Thinking about Fighters...

[mike wightman]

In CT '77 edition LBB2 pulse lasers have a DM of -1 to hit, beam lasers are described as being more effective at causing damage.

This is reversed in the CT '81 revised edition of LBB2 where pulse lasers are described as inflicting more damage than beam lasers but being less likely to hit, or rather the beam laser is described as more likely to hit.

The problem is the pulse laser -1DM to hit was accidentally left off the ship combat charts. Until Starter Edition of CT was produced that is.

That rule set has the definitive rules for pulse lasers in revised CT, they get a -1 DM to hit but if they do hit they roll twice on the damage table.

High Guard maintains this by allowing beam lasers to attain a higher battery factor, but giving the pulse lasers the -2 DM on the damage table makes them more likely to damage an armoured target.

 

[McPerth]

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.)

(emphasis is mine)

I guess that's because in most warships designs lasers are seen more as defensive weapons than offensive ones, and so, a factor 9 battery (maximum for TL13+ Blasers) can stop a factor 9 missile battery on a 4- (1/6), while a factor 7 battery (maximum for TL13+ Plasers) only stops them on a 2 (1/36), always assuming equal computer models, of course.

In small ships, where your batteries are smaller and discussion is among factor 3 or 4 (and budget usually more limited), this is less important, and the damage modifier might make sense to mount Plasers.

And in fighters, where there's no factor difference (being only able to mount 1 laser, any type, due to power constrains), IMHO, it definitivelly makes sense, as it makes them more lethal (if they hit) and saves MCr0.5 per fighter.

 

[Matt123]

Page 44 of HG, it refers to average skill levels of crew as being assumed at skill-2. Quite possibly a Robot Fighter at Ships Boat-4 may be overkill, but if it is uniform across your entire fighter fleet, would give you an advantage (giving +1 to your fighters agility, also gained at Ships Boat-3).

Must admit tho' IMTU I prefer the imagery of sophont pilots & Top Gun schools for Fighter Jocks than Drone fighters. Cylons excepted.

 

[sabredog]

Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen are much more abundant and cheaper than metals...

:devil:

Easily and enthusiastically replicated by unskilled labor, too.

 

[far-trader]

Easily and enthusiastically replicated by unskilled labor, too.

Quality control is a bit slipshod though, requires massive production to achieve a few suitable products that still need extensive and expensive finishing and programming

 

[McPerth]

Page 44 of HG, it refers to average skill levels of crew as being assumed at skill-2. Quite possibly a Robot Fighter at Ships Boat-4 may be overkill, but if it is uniform across your entire fighter fleet, would give you an advantage (giving +1 to your fighters agility, also gained at Ships Boat-3).

Must admit tho' IMTU I prefer the imagery of sophont pilots & Top Gun schools for Fighter Jocks than Drone fighters. Cylons excepted.

(emphasis is mine)

As said on an earlier post, I also would except Hivers. And, unlike the Cylons, I envision only the robot brain fit in those fighter drones, not a whole robot.

Again, to fit those fighter drones in HG you should find a way to rate those robot brains as computers in order to find the DMs, unless you fit both, robot brain and computer, into them.

The only reference I found to this kind of drones comes from MT 101 vehicles (pages 1-2, under Vehicle design:additional considerations), where it is said a robot brain (curious that MT had no rules for robot brains, BTW) could substitute the computer and one crewmember.

Anyway, I still believe that before true artificial intelligence is developed (TL17 in CT, TL16 in MT), those fighter drones must be closely watched by someone with (I guess) at least computer (in CT, as default for the robot operations skill found in MT) and fleet tactics skills (fitting enough, two of the skills you can attain in the Staff College in HG in both cases, as in MT:HG staff college you can achieve robot operations).

 

[Matt123]

(emphasis is mine)

As said on an earlier post, I also would except Hivers. And, unlike the Cylons, I envision only the robot brain fit in those fighter drones, not a whole robot.

noted in both cases.

Again, to fit those fighter drones in HG you should find a way to rate those robot brains as computers in order to find the DMs, unless you fit both, robot brain and computer, into them.

IIRC Book 8 robots should cover this. You would need a fighter with (or without) its own computer to get the fighters computer mods and design a robot brain with just a body, no limbs or sensors, just a plug in lead to the fighters computer. If the Robot Brain has Ships Boat-3 you also get the agility modifier (again assuming you did this across your entire fleet of fighters so the skill average is maintained).

 

[McPerth]

IIRC Book 8 robots should cover this. You would need a fighter with (or without) its own computer to get the fighters computer mods and design a robot brain with just a body, no limbs or sensors, just a plug in lead to the fighters computer. If the Robot Brain has Ships Boat-3 you also get the agility modifier (again assuming you did this across your entire fleet of fighters so the skill average is maintained).

I'm afraid then we talk about two different things. You talk about putting a robot in control of a fighter that has its own computer, while I'm talking about a fighter drone that substitutes the computer for a robot brain.

I understand there are no rules in CT for that, your computer + robot brain fighter being the only one doable with this rules set.

Maybe I'm too MT minded...

 

[robject]

T5 does this as well. The brain makes the robot. Put a brain in a fighter and you get a robotic fighter. Put a brain in a humanoid vehicle and you get an android. Etc. The brain is more or less a unitasking computer.