• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Type 95 Zhodani 10 ton fighter

wbyrd

SOC-13
This is what I was working on as the opposition for my earlier fighter post.

Zhodanii Type 95 Fighter.
zhodanii_olinaed_trilobite_fighter_by_wbyrd-d93m9na.png

An older widely seen fighter deployed as a screening, scouting force for Zhodanii warships the Type 95 ("trilobite) is a fairly cheap, largely expendable fighter which is used in large numbers to harass enemy shipping, and screen larger ships against light attack craft and gunships.

Reasonable agile, and fast the fighter can close into attack rage quickly and escape the heavier weapons of larger vessels before the formation is destroyed by heavy return fire. Few fighters can match its acceleration, and in expert hand the Type 95 can easily outrun missiles launched at them by other fighters and starships.

With few defensive system, light armour, and no pilot survival equipment installed the Type 95 is mockingly called a Prole Bomb, by Imperium fighter pilots. In practice the Type 95 is as effective as it's Imperium counterparts, with numbers making up for the slightly better armour, and pilot survival hardware of Imperium fighters. Zhodanii admirals do not seem to concern themselves with the loss of mostly lower class Prole pilots assigned to these poorly defended craft.

Often older craft, or "Surplus" lots are sold at discounts to independent groups hostile to the Imperium. In the hands of Private "merchants" ,Pirates, and Vargr Raiders the Type 95 is as common in the hands of Rouge, and criminal elements along the Zhodanii frontiers as it is in the hands of the Zhodanii fleet.

One distinctive feature of the Design is the hybrid Gravitic Plasma drives used by the designers. This is not a major advantage to the fighters since it has similar performance to a pure gravitic drive, and offer little advantage over their pure gravitic counterparts. They however do tend to leave a noticeable trail of ionised gas behind the fighter as it manoeuvres, giving opponents an easy visual cue to identify Zhodanii fighters among a mixed group of small craft.

Hull/structure 0/1
Armour 4
performance
Thrust 12
Jump ---
Endurance 1 Day
Crew 1
Attack DM ---
Evasion ---
Sensors -4
componant notes rating tons cost
componant -- -- t-- cost
HullHull / Structure0/1 10 1
Configuration Standard
Armour Crystaliron 4 pts0.5 0.2
Hull Modificationsnone
M-driveType sF123 6
Power PlantType sF122.7 5.5
Reactor Fuel one day0.1--
Bridgecockpit--1.5 0.05
Computer Type 1 10---0.03
Electronics standard-4DM -------
TurretsFixed Single Missile launcher, fire control--- 10.85
Cargo Hold1 ton Missiles1---
Base Airframebase cost ---9.7 13.63mCR
---
Standard Design Discount Price: 12.267
Bulk orders, or military oorder discounts of 20-30% would result in a per unit price of 9.8136 at the lowest, putting them below 10 Mcr per unit.

This particular design has no canopy or view ports for the pilot, the cockpit is entirely enclosed. requiring the pilot to rely entirely on sensors, optics, and other forms of visual observation.

While an Imperium Pilot would have a litter of kittens if sealed in with no way to see without electronics, I don't think the Zhodani would care if the low ranked pilots were happy or not...

I didn't add any modifiers, or special traits for the hybrid engines, they are purely cosmetic. While they are almost identical to the KgL 24 Animikeeg 10 ton fighter in performance and weapons, they are a bit squishy, and have no pilot escape system.

I'll probably add some sort of close in anti-vehicle weapon to both models at some point. Which would give them a bit of a self defense vs other small craft sense a few of the vehicle type weapons they can mount ( such as a Fusion Gun, or plasma cannon from Central Supply) are powerful enough to do damage to an unarmored small craft, or lightly armored medium armored vehicle.
 
Landing with instruments on the fritz will be a lovely experience I'm sure.

If you are in space..power down, trip your recovery beacon, hope your side wins....


In atmo, yeah your gonna need to take it real slow, and hope you hovering over something reasonably flat and stable.
 
I would tend to believe there should be a back-up to the primary-main avionics, if nothing more than just an optical-fiber based tele-prescence network allowing rudimentary navigation.

A wicked little ship all the same !
 
I don't think the Zhodani show this much disregard for human life, if anything they value it a lot more than the Imperium - hence the use of warbots to save soldiers lives being wasted on the battlefield.

Make it a drone fighter for the Zhos and I could accept it as theirs, or change the write up to make is sound less suicidal.
 
I keep believeing missiles are a poor choice of weaponry in MgT. We already discussed that...

For Capital Ship Combat:

In MgT missiles are close to useless.

If using Core Book, just having enough armor makes them useless without even needing lasers to be fired against them.

