Modular Fighter

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:28 pm

baithammer wrote:
You could save money, and get more Hull, by choosing Close configuration.
Was aiming for streamlined to make this an aerospace fighter, so has an easier time with atmospheric operations.
Then you might include streamlining, Standard configuration is only partially streamlined.

baithammer wrote:
EM masking is good, but needs to be combined with Stealth to be effective.
As it imposes a penalty to locks, its price isn't that bad.
Fighters will generally not have any personnel over for sensor tasks, so will generally not even try.
Warships will generally have superior sensors and SP, so will generally succeed anyway.

I agree it is not all that expensive, but it does cost money and space (meaning even more money) and is not very effective.

baithammer wrote:
You only have a single laser turret which will rarely be able to penetrate the fighter's own armour. You really want a barbette.
More a problem with the 2 firm point limit and the pulse laser is more for point defense, hunting low armor vessels and air to ground.

I like the escape pod, but with a turret you need a gunner and hence at least two pods.
Its a fixed mount and the reason for not using a dual cockpit.
You have two firmpoints available, yet you only use one.

Technically fixed mounts cannot perform point defence, the rules require a turret for that which I find reasonable.

A fixed mount take no space. You have allocated 1 Dt for the laser, that is not necessary.

Traditionally a turret has included a gunnery station. I do not think you need a double cockpit to accomodate a gunner, only a turret.

baithammer wrote:
Broadspectrum EW is overkill in every fighter
Broadspectrum EW gives a big bang for its cost, as it automatically engages salvos every turn.
Broadspectrum EW performs EW actions without skill DM. With limited sensor support, as in most fighter, the effect will be low.

If you have a normal squadron of 10 fighters you have spent MCr 180 on Broadspectrum software yet only one will function, with limited effectiveness. You could instead buy two extra fighters with ECM modules and Broadspectrum, and since the ECM modules will have a much better EW DM it will be much more effective.

baithammer wrote: Of course this is just the first iteration.
There are always a few more iterations possible...
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:20 pm

Then you might include streamlining, Standard configuration is only partially streamlined.
Good old fat fingers strike again.
Fighters will generally not have any personnel over for sensor tasks, so will generally not even try.
Because of the equipped sensors, the pilot can do the lock on test in order to get a boon on attacks before entering combat. ( Gunners on ships can do the same thing.)

Which is also why the emissions masking is useful.
If you have a normal squadron of 10 fighters you have spent MCr 180 on Broadspectrum software yet only one will function, with limited effectiveness.
If you read the details of Broad Spectrum the restriction is the individual software may not engage targets more than once and allows sensor operators to also engage the targets if the sensor operator goes before the software.( Sensor operator is limited to a single target.) Further with each fighter having the broad spectrum software there are no holes due to attrition for the squadron.
Technically fixed mounts cannot perform point defence, the rules require a turret for that which I find reasonable.
Fighters might be an exception due to High Guard fighter section which only requires pulse /beam lasers.
Traditionally a turret has included a gunnery station. I do not think you need a double cockpit to accomodate a gunner, only a turret.
Ships don't have a noticeable limit on life support compared to fighters with a 24 hr supply, further with computerized setups the gunnery station isn't required to be in the weapon station.
You have two firmpoints available, yet you only use one.
Second firm point is for modular weapons, still toying with the idea of dropping the fixed pulse laser and having the module support both firm points.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:48 am

Next Version with both Firm Points in modular section.

Image
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby h1ro » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:46 am

Given the conversations we've had with regard to firm/hard point limitations, it seems a little on the wry humour side of things that a firm/hard point can be in a module that slots in and out of the body of a ship...

Just saying is all

dear god, my spelling sucks
Last edited by h1ro on Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:19 am

Change out the door panels for panels with cutouts for the external gear and its back under hull/armor.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:07 am

h1ro wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:46 am
Given the conversations we've had with regard to firm/hard point limitations, it seems a little on the wry humour side of things that a firm/hard point can be in a module that slots in and out of the body of a ship...
According to the rules we can modularise spinal mounts and easily swap them out at a whim...


Seriously, turrets have always been modular.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CaladanGuard and 8 guests