Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2437
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:24 pm

Sigtrygg wrote: Jump fuel is reaction drive fuel...
I agree, but I still haven't been able to make something reasonably effective. It's also dangerous to burn your jump fuel...

Sigtrygg wrote: SDBs and BR can spare the space for reaction engines...
Certainly, but it replaces a lot of weapon payload.

But if really prefer a certain range it might be worth it.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:22 pm

Wondering if I should split the thread ( Move the oversize fighters to its own area and with a proper framework.) and come up with better framework for this one?
tytalan
Stoat
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:48 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby tytalan » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:21 pm

This was brought up in another subject but it does affect this one. When you are discussing fighters vs ship one thing to keep in mind that in OTU ships have a m drive limit of 6 were small craft have a m drive limit of 16 this makes a big difference.

Here one of the reverent posts.
AndrewW wrote:
Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:34 pm
kevinknight wrote:
Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:19 pm
I was surprised to hear from a reliable source that the cap on MD ratings in the OTU was 6 for ships larger than 100 tons. I was unable to find any sort of rules reference to this, though. Could someone please point me to where this is stated? Thanks!
BTW, this was brought up when I pointed out that the ships in Drinax all had 6 or less...
High Guard isn't specific to the OTU, so it allows for some ships that wouldn't 'fit' the OTU. Yes, the cap is still there but isn't specifically mention in High Guard, for your own purposes use it or not as you see fit.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:47 am

MGT 1st edition had a really interesting setup for thrust limits.

10t - thrust 12
20t- thrust 14
30t - thrust 16
40t - thrust 14
50t - thrust 9
60t - thrust 8
70t+ - thrust 6

CT Supplement 9 Fighting Ships had the heavy fighter use a triple fixed mount to get a sandcaster / missile launcher / beam laser, that might be a possible fix for the current fighter situation. ( Have the fixed mount increase cost depending on the number weapons equal to the cost of a turret but without the added displacement taken up.)
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2437
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:36 pm

And then you could add High Burn Thrusters...

No-one was limited to 6 G in MgT1.
SSWarlock
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1010
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: Fulacin/Rhylanor/Spinward Marches

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby SSWarlock » Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:52 pm

Was there ever a decision regarding whether or not G-compensation covered any acceleration from high-G thrusters? I've been house-ruling that it didn't but I'm hoping something oh-fishul was published either as errata or in other publications.
Sir Dhaven Hevelin, IOD, Baronet of Fulacin
Owner/Captain - S.S. Warlock

Playing Traveller/RQ/D&D since 1977
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4065
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AndrewW » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:14 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:36 pm
And then you could add High Burn Thrusters...

No-one was limited to 6 G in MgT1.
You still can, they stack with the M-Drive, the 6G limit is only fro the M-Drive on ships 100 tons or more.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:31 pm

And then you could add High Burn Thrusters...
Not available in MGT HG.
No-one was limited to 6 G in MgT1.
There are tables specifically limiting the top speed based on class and dton and with no High Burn Thrusters, there is no way to increase that.
You still can, they stack with the M-Drive, the 6G limit is only fro the M-Drive on ships 100 tons or more.
Well MGT HG states m-drive or r-drive, with no High Burn Thrusters and with tables specifically calling out thrust limits.

So a bit confused with the no limits.
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4065
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AndrewW » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:50 pm

baithammer wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:31 pm
And then you could add High Burn Thrusters...
Not available in MGT HG.
High Guard, page 37 wrote:High Burn Thruster
A high burn thruster is an auxiliary chemical rocket designed to give a temporary speed boost to a ship. This is easily mounted on a ship by adding an additional reaction drive. Ship architects should note that a reaction drive used as a high burn thruster is
likely to require far less fuel than a ship that relies on a reaction drive alone for thrust. The effect of a high-burn thruster is cumulative with that of the ship’s regular drive system.
For the earlier edition see Book 6: Scoundrel, page: 88.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:05 am

For the earlier edition see Book 6: Scoundrel, page: 88.
Ugh, why I found 1st ed so confusing.

That version of the High Burn Thruster was interesting though.
A high–burn thrusters may not operate for more
than one hour before requiring a shut–down period equal to the
duration of operation.
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4065
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AndrewW » Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:11 am

baithammer wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:05 am
Ugh, why I found 1st ed so confusing.
As new things are needed after High Guard came out that tended to happen. With the 2nd edition one we did consolidate a lot of the stuff scattered across various books into the new one.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5430
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby Condottiere » Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:26 pm

Turrets change the equation in a dogfight, where the pilot would be anxious to bring his fixed mounted weapon systems to bear and get out of his opponent's angle of attack, whereas with a turret, you can point them in any direction.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:48 am

pilot would be anxious to bring his fixed mounted weapon systems to bear and get out of his opponent's angle of attack
A pilot engages when the target is in there engagement profile not in a head to head contact.
Turrets change the equation
With a fighter being able to spin to face and vector thrust, turrets aren't a big win in the offensive role.

The turret is far better in a defensive situation where it needs to act independently from the piloting of the fighter.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2437
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:11 am

baithammer wrote: With a fighter being able to spin to face and vector thrust, turrets aren't a big win in the offensive role.
The winner may choose to place his opponent’s ship in a fire arc of his choice and may choose which of the opposing ship’s fire arcs his own vehicle lies in.
The winner of the dogfight can choose to let his fixed mounts fire, and the enemies not.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:55 am

Another go at the fighter designs.

