Or just let the computer do the work, and not bother with a pilot...
Thinking about Fighters...
- Thread starter aramis
- Start date
Or just let the computer do the work, and not bother with a pilot...
For some reason, human pilots are normative in the 3I.... and all charted space.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Begs the question why you bother with the multi-million Cr training of a ship's boat - sorry - fighter pilot when you could just build robots with a skill lvl of 4 in every relevant skill 
And this is one of the problems: any bogey will trigger it. So, in a moderately traffic system, that may mean many false alerts (enough as not be useful).
OTOH, as said before, unless the computer may inject it intravenously (and that means the pilot wearing a catheter), each subjective minute it takes to absorb the antidote and for it to begin making effect (as told, you can expect 1-15 minutes) would mean one hour of intruder's time (3 combat rounds).
Antidotes neutralize effects of a drug, but don't use to eliminate it. I wonder what effects would be of having slow drug injected while you have yet fast drug in your bloodstream... I guess not too funny for the one involved.
Until TL 17 robots don't attain true intelligence, and so may only be as good as its programing, and any unexpected situation will put them in problems, as they are not capable or true thought (and so, improvisation or unexpected reactions).
I envision some fighter drones, though (I've even designed some with MT and book8 rules), and maybe robot brains piloting crafts (and maybe not only small ones) once TL17 robot brains are achieved.
One problem you have to feature those drones into HG combat is how to rate their brain as computer equivalent, for the combat modifiers.
I'm not so sure about the Hivers (and of course I intend you meant a hiver pilot, if applied to them), as they use to leave more part of combat to robots, and have higher computer TL than the other sentients.
Anyway, my information about the Hivers is quite limited (to say the least), so that is only a though, I have no canon sources of hivers using such fighter drones.
Begs the question why you bother with the multi-million Cr training of a ship's boat - sorry - fighter pilot when you could just build robots with a skill lvl of 4 in every relevant skill
A side question about rules you reminded me here: is Pilot or Ship's Boat used to pilot a fighter?
While rules letter say Ship's Boat (no jump, under 100 dtons), the Flight School (and Flight Branch in Imperial and Subsector navies), where I guess most pilots come from (as HG , page 33 says small craft pilots are taken from the Flight branch), train better as Pilot than as Ship's Boat.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Wrong, sort of
It's due to the Traveller definitions.
TL17 should more properly be labeled artificial sentience.
Artificial intelligence programs are much lower TL, as are skill rating 4 programs...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
It's another example of very sloppy editing by the staff at GDW.
Ship's boat is the skill for all small craft under 100t.
Pilot is for 100t and above.
Why the Imperium would waste trained ship pilots in small craft is beyond me.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen are much more abundant and cheaper than metals...
:devil:
Yes, this is new territory for Traveller. The computer is facing a redefinition, up until the point where it is a player character.
Consider that there could well be remote sensor fields in a system, with or without armaments. Mine fields in Traveller are presumably Friend/Foe missiles idling somewhere.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I always preferred Marc's robots articles in the first couple of Journals to the DGP written LBB 8.
LBB 8 muddied the waters with its definitions, not to mention the authors didn't have a clue where computer and personal communications technology was heading here in the real world.
LBB 8 muddied the waters with its definitions, not to mention the authors didn't have a clue where computer and personal communications technology was heading here in the real world.
Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen are much more abundant and cheaper than metals...
Yes, replicating, self-repairing bio units; conscript them all!
I have used robots as pc's recently, and doing the cost benefit analysis, robots are better qualitatively, but more expensive.
The exact phrase in TTB for TL 17 (page 86) and Bk3 (page 14, in both cases the TL tables) is artificial intelligence.
Lower TL computers cannot have true artificial intelligence, only apparent one. While they may have skills up to level 4, they will only react as programed, and have no capacity for intuitive thought, so much needed (IMHO) for most works when you need to take decisions (and I guess picket work needs a lot of intuitive thought, or you must choose among sensivity and specificity when programing them).
EDIT: in MT (RC, page 28), IA is at TL 16, while at TL 17 self aware (and so I understand artifical sentience) computers and robots appear. Anyway, there are some other changes in TLs among CT and MT.
Last edited:
Maybe it has something to do with the pilot unions.
Just as an aside I long, long ago house-ruled that fighter pilots needed at least ship's boat-2. Other types of small craft only need ship's boat-1. The reason is spurious, but it does make fighter pilots harder to come by and a wee more 'elite'.
