The 10 dTon convoy fighter

[Carlobrand]

You're a transport inbound from the local asteroid belt, hauling your load of processed metals, when an enemy raider show up on your screens. What do you do? You launch fighters.

Fighters are not of much use offensively in High Guard, at least not at the higher tech levels. The effort to give them enough computer to have a chance at hitting warships usually results in a large and very expensive fighter whose job could be more economically done by a size-A escort - 'cause high-end computers are just expensive as heck.

However, "BREAKTHROUGH STEP: A breakthrough occurs if all of one player's line of battle ships have been rendered incapable of firing any offensive weapons." A defender does not have to be able to hit to keep the enemy away from your reserve; it just needs to have offensive weapons.

(Odd little simplification. Presumably, if you tried to ignore a weak defender and charge past, those weapons would be more effective than they were when you were jigging around at 25,000 Km with full ECM going. On the other hand, if I'm a raider, it might be worth a few hits to get into the reserve. Still, it is what it is unless someone crafts an errata to allow you to push past under fire.)

When you're all alone and need to buy time for someone to come to your rescue, fighters - especially small fighters - can be very useful on the defense. In this role, smaller is better: it can't do much, a little fighter has the same size class and weapons as a big fighter, and you can carry more little ones.

Let's craft a Imperial light convoy fighter:

Armadillo: 10t Short-range Light Fighter, TL15
USP QFL-0606G01-F00000-20002-0 MCr 13.905 10 Tons
Bat Bear 1 1 Crew: 3
Bat 1 1 TL: 15

Cargo: 0; Fuel: 1.6dT; EP: 1.6; Agility: 6; Pulse Lasers
Architects Fee: MCr 0.139 Cost in Quantity: MCr 11.124

Cute little thing. No bridge, Model-1 computer, might chew up merchants, potentially quite deadly against warships if using nuclear missiles - if it could hit anything. For the most part, any warship with a halfway decent computer looks like so much snow on this little puppy's scopes. It couldn't hit a dreadnought unless you came up with house rules letting it get a lot closer, and I'm not sure a pilot wants to be that close when his nuke goes off.

However, if the job is to keep the raider out there, then under High Guard rules it's quite capable of holding someone off for a while.

Let's analyze:
First, this particular fighter is more a punching bag than a fighter, at least against warships. Good agility, but no electronic defenses to speak of. About 2/3 of small batteries will hit home, and big batteries will pretty much hit it at will. However, it's a very well armored punching bag.

Fighters as a rule are vulnerable to critical hits - lots and lots of critical hits. However, armor reduces those. Factor-15 armor eliminates criticals from weapons of up to Factor-7; beyond that, the fighter may take as many as 2 criticals, with the following probabilities:

x/36 roll effect
1......2 Ship Vaporized - destroyed.
2......3 Bridge Destroyed - no effect.
3......4 Computer Destroyed - USP computer factor reduced to zero, may
not jump but may continue to fire weapons and maneuver.
4......5 Maneuver Drive Disabled - crippled.
5......6 One Screen Disabled - no effect.
6......7 Jump Drive Disabled - no effect.
5......8 Hangars/Boat Deck Destroyed - no effect.
4......9 Power Plant Disabled - crippled.
3......10 Crew-1 - crippled.
2......11 Spinal Mount/Fire Control Out - no effect/crippled.
1......12 Frozen Watch/Ship'sTroops Dead - no effect.
Odds overall: 23/36 minimal effect (20/36 no effect, 3/36 computer disabled), 13/36 crippled/lost (3/36 loss of crew, 1/36 loss of crew and ship)
So, roughly 2/3 of criticals have little or no effect on a fighter (and most of the rest, the pilot can be rescued).