If using HG, also a well armored ship is nearly imprevious to them, and nuclear dampers make them even more useless. See this example among TL10 ships, comparing missiles vs PA batteries (and see no dampers were used):

See that in MgT missiles are no longer the decisive weapons told about in CT:HG (I guess they are the "Dethroned Queen of the Battle").

If you use CB rules, 2d6 damage (I asume nukes) against heavy armor (Let's asume equal to TL) plus nuc damper plus (possibly) sand, usualy means no damage.

As for barrages (those numbers were run for another thread on a TL 10 ship):

to make numbers easy, let's imagine your 20 missile bays against 16 bearing:

Missiles barrage: 384 - nuclear missile - long - 2

Against an armor 10 ship, in all cases crew quality 3 and FC +2 8maximum for TL A):

Missiles modifier: -10 armor, +2 dice/weapon, +3 crew, +2 FC, - (1d6-11+1) sandcasters, -(1d6-21+1) for lasers= -(2 + (2d6-1)), so, -(2d6+1). So, assuming average dice, no damage (as the dice for PD will offset barrage roll and still leave a -1 result).

I asume PD is under 90% of missiles in both cases

Of course, a lucky missile barrage can be devastating (both PD rolls being 1, so a total of -3 and boxes on the barrage roll would inflict 150%, so 576 damage points, But you need a barrage roll 5 over the PD rolls to inflict any damage (I leave the numbers to anyone else). And again, against fighters things go even worse.


As your TL raises, so does Fire Control (up to +5), but so does enemy's armor, for a net effect of 0 until TL 13 (when Fire Control/5 is reached), and negative for the missiles upwards...

More or less the same happens when diffreent Crew Quality is used (after all, +3 is elite crews according to HG: At Crew quality +2, both PDs (sand and lasers) lose a +1 to the roll, but so does the barrage roll (for a total of +1 for the missiles), while Crew Quality +1 evens it again, as the PDs are unaffected while the missiles lose another +1. Crew Quality +4 will again give a +1 to the missiles and won't affect PDs, giving again a +1 more to the missiles. See that in both cases where the missiles receive this additional +1 for Crew Quality they still need to toll on the barrage roll 4 over the PDs rolls to affect the ship (albeit if they do the damage can be devastating).

And all of this is aside form the cost (both in tonnage and Credits) that the ammo represents...

See that the example in MgT LBB2:HG (pages 74-75) is against an armor 2 ship, and even then it only achieves 50% barrage damage on a barrage roll of 7 and PDs rolls of 4 and 2 (so, barrage roll 1 over PDs ones and against very low armor)

And your fighter, with computer model 1, will be quite far from the fire control in the example (assuming fire control/2, it can fire one weapon with a +1 modifier, and no crew quality DM)...

And for Core Book combat:

As for missile armed merchants, I again feel it a poor choice, given MgT rules.

Being non military ships, I'll assume we use Core Book rules for them (so no barrages, etc...)

If we stay in OTU, I must guess Imperial Rules of War keep in force and so the missiles may not be nukes. That reduces its damage to 1d6. See that any ship with armor 4 (at usual TLs that means 5% of tonnage) will ignore about 2/3 of them, and any ship with armor 6+ will fully ignore them.

The issue about ammo cost (in money and tonnage keeps), so the missiles are quite inferior (IMHO) to lasers or (the ones I feel would be the main weapon in MgT) PBs. Lasers don't use ammo and may be more powerful (at some accuracy cost, for Plasers), and may also help you as PD weapons. PBs are quite more powerful (even inflicting radiation damage) and accurate, and in MgT are quite low TL and power needs is not a problem (the main advantage for missiles in other versions).

See also that in no place (at least no place I've found) PBs are in MgT limited as ortillery, taking off another of their disadvantages from previous versions, where they could not be used against atmospheric targets (but that's again mostly for military thought crafts, not so important for civilian merchants).
 
Last edited:
I would tend to believe there should be a back-up to the primary-main avionics, if nothing more than just an optical-fiber based tele-prescence network allowing rudimentary navigation.

A wicked little ship all the same !

Thanks, I imagine your right, some sort of emergency system would be in place. If nothing more than a simple video link thats indenpendant from the main systems for landing and such.

I don't think the Zhodani show this much disregard for human life, if anything they value it a lot more than the Imperium - hence the use of warbots to save soldiers lives being wasted on the battlefield.

Make it a drone fighter for the Zhos and I could accept it as theirs, or change the write up to make is sound less suicidal.
If it came across that these were suicidal little death traps, and Zho were uncaring callous...umm jerks...that was the idea.

