.
The WW II era Grumman F4F Wildcat and Vought F4U Corsair both were initially unsuitable... but a few revisions later.... the F4F became the basis of the Grumman F6F, and the Corsair received incremental upgrades... Why? Because the needed turning ability wasn't known well until they were fighting the Mitsubishi A6A... The 1D model Corsair was the USMC's "Ace-Maker" [LtC G Boyington, 1986, personal conversation], and the Wildcat was replaced by the almost ubiquitous F6F Hellcat. F4F's continued to serve, tho'... because replacements took time.

Likewise, the USCG kept the USCGC Storis (WMEC-38) in service from WW II into the 2000's... she was "outdated in all ways" (CWO3 R. Haley, 2004, personal conversation. Note, he was TC2 at the time.) Why? No funding to replace her. When her sister ship had a man overboard due to falling through the hull, the last two of their class were soon headed for the scrapyard.

If one were to look at the USCG's ship inventory, several can be classed as "Seriously suboptimal"...
But they are not cost effective to replace, as it would reduce the ship inventory too much.

And then, the continuation of the Battleships post WW II... the carriers are far superior tactically in even the Korean War era. But Public and (more importantly) Foreign Nations' opnion still saw the battleships as the power. Sure, one can argue that the BB's big guns were more cost effective, but for the same crew, a carrier could drop twice the ordinance with similar accuracy, to twice the strike range, , and also provide air cover.

TLDR: There are numerous cases where ineffective hardware was deployed because the design/build cycle was unable to predict the need. there are numerous cases where public and political opinion resulted in retention of now-ineffective designs.

(I could mention more recent cases galore, but I'm sticking to the board's timeline limit.)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Quite, but traveller is not characterised by rapid technological advance, leading to uncertainty of how to fight the next war.

Traveller naval tactics is presumably rather unchanged since the Terrans built the first meson battleship a few thousand years ago (IIRC), and developed a doctrine for its use.

The OTU is presumably more like medieval mediterranean naval warfare based on galleys, where the design and tactics had been fine-tuned for millennia and everybody knew how to build ships and use them.

 

[whartung]

Well, I sent 10 contrived 7500 ton "Battler Riders" (i.e. Agi 6, computer 9, Meson J, damper 9, meson screen 9, 15 Armor), simply the smallest J gun I could make, against a Tigress, and they killed it in the first round. Maybe they get mopped up by fighter screen (likely). (In theory 34 of these BRs cost as much as an empty Tigress.)

Only one of the ships actually hit the Tigress, but that was enough.

If for some reason they don't kill it on the first go, the Tigress struggles to reduce the attackers. It could dedicate all 480 missiles on one target, and, yea, that'll scrape it clean. But next round he'll be facing 9, and the odds are against it.

The fighters can't hit the BRs at all. Too small, can't get through the armor or the dampers.