2022 update -- dogfight rules change?

[cunningrat]

Skimming through the 2022 update book -- as a side note, LOVE the art and layout, much easier to read than the old one.

What caught my attention was the dogfight section. The Core book reads "In addition, spacecraft of 100 tons or more are not designed for this kind of ‘knife-fight’ and will suffer DM-6 on all attack rolls they attempt." This sentence is not present (as far as I can tell) in the 2022 Update book. Is this an omission, or a rules change?

 

[Sigtrygg]

In a universe with Newtonian movement it has always been utter tosh - glad its gone.

 

[Sigtrygg]

And now I have bought the book - the dogfighting DM is still there and it is even more ridiculous than before, -1 per 100t according to the dogfighting DM table.

I would love to have someone with even a basic knowledge of newtonian movement explain how this is possible at 10km range in a universe where closing ships may have velocities of 100km/s or higher. Unless you can match vector you can not 'dogfight', and if you match vectors you are a sitting duck since you can not change your future position by a great enough amount to prevent my lightspeed weapons hitting you.

A dogfighting smallcraft should be at a huge disadvantage to line up a shot, whereas a large ship only has to bring a turret to bear...

 

[First Age]

And now I have bought the book - the dogfighting DM is still there and it is even more ridiculous than before, -1 per 100t according to the dogfighting DM table.

I would love to have someone with even a basic knowledge of newtonian movement explain how this is possible at 10km range in a universe where closing ships may have velocities of 100km/s or higher. Unless you can match vector you can not 'dogfight', and if you match vectors you are a sitting duck since you can not change your future position by a great enough amount to prevent my lightspeed weapons hitting you.

A dogfighting smallcraft should be at a huge disadvantage to line up a shot, whereas a large ship only has to bring a turret to bear...

Bah shame, twas hoping that the dogfighting rules could be quietly removed to make space for things.

Great that they've put the starship construction in and the book is looking really good on the previews I have seen.

 

[cunningrat]

And now I have bought the book - the dogfighting DM is still there and it is even more ridiculous than before, -1 per 100t according to the dogfighting DM table.

Not quite the same thing. The new -1 per 100t penalty is there, but it's applied to the "dogfighting roll", which means (if you lose this roll) you are at -2 to attacks.

In the Core edition, the loss on the dogfighting roll also applied a -2 penalty to attacks, but 100t+ ships ALSO got a flat -6 to all attacks, for a total of a ludicrous -8.

 

[swampslug]

That -1 per 100t penalty to the dogfighting roll is not new, I can find it in my PDF copy of the core rules from 2016. The only change I can see to the dogfighting rules is the removal of the -6 to all attacks.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Ah, I now see what you mean.

In which case back to my first comment - this is a good change.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Well then, RIP fighters as a military concept.

That -6 to hit was what kept fighters alive against ships with a lot more Hull points per MCr.

 

[cunningrat]

Well then, RIP fighters as a military concept.

That -6 to hit was what kept fighters alive against ships with a lot more Hull points per MCr.

Interesting. I haven't run any fighter combats yet, but from reading the rules, my impression was "if the fighters manage to close to knife range, it's all over but the screaming". Has that been your experience?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Interesting. I haven't run any fighter combats yet, but from reading the rules, my impression was "if the fighters manage to close to knife range, it's all over but the screaming". Has that been your experience?

Yes, more or less.

At least optimised fighters can stack enough defensive DMs to be almost unhittable by barbettes, and too heavily armoured to be damaged by laser turrets.

Fighters don't do a lot of damage, but the rounds are short, so you have plenty of rounds, so the damage stacks up.

 

[cunningrat]

Interesting. I haven't run any fighter combats yet, but from reading the rules, my impression was "if the fighters manage to close to knife range, it's all over but the screaming". Has that been your experience?

Yes, more or less.

At least optimised fighters can stack enough defensive DMs to be almost unhittable by barbettes, and too heavily armoured to be damaged by laser turrets.

Okay. Please understand --- I am a new Traveller GM, still trying to wrap my brain around game mechanics, so I am just asking questions. But it strikes me that (unless I am trying to stack the combat a certain way) having a ship with a built in "I win" button would be a bad thing, on either side of the encounter?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Okay. Please understand --- I am a new Traveller GM, still trying to wrap my brain around game mechanics, so I am just asking questions.

No worries, ask away!

But it strikes me that (unless I am trying to stack the combat a certain way) having a ship with a built in "I win" button would be a bad thing, on either side of the encounter?

The fighters only win in dogfight, at Close range. They still have to run the gauntlet to get into Close range; the ship can start firing at Long or VLong range.

Without a large acceleration advantage the fighters might never get into range at all. But ships have the same drives, so the same acceleration, as fighters. You need to stack a large M-drive with a huge reaction drive to get into range at all.


Generally space combat is dominated by spinals, missiles, and (previously) fighters.

 

[cunningrat]

The fighters only win in dogfight, at Close range. They still have to run the gauntlet to get into Close range; the ship can start firing at Long or VLong range.

Without a large acceleration advantage the fighters might never get into range at all. But ships have the same drives, so the same acceleration, as fighters. You need to stack a large M-drive with a huge reaction drive to get into range at all.

Right, that is a counter-balancing factor.
Guess I will have to experiment.

 

[Condottiere]

You send in Vader with a pair of wingmen to take out the snub fighters.

 

[Garran]

I prefer that Traveller isn't (now) treating fighters as the all-purpose superweapon that Star Wars does. A serious threat to other small craft and/or lightly armed spacecraft? Sure, that's their job. If you're dumb enough to send them at a cruiser, though, they should get vaporized.

 

[Condottiere]

As far as I can tell, for cruiser and battleship sized spaceships, the most dangerous opponent is a Why Wing with ion torpedoes.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Not in the Traveller universe, only in the cinematic cartoon physics universe of hollywood.

 

[Condottiere]

If we use dogfighting years, you can launch a torpedo or missile every six seconds, which means that you could empty your magazines before six minutes are up.

 

[OrdosMalleus]

Not in the Traveller universe, only in the cinematic cartoon physics universe of hollywood.

Right. Like Traveller.

The game's physics only vaguely resemble real-life, and that's a good thing IMO. I don't want to deal with vectors and acceleration and inertia with any granularity. It's Pew! Pew! and Zoom! Zoom! and "Hollywood physics" space opera all the way.

 

[Sigtrygg]

That's not Traveller ship combat.

Traveller ship combat is newtonian, vectors, momentum - not hand break turns and dropping bombs in zero g...

Mayday, Triplanetary, LBB2 - vector movement is Traveller.

Cinematic cartoon physics is not.