Routine damage runs like this:
NonNuke..Pulse L..Nuke..Nuke/Rad..Roll..Surface Damage..Radiation
.0...........0..........0.........0.........2......Critical...............Critical
...and so forth...
.0...........0..........0.........0.........16....Fuel-1...............Weapon-2
.0...........0..........1.........0.........17....Weapon-1..........Weapon-1
.0...........0..........2.........0.........18....Weapon-1..........Weapon-1
.0...........0..........3.........0.........19....Fuel-1...............Weapon-1
.0...........0..........4.........0.........20....Weapon-1..........Weapon-1
.0...........1..........5.........0.........21....Weapon-1..........Weapon-1
36.........35.........21.......36.........22+...No Effect...........No Effect

0/36 chance of damage from non-nuke/non-pulse weapons.
1/36 chance of damage from pulse lasers. 4 hits neutralizes fighter.
~15/36 chance of damage from nuclear missiles, 3/36 (fuel) neutralize fighter in 1 hit.

Net result: you have a little fighter that, while it's not a threat, can stand off smaller batteries firing anything short of nukes for a half day (the limit of a craft's duration without a cabin and relief crew); a pair of fighters working rotation gives plenty of time for help to come and beat back the attacker. Against bigger batteries, the crits tend to get it before the routine damage does, but statistically that still takes 3 or 4 shots before the odds get good - and 3 or 4 shots from a Factor 8-9 battery generally means you're opposing a destroyer or better, which means you ought to have several fighters on hand to hold it back. Against fighters or other small batteries with nukes, it tends to last about 6 or 7 hits; figure each one will buy you a couple of hours. In either event, they're small and easy to find room for, especially in transports, and if you're a military transport with good (5g) drives, you can break away under the cover of one.

The lone fighter himself has good odds. Only a crit or a fuel hit will stop him from driving at 6-g toward help, which is most likely driving at 6g toward him, and he's got an 89% chance of surviving a crit. He'll either last long enough for rescue to arrive or find himself alive in a dead ship waiting to be either rescued or captured. Since trashing a 10-ton boat isn't much of an achievement, most attackers will break off and go find more productive prey rather than run him down.

Something roughly similar can be designed at TL14, but you lose the laser. Doable at TL13 but you're not as heavily armored, though F12 is still pretty effective.

 

[mike wightman]

High Guard 1st edition rule - spend 4 turn at short range and you can break through the line of battle.

 

[mike wightman]

Couple of questions.

Why a crew of 3 when 2 will do?

Why not have a sandcaster as well so you get an extra entry on the USP?

 

[DangerousThing]

Interesting little puppy.

It might be only a technicality in High Guard, but it could be useful in Traveller.

How about a Type A Q-Ship where you open the cargo bay and out pops (eventually) 5 or 6 of these. A wonderful little anti-pirate device.

 

[Murphy]

For the most part, any warship with a halfway decent computer looks like so much snow on this little puppy's scopes. It couldn't hit a dreadnought unless you came up with house rules letting it get a lot closer, and I'm not sure a pilot wants to be that close when his nuke goes off.

I don't know HG-fu, but... does it even make sense that bigger ships are harder to hit? Is it due to powerful jammers and point defense / sandcasters?

If so, could one design a weapon that capitalizes on a dreadnaught's weaknesses (low agility), instead of trying to beat its strengths? A railgun, for example, doesn't need a radar lock and can't be stopped by point defense.

 

[McPerth]

I don't know HG-fu, but... does it even make sense that bigger ships are harder to hit? Is it due to powerful jammers and point defense / sandcasters?

In HG (and MT, for what's worth) computer number is a direct modifier to to hit and to penetrate defenses rolls. This, cuppled with the fact a bigger ship may have stronger defenses (and, once again big computers make harder to penetrate them) makes them m0re difficult both to hit (even with the size DM, taht makes them easier to hit) and their defenses to penetrate

If so, could one design a weapon that capitalizes on a dreadnaught's weaknesses (low agility), instead of trying to beat its strengths? A railgun, for example, doesn't need a radar lock and can't be stopped by point defense.

In HG most battleships, regardless their size, use to be quite agile, as agility is the best defense against any weapon. They use to be as agile as any fighter (for game effect at least).

 

[Amber Chancer]

I like your analysis, Carlo ...

