Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:20 am

That's the point. You cannot compensate for that. That object would provide a cone of concealment from a sensor. To make your proposition work you'd have to have very detailed specs on the capabilities of the enemies sensors. You'd also have to have very detailed specs on where the ship is that you are trying to sneak up on by using the cone
Would only be true if the tracked target has sensors that ignore cover and those type of sensors have a very limited range.

With computers able to calculate jumps with a fair degree of accuracy despite a several hour deviation in time would have very little difficulty calculating the cover required to approach a target. ( This is where pickets are of high priority.)
You are missing the point. How do you even SEE where a human may, or may not be from 10,000km away?
Its assuming your aware of or have reason to believe a human being in the area being targeted and since a human being can't move far enough in time you don't need to target the individual instead you target the area they may be in.
How do you even SEE where a human may, or may not be from 10,000km away?
Look at the details section on sensors, especially details and than look at the spaceship options on Distributed arrays which increase the range band the sensors operate under.

Further, you can use other vehicles or ground forces to spot/track the target for you.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3886
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby phavoc » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:38 pm

baithammer wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:20 am
Would only be true if the tracked target has sensors that ignore cover and those type of sensors have a very limited range.

With computers able to calculate jumps with a fair degree of accuracy despite a several hour deviation in time would have very little difficulty calculating the cover required to approach a target. ( This is where pickets are of high priority.)
No, that's not how sensors work. I think you are making an assumption that (a) the object is motionless relative to the ships or station target, (b) the station or ships are not also orbiting a target. In space everything is in motion. All of these objects should be in non-parallel motion. So the area the sensors are looking at will continually be changing.

Also in order for the attacking craft to make all these wonderful calculations to know where the blind zones are they are going to have to have an active read on the targets. Your assumptions are taking the benefits of both passive and active tracking with none of the drawbacks.

And your targets are going to have as good or better sensors than your attacking small craft. Small craft should never have the sensor and computer capabilities of far larger ships and stations, which correctly reflects the drawbacks of smaller craft.
baithammer wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:20 am
Its assuming your aware of or have reason to believe a human being in the area being targeted and since a human being can't move far enough in time you don't need to target the individual instead you target the area they may be in.
This is a circular argument.
baithammer wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:20 am
Look at the details section on sensors, especially details and than look at the spaceship options on Distributed arrays which increase the range band the sensors operate under.

Further, you can use other vehicles or ground forces to spot/track the target for you.
Sensors still have limitations (practical and otherwise). I don't see many starships engaging a walking target that will have military value. These sensors aren't designed to track people on the ground, but ships and objects in space.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:22 pm

I think you are making an assumption that (a) the object is motionless relative to the ships or station target, (b) the station or ships are not also orbiting a target. In space everything is in motion. All of these objects should be in non-parallel motion. So the area the sensors are looking at will continually be changing.
A: It depends on the relative motion between the different bodies.
B: An orbiting path is very easy to track and determine if covering bodies are applicable to an approach.

As to the last point, traveller sensors are directionless and don't use the sweep mechanism.
Also in order for the attacking craft to make all these wonderful calculations to know where the blind zones are they are going to have to have an active read on the targets.
Its rather easy to see where the blind spot is as there are no exotic sensors in play such as gravity tunneling which would bypass the cover or any other piece of cover.

The only other question would be if distributed or extended arrays are in play as those are the only enhancements that would vary the range of the sensors.
And your targets are going to have as good or better sensors than your attacking small craft.
Which cover would negate as the sensors can't track what it can't see.
Your assumptions are taking the benefits of both passive and active tracking with none of the drawbacks.
The main drawback for the use of cover in this case is making the approach to cover in the first place without being detected and the second hurdle is maintaining motion of the hiding force within the cover of the object, none of which are trivial.
This is a circular argument.
Considering the first step is a break point, there isn't a circular stepping in the arguments.

The gist is you need to know if a man sized target is in the area whether that be forward observation or via monitoring a specific area.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:49 pm

Getting back to the original point of the thread and taking into consideration past discussions.