The Snippet is written from a purely Imperium centered point of view...with very subtle propaganda included.....A lot of material from various time frames are slightly slanted toward the home team. Hostile aircraft were always written up in a way that made them a threat, but a flawed threat...

A zho player might love his little "95" while an imperium pilot would think they are a flying coffin with a few missiles strapped to it. I was putting a slight sin on the fighter so the first time a player who read the description and came up against tone of these guys he'd be in for a surprise.

I will be making that more clear when this goes into the source book I am working on...it's all from an Imperium centered view point.

I keep believeing missiles are a poor choice of weaponry in MgT. We already discussed that...
Unfortunately its a missile launcher or a sandcaster for MgT 10 ton fighters. They can't fit a powerplant that allows for energy weapons.

Type sG Powerplant required for Energy weapons...type sF is the largest powerplant allowed in a ten ton hull.....not a rule I like but until someone lets me rework the rules, I'll go with it.

while a projectile weapn might have more punch, the only railguns available are in barbette form since there is no description of a turret mounted projectile weapon. I could shoehorn in a 5 ton railgun babette to the design but then it would have no armor, and a lower thrust rating.

So,since I wanted highest possible thrust for the design it had to be missiles.
 
Ah - that's ok then :)

I'm all in favour of a little setting propaganda.

Nice design by the way.

There is method hidden among the madness....occasionally.

thanks, positive feedback helps me get through the day..or at least work up enough gumption to come up with a new look, and a few new twists to a design.

when you trying to make two ships, that are statistically almost identical, different enough to count. You end up with a headcache on a regular basis :D
 
Besides, if the prole fighter pilots were unhappy, the Zhos would fix that and MAKE him happy.

Therefore, never a sad Zho fighter pilot.

Ever.
 
Unfortunately its a missile launcher or a sandcaster for MgT 10 ton fighters. They can't fit a powerplant that allows for energy weapons.

Type sG Powerplant required for Energy weapons...type sF is the largest powerplant allowed in a ten ton hull.....not a rule I like but until someone lets me rework the rules, I'll go with it.

while a projectile weapn might have more punch, the only railguns available are in barbette form since there is no description of a turret mounted projectile weapon. I could shoehorn in a 5 ton railgun babette to the design but then it would have no armor, and a lower thrust rating.

So,since I wanted highest possible thrust for the design it had to be missiles.

Well, the fighter shown in MgT:HG page 95 seems to disagree with you, though it has little armor and thrust 6.

OTOH, it has 1 spare ton (shown as cargo), so you could upgrade the maneuver drives to sE (its sC is 1.5 tons, while the sE is 2.5 ton, giving it thrust 10, and if you reduce the fuel to one day endurance (so to 0.15 dtons, as, after all, who expects a pilot to be able to stay on it for a full week?) you have enough (by using also the cargo space) to give it a sF MD (3 ton), so thrust 12. And if you apply the volume reduction (for TL 14, so only to MD) shown in page 53 and you use Bonded Superdense armor, you can even armor it to a decent level (at a cost, off course).

See that this way, you can arm it with lasers (either BLsers o PLasers, each one has its advantages and weaknesses), so avoiding point defenses or even with a turret size PB1 (assuming my former post assumption is correct), that avoids sandcasters too.

In any case, you have several upgrading points due to higher TL (being Zhodani, so assuming TL 14, 8 for missiles, 7 for PLasers, 6 for PBs and 5 for BLasers), allowing it to be accurate, variable range and very high yeld (or just high yeld for Blasers, if you want to keep the other upgrades), so achieving some extra DMs for barrage rolls...

Note 1: in CT/MT a particle beam would be useless in atmosphere, so making it a pure space fighter. MgT does not say anything about that...
 
Last edited:
well son of a ....You know I wrote a book using these rules..and I still missed that. Guess it would help if I had the writers of Highguard to talk to when I am working......I'd buy ya a beer/cold beverage but it wont go through my router...

I had been working under the assumption that both Drives and power plants were limited by hull size, there's no mention of power plants not being limited by hull types...and I just assumed they had the same limits as drives....

..it seems that only the drives are limited.....which means Yes, you can put a laser in a 10 ton fighter....:D. Heck the author did it on two designs the fighter and the drone on page 54. this makes my day a little brighter...even if I was proven to be wrong on something.

the fighters I have previewed so far are simpler models which are meant as SWARM fighters. they rely on numbers to get the job done rather than the capability of individual fighters.

Strike fighters, and Battlespace Superiority fighters will have more bells and whistles and use a few more tweaks to various systems.
 
I'm not seeing any design element that says "Zhodani" to me, but I'm a Keith brothers traditionalist.

Fair enough. I did ask for opinions....

anything you can suggest to improve the Zho-ness of future projects would be fine to toss my way.
.
.
.