 

[Carlobrand]

High Guard 1st edition rule - spend 4 turn at short range and you can break through the line of battle.

I think we would do well if we mined HG1 and officially bring some of those rules into HG2.

Couple of questions.

Why a crew of 3 when 2 will do?

Why not have a sandcaster as well so you get an extra entry on the USP?

What the spud? Oh, the batteries didn't come out right. Is supposed to be two independently targeted missile launchers, ergo two missile batteries and a gunner for each.

I had the extra room and it makes it a bit more wicked when facing the civilians and pirates. Two missile launchers as one battery doesn't do any better than one, and most of what the sandcaster would stop is stopped by the armor. I figured I'd rather have the extra shot than the small chance of stopping a 1 in 36 chance of a weapon hit. Kinda pointless in this particular context, you're right; the sandcaster would add a bit more depth for taking hits.

I don't know HG-fu, but... does it even make sense that bigger ships are harder to hit? Is it due to powerful jammers and point defense / sandcasters?

If so, could one design a weapon that capitalizes on a dreadnaught's weaknesses (low agility), instead of trying to beat its strengths? A railgun, for example, doesn't need a radar lock and can't be stopped by point defense.

As McPerth pointed out, it's a feature of the High Guard rules. The difference in computer rating is a modifier to hit. My little fighter has a Computer-1 which is modified to 0 by the fact that it has to perform bridge functions (reduces the rating but saved me a whole lot of space). At the same tech level, the battlewagon is going to have a Computer-9, so I have a minus 9 to hit him. Yes, I do get a bit of a bonus for his size, but not enough. End result is I need a 13 on 2d6 in order to hit him even when he obliges me by not moving at all. You see the problem.

As to the railgun, the game itself doesn't mention ranges, but it evolved from - and into - games based on ships able to do 1g to 6g shooting at each other at ranges from thousands of miles to a light-second or more. Those circumstances really call for weapons that either can deliver their punch across the distance at or fairly close to light speed, or can maneuver themselves to the target - with a lot of delta-vee to handle target maneuvers - after being launched.

 

[Murphy]

Thanks, the computer explanation makes sense, although I guess those rules aren't made to handle situations such as one of the ships not moving at all.

In HG most battleships, regardless their size, use to be quite agile, as agility is the best defense against any weapon. They use to be as agile as any fighter (for game effect at least).

Looks like I wouldn't be able to play that. My suspension of disbelief would be completely shattered.

I mean - it's fine if they have the same acceleration, but the same evasive ability? Consider shooting a rat moving at 1 m/s2 and shooting an elephant moving at 1 m/s2 - the difference between a fighter and a dreadnought should be about the same.

Not really looking to trash HG rules, but there's no way I could hold myself from remarking on this

Those circumstances really call for weapons that either can deliver their punch across the distance at or fairly close to light speed, or can maneuver themselves to the target - with a lot of delta-vee to handle target maneuvers - after being launched.

Agreed. I pulled the railgun out of MgT, it is short-range only. One might think firing huge volleys would help, but that's obviously not for fighters.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I mean - it's fine if they have the same acceleration, but the same evasive ability? Consider shooting a rat moving at 1 m/s2 and shooting an elephant moving at 1 m/s2 - the difference between a fighter and a dreadnought should be about the same.

I don't play the type of game that needs HG rules so I'm not up to speed on them but I'd think
1) Your not shooting a defenseless target
The Elephant would likely have more ECM capability, "chaff" or whatever defensive countermeasures that either are specified in HG or are "just assumed" in the DMs.
2) The attacker is not firing "blind".
They have targeting sensors and weapons designed to take out the rat. Maybe another way of putting it: I'm not a proficient marksman, but I can hit the target with almost every shot. Not a bulls eye, but I can hit the target. Now, if you change the target to be 100 times the size, yes, it's "easier" to hit, I wouldn't need to carefully aim, I could even hit it blindfolded, but I'm not going to hit it much more than the smaller target.

Now lets look at the opposite. Blindfold me and spin me around and around. Throw a dime in the air and see if I can somehow locate it and hit it. Throw a large plate in the air. I doubt in a hundred shots I'd hit either.