1.) Adding a firmpoint to each of the three classes of smallcraft.
2.) Changing the required number of firmpoints to equip a barbette to three.

This allows the light class to have two weapon systems while limiting the number of barbettes across the classes.
tytalan
Stoat
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:48 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby tytalan » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:59 am

Couple of things I think must be pointed out.
1. The EM drive has not been proven to work out side the van Allen belt in fact many scientists now think it is a reaction to the Van Allen belt that makes it work. Great for satellites not for space travel
2. The most realistic choice for the next generation of space drive is a VASIMR which is also being tested by NASA for long term use.
3. A couple of things from a long time SFB player. First SFB battles all happen in Warp space so the laws of physics does not matter. Second the captain of a SFB ship can give 32 different orders in a single minute.
4. I would assume that the missile and torpedoed thrust is only it effective directional thrust and that it is moving at must greater speeds but with a erratic movement pattern designed to minimize the threat of being shot down like a current day cruse missile does it only makes sense. And since minimum changes in course can create greate changes in location making it hard to impossible to hit at long ranges. Remember the speed of light does create a time differencal at long ranges. You can be targeting many seconds ago at those ranges.and your laser will also take time to get to the target.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:00 am

1. The EM drive has not been proven to work out side the van Allen belt in fact many scientists now think it is a reaction to the Van Allen belt that makes it work. Great for satellites not for space travel
Depends on which theory on the EM drive.

The latest is that the drive emits microwaves for its low thrust so would function nearly anywhere, however this is an area that is going to take a while before its mapped out.
2. The most realistic choice for the next generation of space drive is a VASIMR which is also being tested by NASA for long term use.
Nasa is going old school with a twist for its latest interplanetary drive.

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) using a reactor with low-enriched uranium to address concerns over conventional reactor safety.
3. A couple of things from a long time SFB player. First SFB battles all happen in Warp space so the laws of physics does not matter. Second the captain of a SFB ship can give 32 different orders in a single minute.
Traveller has no combat or contact between ships in warp space so none of this is applicable.
4. I would assume that the missile and torpedoed thrust is only it effective directional thrust and that it is moving at must greater speeds but with a erratic movement pattern designed to minimize the threat of being shot down like a current day cruse missile does it only makes sense.
The system appears to operate under the assumption that the fastest small craft will be at thrust 9 and due to the length of a given round directional movement isn't a big concern.

High Guard appears to be more aligned as a potential stand alone system, allowing for different rules to be in play.

As most civilian designs are TL 12 the highest thrust possible with m-drive is thrust 6 where as the military ships being TL 15 can get up to thrust 9.

This meshes with missile / torpedo speeds typically between 10 - 15 thrust.
tytalan
Stoat
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:48 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby tytalan » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:22 am

baithammer wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:00 am

2. The most realistic choice for the next generation of space drive is a VASIMR which is also being tested by NASA for long term use.
Nasa is going old school with a twist for its latest interplanetary drive.

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) using a reactor with low-enriched uranium to address concerns over conventional reactor safety.
3. A couple of things from a long time SFB player. First SFB battles all happen in Warp space so the laws of physics does not matter. Second the captain of a SFB ship can give 32 different orders in a single minute.
Traveller has no combat or contact between ships in warp space so none of this is applicable.
4. I would assume that the missile and torpedoed thrust is only it effective directional thrust and that it is moving at must greater speeds but with a erratic movement pattern designed to minimize the threat of being shot down like a current day cruse missile does it only makes sense.
The system appears to operate under the assumption that the fastest small craft will be at thrust 9 and due to the length of a given round directional movement isn't a big concern.

High Guard appears to be more aligned as a potential stand alone system, allowing for different rules to be in play.

As most civilian designs are TL 12 the highest thrust possible with m-drive is thrust 6 where as the military ships being TL 15 can get up to thrust 9.

This meshes with missile / torpedo speeds typically between 10 - 15 thrust.
No NASA is not using nuclear pulse drive in fact any electrical power source will do with a VASIMR read up on it. Nuclear Pulse can't be used in atmospheres because of the radiation this drive can. It is based on that old ideal but with more effective and less damaging technology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variabl ... sma_Rocket

EM drives also have such a low thrust ratio that most considered it to be useless at best.