The house rule for ships of 100t+ is that if it has a jump drive it needs pilot-1, if it doesn't it can be ship's boat-2 or better. Under 100t then ship's boat-1. Don't ask me why; the lines had to be drawn somewhere.
Doesn't that sort of risk turning things into a rules-variant of Star Wars? How well does it actually work with players? Do you have the 3 Laws or do they just act like regular human/vargr/whatever except they have spare parts in a locker instead of socks and underwear?
Amber Chancer
SOC-12
Hi guys.
My first post here, so please be gentle with me.
I have always read the -2 DM for Pulse Laser damage rolls in HG as being an uncorrected typo, which I have corrected manually to +2.
I take as my justification for this the definitions of Pulse Laser and Beam Laser at page 15 in Book 2:
(My italics)
The -2 modifier would make pulse lasers more effective at inflicting damage than beam lasers ... and therefore I figure it cannot be right and +2 must have been what was intended.
Hello Amber Chancer.
No, the -2 DM is correct and you read it right: That leads to increased damage. Your understandable confusion stems from using the original, 1977 edition of Book 2 as a comparison. In this first edition, pulse lasers were simply cheaper and less effective than beam lasers.
Later on, beginning with the first edition of High Guard in 1979, that paradigm was changed: Now pulse lasers were less accurate, but more powerful. (Based on the idea that they delivered the same energy, but in shorter bursts, I would assume.)
In the revised, 1981 edition of Book 2 it says:
Now, if you like the original idea better, that's cool too. In that case, pulse lasers are a cheaper, less capable option instead of simply a different choice. For roleplaying purposes that might be desirable, giving the PCs an opportunity to upgrade their equipment.
However, I would then simply ignore the damage DM for pulse lasers instead of reverting it to +. Pulse lasers are already disadvantaged because they have lower factors. Even if the DM is just ignored, no warship designer is going to use them (few do as it is, anyway.)
P.S.: You may have noticed that the videogame Elite used pulse and beam lasers in exactly the same fashion as the original 1977 Book 2 did, with the effect I described above. The player had the opportunity to upgrade from worse weapons to better as they accumulated money.
No, the -2 DM is correct and you read it right: That leads to increased damage. Your understandable confusion stems from using the original, 1977 edition of Book 2 as a comparison. In this first edition, pulse lasers were simply cheaper and less effective than beam lasers.
Later on, beginning with the first edition of High Guard in 1979, that paradigm was changed: Now pulse lasers were less accurate, but more powerful. (Based on the idea that they delivered the same energy, but in shorter bursts, I would assume.)
In the revised, 1981 edition of Book 2 it says:
Now, if you like the original idea better, that's cool too. In that case, pulse lasers are a cheaper, less capable option instead of simply a different choice. For roleplaying purposes that might be desirable, giving the PCs an opportunity to upgrade their equipment.
However, I would then simply ignore the damage DM for pulse lasers instead of reverting it to +. Pulse lasers are already disadvantaged because they have lower factors. Even if the DM is just ignored, no warship designer is going to use them (few do as it is, anyway.)
P.S.: You may have noticed that the videogame Elite used pulse and beam lasers in exactly the same fashion as the original 1977 Book 2 did, with the effect I described above. The player had the opportunity to upgrade from worse weapons to better as they accumulated money.
Amber Chancer
SOC-12
Thanks Tobias - that's interesting. I have both copies of the rule books, but had never actually revisited the definitions so had not noticed that that had changed.
That rationale makes sense - and actually I like the outcome that even at armour-15, a ship is not TOTALLY invulnerable to any laser fire (just very very nearly so :rofl: )
It also gives some reason for HAVING pulse lasers - a weapon system which by and large I have tended to ignore altogether in my ship designs.
So I think I shall amend the modifier back to -2 ... and accept the consequence that when you are right down at Factor 1, that makes the pulse laser an altogether superior weapon to the beam laser! (Same chance of hitting ... more damage ... less cost!)
That rationale makes sense - and actually I like the outcome that even at armour-15, a ship is not TOTALLY invulnerable to any laser fire (just very very nearly so :rofl: )
It also gives some reason for HAVING pulse lasers - a weapon system which by and large I have tended to ignore altogether in my ship designs.
So I think I shall amend the modifier back to -2 ... and accept the consequence that when you are right down at Factor 1, that makes the pulse laser an altogether superior weapon to the beam laser! (Same chance of hitting ... more damage ... less cost!)