My point is that size itself does not necessarily warrant as high a DM as other factors such as targeting systems and counter measures.

I don't know if any of that makes sense.

 

[Whipsnade]

While this fighter is a nifty little design, it's a result of HG2's combat rules and not of the "reality" HG2 is meant to represent. Also, it can only "work" within HG2. In Mayday, LBB:2, MT, TNE, Brilliant Lances, and all the rest, the fighter does not work.

Putting it another way, the fighter is nothing but a game artifact. What it does within the game's rules is impossible in the game's "reality".

All wargames have similar "unreal" units/techniques because wargames are not meant to be and cannot be perfect models of the reality they represent. Let me use an old Avalon Hill game as examples of this.

Because of the way the rules work, trucks and scout cars in Panzerblitz see more work as roadblocks than in their actual historical roles. Scout units aren't used to scout because each player can see all of his opponent's units even if his own units may not be able to fire on them due to spotting rules. Trucks need only rarely move units and their logistical role is entirely ignored. Because their "real" purpose cannot be found in the rules, trucks and scouts are used to block movement along road. An enemy force of any size must stop when it encounters a truck or scout car and it doesn't matter that those 2 Panther companies can destroy that truck without breaking a sweat.

When you play Panzerblitz double-blind everything changes however. Now you can only see your own units and those enemy units a referee has determined your units can see. Now, because the rules have changed, scout cars and trucks are worth their wait in gold. Now, because the rules have changed, you suddenly understand why commanders were always screaming for more recon assets and more logistics.

Like the Eurisko designs of old, the 10dTon convoy fighter is a game artifact and one limited to one of Traveller's several ship combat systems. It's a nice idea meant to exploit a game mechanic found in HG2 alone.

 

[McPerth]

I mean - it's fine if they have the same acceleration, but the same evasive ability? Consider shooting a rat moving at 1 m/s2 and shooting an elephant moving at 1 m/s2 - the difference between a fighter and a dreadnought should be about the same.

Not really looking to trash HG rules, but there's no way I could hold myself from remarking on this

That does not mean than shooting a fighter is as easy as to shoot a dreadnought. The size modifier goes form -2 to hit (the fighter) to +2 to hit (the dreadnought). So, if computers were equal (not usual) and agility too (quite more usual), the fighter will be quite harder to hit.

I don't play the type of game that needs HG rules so I'm not up to speed on them but I'd think
1) Your not shooting a defenseless target
The Elephant would likely have more ECM capability, "chaff" or whatever defensive countermeasures that either are specified in HG or are "just assumed" in the DMs.
2) The attacker is not firing "blind".
They have targeting sensors and weapons designed to take out the rat. Maybe another way of putting it: I'm not a proficient marksman, but I can hit the target with almost every shot. Not a bulls eye, but I can hit the target. Now, if you change the target to be 100 times the size, yes, it's "easier" to hit, I wouldn't need to carefully aim, I could even hit it blindfolded, but I'm not going to hit it much more than the smaller target.

Now lets look at the opposite. Blindfold me and spin me around and around. Throw a dime in the air and see if I can somehow locate it and hit it. Throw a large plate in the air. I doubt in a hundred shots I'd hit either.

My point is that size itself does not necessarily warrant as high a DM as other factors such as targeting systems and counter measures.

I don't know if any of that makes sense.

THe ECM you talk here is what the computer size represents. The shaft would be the active/passive defenses (sandcasters, screens, armor, etc), that use to be harder in the dreadnought tahn in the fighter.

In any case, you must think that most space combat is likely to occur beyond visual range, so the size modifier would (IMHO) represent more the easiness to pinpoint th target with sensors (something not featured in HG) than the true easiness to hit them by its size.

I guess at 5 km I have more or less the same possibilities to hit the mouse than the elephant with a single rifle (and in my case, at 100 m too, but let's imagine I'm a better shoot than I am ). With homing bullets, what will give me more possibilites about the elephant than the mouse will be the probability I see them, not really my accuracy.