I was just countering the person that said SFB had a more realistic combat system I was not comparing it to High Guard.
tytalan
Stoat
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:48 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby tytalan » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:24 am

I also will acknowledge that I have not read the new High Guard still waiting for it to be sent. But I do have a lot of experience with older versions. I have been reading what you have been saying and I've noticed a couple of things. In older Traveller there was a thing call agility which because of the formula for it fighters tended to have high ratings while large ships had low ratings this was basically a %of power vs total mass since fighters had a high power vs mass they could throw the extra power in to agility making it harder to hit them.

That really doesn't matter since from what has been said indicates agility no longer is part of the game.

I did want to point out a couple of things that are on topic

Having played RL both in its fighter game and its capital ship game I would like to agree that it's combat is much more realistic. One of the reasons it is is that it recognizes that an individual fighter is not a combat unit instead it treats groups of fighters as the equivalent of a single ship. So instead of dealing with one fighter your dealing with a squadron or a flight maybe even a group. Each unit is treated as a single ship for all purposes. So you not taking a hit from one or two partical guns but instead from 6 or 12 fried as if from one turret or bay. And that just from a single squadron a flight would hit you with 4 times that number. A group 12 times it.

Traveller rules treats fighters as smalls ships but your more realistic games treat them the same way the navy's of the world do as a long range weapon system consistenting of servile small crafts as part of a whole. The problem is the setting treats them this way also causing a disconnect between the rules and the setting background.

Also I played the frounteer war back in the day and if my mind serves me right fighters had one counter per squadron not six or twelve depending on the squadron size.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:48 am

That got nixed due to performance issues and the reason NASA has contracted a different company.

The NTP is a different design from the VASMIR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

Here's a link to the project overview.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/miy2mbs2zAQ
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:55 am

After some theory crafting, I've come up with some fighter/bomber designs using the current rules.

Basically the main weapon that is effecitve ( IE no range limitation) is either missiles or torpedoes and using the pulse laser as more of a point defense.

The under 35t category doesn't really work as there isn't enough firmpoints to mount a credible offense.

So, for the light fighter design I used a 40t hull with fixed pulse laser and a missile rack which covers picket / interceptor role.

Image

The heavy fighter uses a 70t hull which uses a missile barbette and pulse laser turret.

Image

And finally a bomber with 90t hull using a torpedo barbette and pulse laser turret. ( Also has a 3rd crew member to act as EW officer.)

Image
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:05 pm

Launching a single missile, or torpedo, per round is pointless, the salvo will be stopped by ECM. Even squadron launching will most likely be ineffective. You really need a barbette, even for the missiles.

You pay a very heavy price for the fixed laser, but it will be next to useless. You will loose the dogfight roll to more agile, smaller, or cheaper enemies (i.e. most fighters) and will be unable to fire anyway. You will be unable to fire PD, since that requires a turret.

Note that each turret require a gunner, so you will only be able to fire either the missile barbette, or the laser turret on the bombers. You can easily accommodate more gunners, but they will need living space on the carrier, making it bigger and hence more expensive.

The last few points of armour you give up by using Crystaliron will mean that your fighters take a lot more damage from turret and barbette weapons, and you don't save all that much.

You don't need even remotely that much magazine space, but I guess you don't have all that much else to do with the space, unless you opt for an additional reaction drive. Since your fighters are streamlined they might use aerofins for a nice advantage in atmosphere. The ECM craft could carry more operators in sensor stations, for more available sensor actions.

Your fighters are much too expensive because they are filled with nice-to-haves that are not essential. A MCr 100 fighter (+MCr 100 Carrier?) is not a very cost-effective way of delivering a missile barbette into combat.