Sticking with the thrust 9 m-drive and taming sensor inflation ( Military Sensors are standard).
Light fighter is at 35t, Heavy fighter is at 50t and instead of a bomber went with a torpedo boat at 75t mark.

Light Fighter

Image

Heavy Fighter

Image

Torpedo Boat

Image
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5430
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby Condottiere » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:00 am

Fifty tonnes is more the cut off point to take advantage of single capacity cockpits.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:49 am

The Heavy Fighter 50t is designed to have the pilot control the missiles while the gunner mans the turret, that way the pilot doesn't require a gunner skill check.

The Torpedo boat 70t design on the other hand is a boat and would be carried by a boat tender.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2437
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:15 am

baithammer wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:55 am
Another go at the fighter designs.

Sticking with the thrust 9 m-drive and taming sensor inflation ( Military Sensors are standard).
Light fighter is at 35t, Heavy fighter is at 50t and instead of a bomber went with a torpedo boat at 75t mark.
Sorry, I fail to see the point of the heavier fighters. Everything you do with the 50 and 70 Dt fighters you can do with the 35 Dt fighter, but cheaper and using less carrier-space. If you really want the next to useless lasers you could provide escort by small 10 Dt fighters.

You could save significantly (MCr ~15?) by using one or two sensor fighters in each squadron, instead of every fighter.

The metal hydride tanks confer no advantage, since you lose a minimum of 1 Dt fuel for each hit.

I might suggest something like this:
Image
Note extra tankage to survive a fuel hit.
Cost includes a sensor module for each 10 fighters.
Wpn module could be: Missile barbette, Torpedo barbette, or Laser + Missile rack + Magazine.
There is a slight shortage of power if a laser and sensor module is installed, but we can shut down the coffee makers to compensate.

Since they are cheap we get two of these for every Heavy Fighter, or three for every Torpedo Boat, yet we carry the same armament...
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:45 pm

The 70t is supposed to be 75t so a boat rather than a fighter. ( Also has detachable bridge and 3 firmpoints.)

Quick question on the 2 crew + sensors module, is that containing the cockpit or staterooms? ( Cockpit also has a 24hr lifesupport limit which is why the MGT 2ed HG heavy has a bridge.)

As for fighter squadrons you need the same sensor bonus across the fighters to avoid lowest common rating penalty. ( Also makes jamming much easier as only two targets are required.)

As for firepower, your weapon module is limited to the 5t where as the my light figher has 12ts and the heavy has 20t.

As for the metal hydride tank is a hold over from my experiments with r-drive fighters.

Mgt 2ed HG fighter section provides an exception to the point defense requiring a turret, just need the fighters between the salvo and target, while being close or adjacent to the salvo in order to use the point defense reaction.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2437
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:45 pm

baithammer wrote: Quick question on the 2 crew + sensors module, is that containing the cockpit or staterooms? ( Cockpit also has a 24hr lifesupport limit which is why the MGT 2ed HG heavy has a bridge.)
I was thinking Sensor 2 Dt, ESP 2 Dt, ECM 2 Dt, and 2 sensor crew stations 2 Dt. No stateroom or extended lifesupport. So no better than a cockpit.

A bridge would be more comfortable than a cockpit, but still does not have any extended life-support. No kitchens or heads. You need staterooms for extended life-support.

I would allow 4 people to double-bunk (sleep in shifts) in a single stateroom for short periods of time.

baithammer wrote: As for fighter squadrons you need the same sensor bonus across the fighters to avoid lowest common rating penalty. ( Also makes jamming much easier as only two targets are required.)
No, actually there is an exception for sensors:
In terms of Tech Level, Armour, Thrust, software, and skill levels, the squadron will always operate at the level of the worst performing fighter within it.
...
However, in terms of sensors, always use the highest quality (taking into account both actual sensors and the skill of the operator) within the squadron.

baithammer wrote: As for firepower, your weapon module is limited to the 5t where as the my light figher has 12ts and the heavy has 20t.
There is plenty of space for magazines. If you wish you can make the Wpn module bigger to include the magazine. I don't think it's necessary.

baithammer wrote: Mgt 2ed HG fighter section provides an exception to the point defense requiring a turret, just need the fighters between the salvo and target, while being close or adjacent to the salvo in order to use the point defense reaction.
Possibly, yet it might only be an exception to the rule that only craft Close to the target may PD.
It does not explicitly say that turrets are unnecessary, it only says distance from target is irrelevant.
If the referee deems a fighter or squadron to be suitably placed and they have a Thrust score higher than that of the missile salvo, fighters may perform the Point Defence action against any missile salvo while it is travelling to the target.
...
Because space is very large, the chances of a fighter being in the right place to intercept fast-moving missiles is slim unless the salvo was expected before it was launched.
Point Defence (Gunner)
Using a turret-mounted laser (beam or pulse), a gunner can destroy incoming missiles.
Note that it is a privilege awarded by the Referee, not a general rule to be abused...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CaladanGuard, Google [Bot] and 12 guests