 

[Matt123]

*** responding to the observation craft of all sizes can have Aglity-6 ***

Looks like I wouldn't be able to play that. My suspension of disbelief would be completely shattered.

I mean - it's fine if they have the same acceleration, but the same evasive ability? Consider shooting a rat moving at 1 m/s2 and shooting an elephant moving at 1 m/s2 - the difference between a fighter and a dreadnought should be about the same.

IMTU this is answered not by looking at thrust, which should easily be able to exceed 6g for any ship (HG Thrust is limited to 6g, Agility has thrust as its maximum limit, you can have less Agility than thrust, the only cost for Agility is energy points), but by looking to grav compensators as the limiting factor. You can have 6g grav plates on any vessel, enabling very large ships as well as fighters comfortably doing 6g manoeuvres.

I stress this is a personal opinion. It fits the circumstances, but I have seen nothing in cannon suggesting there is or is not a limit on grav compensation technology.

Under this logic I've sometimes toyed with the idea Fighter pilots could endure another 2-3g's on top of that. It might make fighters a little too powerful/indestructible though.

 

[Amber Chancer]

I have never understood folk who have difficulty with the idea of a big ship being as nimble as a small ship.

It doesn't work in the sea ... and it doesn't work in the atmosphere ... but it most definitely DOES work in the vacuum of space where Newtonian physics has a free hand and mass / bulk is irrelevant. A manoeuvre which can deliver 6G of thrust can deliver 6G of thrust ... and if you replicate the same pattern of thrusting this way and that, you'll get EXACTLY the same manoeuvres, regardless of whether you are a 10 ton fighter, a 1,000 ton destroyer or a 100,000 ton battlewagon.

Agility is about lots of little tweaking thrusts this way and that, which just put you out of the way of the enemy attack. The moment their laser beam shines on you, you jink away from it.

Look at those book 2 computer programmes to give you some idea what this is all about: Manoeuvre / evade for defensive, and targeting / predictive software for offensive.

My computer thinks "where is your computer going to put your ship with its evasive manoeuvres, and how do I put my shot there?" Your computer thinks "where is that bugger going to try to put his shot, and how do I make sure that's not where I'm at?"

This is all going on in real time ... and the more powerful computer can compute more possibilities, and lay down a shot pattern which is more difficult to evade.

That's how I rationalise it out.

And that's also why I don't think the gunners need to be in the turrets physically aiming and firing the weapons. The gunners are needed to keep the weaponry in proper functional order; and to deal quickly with any breakdowns in combat. The command officers on the bridge decide where they want the fire to go. And the computer works out the way to put the fire where the officers want it ... always assuming that the gunners have kept the weaponry in good functioning order.

 

[sabredog]

While this fighter is a nifty little design, it's a result of HG2's combat rules and not of the "reality" HG2 is meant to represent. Also, it can only "work" within HG2. In Mayday, LBB:2, MT, TNE, Brilliant Lances, and all the rest, the fighter does not work.

Putting it another way, the fighter is nothing but a game artifact. What it does within the game's rules is impossible in the game's "reality".

All wargames have similar "unreal" units/techniques because wargames are not meant to be and cannot be perfect models of the reality they represent. Let me use an old Avalon Hill game as examples of this.

Because of the way the rules work, trucks and scout cars in Panzerblitz see more work as roadblocks than in their actual historical roles. Scout units aren't used to scout because each player can see all of his opponent's units even if his own units may not be able to fire on them due to spotting rules. Trucks need only rarely move units and their logistical role is entirely ignored. Because their "real" purpose cannot be found in the rules, trucks and scouts are used to block movement along road. An enemy force of any size must stop when it encounters a truck or scout car and it doesn't matter that those 2 Panther companies can destroy that truck without breaking a sweat.