By the way Brian..nice job :D
 
Last edited:
An interesting question, why is it that every fighter isn't equipped with a enclosed cockpit?

In space, there's no real reason for windows to exist on fighting craft. At the ranges most ships would be engaging at, it would serve no purpose in target identification. Its just a weak spot on the hull. A Merchant Vessel could get away with it because they are not expecting any high energy lasers or nuclear missiles shot at them. But a blast from a nuke would likely compromise your window on your space fighter.

Not intending to hijack, but I had a thought, since it was pointed out clearly that it has a enclosed cockpit with cameras instead of glass.



"You do realize this stealth only hides our emissions right? They could just look out a window and see us."
"Windows are structural weakpoints. Geth do not use them."
 
"Windows are structural weakpoints. Geth do not use them."
The Zhodani, however, do.


Fair enough. I did ask for opinions....

anything you can suggest to improve the Zho-ness of future projects would be fine to toss my way.

This design is close to several "Zhodani" elements already.

We see three groups of Zhodani subcraft in CT. There are a couple pictures in JTAS and another in the CT Alien Module that depict delta-winged pods or cylinders, much like our own modern fighter jets. Arguably these fall into two groups, as the rather chunky fighter on the cover of JTAS 9 is rather more organic, and has the split cockpit glass and point-forward winglets that make it distinct.
The other CT art comes via FASA, though much of it has since been fully Canonized by inclusion in TNE, GT, and Mongoose. Ignoring the big ships for now, we see the Heavy Fighter sitting on the back of the Stedlas SDB. It is all organic curves and that tall sail of a tail, and the winglets are again swept forward (a design element also seen on all of the bigger ships that also use the organic look).
The third type shows up in the even older Vlezhdatl deckplan set (also from FASA). The Vlezhdest fighters are rather simple and almost crystalline in form, looking like a flattened and irregular decahedron. While not this simple, the larger ships do have a similar group, including the Vlezhdatl and the clumsily geometric Patrol Cruiser designed by Games Workshop for their IISS Ship Files.

Common elements seen in these, the Vlezhdest aside, include the point-forward winglets or tail sail and an obvious nose. They also tend toward obvious cockpit glass, though it is not always split down the middle.

The larger ships provide a few more distinctive details. The engines are rarely at the very rear of the hull; something always sticks out further even if it is just an overhang (something the MGT version of the Ninz got wrong). Second, Zhodani spacecraft are very rarely *flat*. Whether it is a flowing and curvy organic form or stark geometrics, the Zhodani don't fly bricks. They also have a distinct preference for triangular cross-sections, with the lower decks being wider than the upper decks.

----

This fighter obviously isn't in the old-school dart group and is a bit too curvy for the stark geometric group. The best fit is in the curvy organics group, but there are a lot of panels and surface bits that the organic group typically does not have.

Were I your Art Director, I'd recommend the following to make this design distinctly Zhodani.

-Bend it downward across the body, so the outboard ends are lower than the center. It doesn't need to be a lot.
-Broaden the central tail at its base (looking from above) until it overhangs the engines and gives the hull a beveled or pointed aft appearance (from above) that then keeps going into the long tail.
-Put a forward barb in line with the central tail that visibly rises above the hull. It need not be huge, and can rise smoothly from the central tail before ending in the forward point seen on most Zhodani craft.
-Smooth out and curve the hull and tail lines and ditch 90% of the surface detail greeblies. It should look like slightly mechanized sea life, not Mecha Godzilla.
-Make the cockpit a little more visible, be it up top (using Brian's layout) or across the front. Given that you've described the fighter as camera driven, the "cockpit glass" may just be a surface marking that means nothing.

In this case, the overwhelming Zhodani use of long and narrow hull forms that are frequently necked can be ignored, as we do have one other fighter that doesn't follow that rule.
 
Last edited:
An interesting question, why is it that every fighter isn't equipped with a enclosed cockpit?

In space, there's no real reason for windows to exist on fighting craft. At the ranges most ships would be engaging at, it would serve no purpose in target identification. Its just a weak spot on the hull. A Merchant Vessel could get away with it because they are not expecting any high energy lasers or nuclear missiles shot at them. But a blast from a nuke would likely compromise your window on your space fighter.

Not intending to hijack, but I had a thought, since it was pointed out clearly that it has a enclosed cockpit with cameras instead of glass.



"You do realize this stealth only hides our emissions right? They could just look out a window and see us."
"Windows are structural weakpoints. Geth do not use them."

If there are manual RCS overrides, then there's a good reason right there for a window. A fried computer renders the remote optics useless. But if you can manually release RCS fuel into the combustion chambers, you can still dock.
 
Back
Top