Perfect example! Even more egregious is the lack of indirect fire allowing artillery to shoot over LOS-blocking terrain. but yes, the single jeep stopping a panzer division from crossing the bridge was always infuriating but tolerated within the construct of the game simulation. That sort of thing made my transition to miniatures gaming with a referee all the faster. Panzerleader tried to fix some of that but wasn't much better. I think that's one of the many reasons I preferred SPI games even though they tended to be harder to get others to play them.

Like the Eurisko designs of old, the 10dTon convoy fighter is a game artifact and one limited to one of Traveller's several ship combat systems. It's a nice idea meant to exploit a game mechanic found in HG2 alone.

Perhaps because I came form a wargaming background I was always more tolerant of these sorts of artifacts, though, when confronted with what I always considered more of a wargame than an RPG ruleset for Traveller. I worked up a 6-ton fighter to do the same blocking function back when 1st ed. HG came out called the 'Gnat'. It used missiles or a beam laser and had either a 6 or 3G Agility respectively.

My ships also used to have more weapons than they did with HG2 for the same reasoning: the limits to adding weapons depending on tonnage changed between the editions and the 1st ed. allowed for ships that looked like porcupines. It didn't make sense, and there were arguments over how to account for previous weapon installs when determining tonnage available for more installs, but since again I (and most of my friends) came form a wargaming background we were all used to those weird artificiality's in wargames so we built hedgehog ships with far more weapons than they could realistically had. And 6-ton fighters could stand in front of 500kt dreadnoughts to give the transports time to jump away.

But then, it's also weird to have a 500kt ship and yet still only have it carry a single 'spinal' weapon.

 

[Whipsnade]

Perfect example!

Thank you.

Perhaps because I came form a wargaming background I was always more tolerant of these sorts of artifacts...

Same here. However, like you, my wargaming background also allows me to recognize those artifacts when they appear and not confuse them for realistic designs and/or tactics. The 10dTon fighter presented here can shield an entire convoy in HG2 play but, contrary to the OP's suggestion, that doesn't mean such fighters are actually built so that convoys can carry them.

HG2 allows missile boats to fire endlessly without any need for magazines and HG2 also allows missiles to cross 15 Mayday hexes in 20 minutes regardless of the vectors involved. HG2 may allow something but that doesn't mean it actually happens.

 

[Carlobrand]

...Looks like I wouldn't be able to play that. My suspension of disbelief would be completely shattered.

I mean - it's fine if they have the same acceleration, but the same evasive ability? Consider shooting a rat moving at 1 m/s2 and shooting an elephant moving at 1 m/s2 - the difference between a fighter and a dreadnought should be about the same. ...

Yeah, it gets a lot of that.

The agility doesn't get me too much - it's space, there's no resistance to moving the ship other than momentum, and the only thing keeping them from maneuvering like a fighter is the ability to point those 6-g drives where they want them in something approximating the same time. We're dealing with ships that have gravs, inertial dampers, and 6-g drives with godawful impossible levels of delta-V available, so thinking the thing has maneuvering thrusters capable of spinning it like a high-speed Beyblade isn't too much of a reach. It's just that the idea of something that big twirling about that quick is as mind-boggling to us as the idea of a hundred tons of metal staying airborne would have been to a medieval mind.

The real problem is the analysis is more like the difference between an elephant moving at 1 m/s^2 and an ocean liner moving at 1 m/s^2 - which is to say: when you sit down and look closely, you begin to wonder how even the fighter is managing to evade that laser blast at under a light-second range.

We do a lot of very vigorous suspension of disbelief - lightsaber level, when it comes down to it.

While this fighter is a nifty little design, it's a result of HG2's combat rules and not of the "reality" HG2 is meant to represent. Also, it can only "work" within HG2. In Mayday, LBB:2, MT, TNE, Brilliant Lances, and all the rest, the fighter does not work.

Putting it another way, the fighter is nothing but a game artifact. What it does within the game's rules is impossible in the game's "reality".

Ayup. However, every game has game artifacts based on some unrealistic aspect of that particular game's rules. Let's face it - if we design a realistic game, then we're dealing with ships that glow like hot coals on a black night in infrared even if we make the most optimistic assumptions about power output. There's no amount of ECM that can hide that glow, no amount of evasion that's going to get you out of the way of his beam before it reaches you, leastways not from under a light-second or so - no roll to hit, when it comes down to it, just train your laser and roll for damage.

And then there's sandcasters, and nukes that don't manage to carve a 30-meter radius hole out of the ship they hit, and that whole business about detection and being stealthy in space in some of the games, and so forth, and so forth. When push comes to shove, the game model in all those games - and indeed in a great many sci-fi space battle games - looks more like Star Wars than anything realistic.

I will admit, however, that HG2 seems to be blessed with more than its share of such artifacts.

 

[sabredog]

I've always figured the HG rules were just an expanded carry-over from Imperium. Line up your ships one at a time and the opposing player matches them - which in itself seems goofy but it works for an abstract system. Even the magazines in HG1 were only for if the ship was to ever be used for planetary bombardment and there was no info on how many hours of bombardment those provided, either. The bottomless missile boat concept originated with the Terran fleets in Imperium, too, as a counter to the heavier beam weapon ratings on the Imperial ships.

And HG in either edition is abstract, which is why ship combat IMTU on the PC level is handled with LBB2 rules regardless of the ship designs involved. A few minor tweaks allow me to add the smaller PAW and energy weapon bays and turrets just in case the players need a really good spanking, along with armor and screens.

One way I've handled fighters (if using HG combat) in the past as a viable weapons platform in HG is to just classify them another layer for missile defense. HG1 had a code for fighter squadrons and that can be used as another laser code for missile defense only, otherwise the things are good under that system for just messing with other fighters by using the same code for determining who has 'air superiority' by giving it to the side that has the highest code. That side gets to use its fighters as a defensive layer and the other side loses half of its fighters and the rest are ineffective.

 

[McPerth]

But then, it's also weird to have a 500kt ship and yet still only have it carry a single 'spinal' weapon.

I disagree with you here. The same term on spinal weapon forces any ship, regardless size, to have single one. This is not for size constrains, but by the fact that they a immobile (relative the ship).

Even if you arm you Tigris with 3 spinals (possible, being a sphere, as they can be equally long), they will be in fixed angles (let's say a central one and one each 30 degrees port and starboard). What is the possibility to have three ships exactly in those angles so that your Tigris can fire its multiple spinals at once?

And if they are used to absorb damage, see that a single weapon ship will disable one full spinal (even if it is a T rated one) as long as it is not the last one (the last battery). Yes, it's another game artifact, but a single fusion turret (factor 5 at TL15) will absorb 5 weapon hits, while a secondary spinal will be taken out by a single one.

 

[sabredog]

I disagree with you here. The same term on spinal weapon forces any ship, regardless size, to have single one. This is not for size constrains, but by the fact that they a immobile (relative the ship).

Even if you arm you Tigris with 3 spinals (possible, being a sphere, as they can be equally long), they will be in fixed angles (let's say a central one and one each 30 degrees port and starboard). What is the possibility to have three ships exactly in those angles so that your Tigris can fire its multiple spinals at once?

There is no facing in HG. Ships are considered to be rotating or whatever to be able to constantly bring to bear the maximum number of batteries even when batteries are reduced by attrition (good thing the enemy always hits entire batteries on the same side of the ship at once to make it easy)....

....and yet during combat that supposedly takes place across thousands of kilometers over a 20 minute turn during which ships the size of aircraft carriers zip about at ten's of gees of accumulated acceleration to dodge myriad lasers, missiles, and energy weapons so there is no way that the same ships could ever have time, energy, or maneuverability to fire three or so large weapons that are mounted to face more or less one direction. But...they can make sure a ship the size of the Death Star can rotate and bring to bear all those batteries even while losing some to attrition in combat.

Not to mention the ridiculous idea that a 100kt warship can only mount a single spinal weapon that masses 5k or less, especially when that is usually the only one that really makes the ship dangerous to other warships of similar class. It's about as much sense as a few fighters the size of F-14's stopping a line of capital ships from brea......oh...yeah.....never mind.