A ~35 Dt fighter with a barbette for MCr ~40 is rather effective. You can even squeeze in a decent reaction drive, so that they can reach dogfighting range, or get out of harms way, in a reasonable time.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:10 pm

Cockpits are technically only allowed on craft of 50 Dt or less:
Instead of a bridge, ships of 50 tons or less may install a cockpit.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:57 am

Launching a single missile, or torpedo, per round is pointless, the salvo will be stopped by ECM. Even squadron launching will most likely be ineffective. You really need a barbette, even for the missiles.
Which is only true for the light fighter which isn't designed for a prolonged engagement, the point of the light fighter is to act as a picket for fleets and to intercept incoming threats so heavier units can take action further away from the fleet.

The ammunition total allows for a varying type of missiles, with fragmentation missiles being good for dealing with small craft ( Which can hit up to additional 3 targets adjacent to the initial missiles.) and can intercept missile salvos outside of point defense.
You will loose the dogfight roll to more agile, smaller, or cheaper enemies (i.e. most fighters) and will be unable to fire anyway.
Not according to the attack action notes.
However, a pilot may fire any
weapons that are noted as being in fixed mounts
Light fighter is under 50ts so has no penalty to dogfighting, the heavy and bomber have a -1 but are more durable then lighter craft that can engage in a dog fight. ( Reaction drives have less endurance and take up far more volume for both the engines as well as the fuel.)

Further, I was going on the basis that the fastest design is around thrust 9 with the average missile being thrust 10 to a maximum thrust 15.
Note that each turret require a gunner, so you will only be able to fire either the missile barbette, or the laser turret on the bombers.
Gunners aren't required to be in the turret itself and since the point defense action is a reaction and not an attack action there is no problem for the single gunner.
The last few points of armour you give up by using Crystaliron will mean that your fighters take a lot more damage from turret and barbette weapons, and you don't save all that much.
2 points aren't going to do much against missiles which are the biggest threat to a fighter, but with reflec it provides armor 16 vs lasers which are the most likely weapon system that would used in dog fighting. ( Also makes armor replacement far cheaper and can be produced in more factories than super dense.)
You don't need even remotely that much magazine space
It provides the fighters/bombers the ability to operate in battle longer and can carry a mixed loaded to handle different situations. ( Much like modern mbts.)

Especially the use fragmentation missiles for both anti-small craft and missile interception.
Since your fighters are streamlined they might use aerofins for a nice advantage in atmosphere.
That would rather useful.
The ECM craft could carry more operators in sensor stations, for more available sensor actions.
The bombers are designed to operate in squadrons of at least 10, which gives 10 ewar attempts against different salvoes.

At capital scale squadrons multiple the defense score by the number of ships in the squadron versus salvoes.
Your fighters are much too expensive because they are filled with nice-to-haves that are not essential. A MCr 100 fighter (+MCr 100 Carrier?) is not a very cost-effective way of delivering a missile barbette into combat.
Only if your looking at the fighter on a single unit basis, at 10+ in a squadron your bringing more weapons to the fight than a single hull of the same displacement and the fighters can be produced faster and at more assembly plants then similar tonnage ships.
Cockpits are technically only allowed on craft of 50 Dt or less:
Good catch, would simply lower the ammunition to reflect using a bridge.

Adding the additional firmpoints I mentioned at the start would allow better scaling of fighters and lower the cost per unit. ( Also make fighters remaining at 50t scale more viable.)
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3283
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Location: Arlington, TX USA

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby Rikki Tikki Traveller » Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:18 pm

My comments are more general in nature. I would be interested in your design thoughts...

Why are these fighters streamlined? Seems like a waste of money since their primary mission is space-based, not orbital. I am thinking back to B5 and the advantages of a Starfury in space combat since it was not streamlined. While there is no size savings, the cost seems unnecessary for the base design.

Why Heat Shielding? This feature seems pretty worthless in most combat situations, so why bother with the cost?

Why Crystaliron? Seems that at TL15, Superdense or Bonded Superdense would give you more protection for the same tonnage. Yes it costs more, but for the large fighter at least, that might be worth it, and you did save on streamlining above... :)

Why 4 Weeks of fuel? Seems to me that 1 week would be more than enough for a fleet/attack fighter. With a cockpit etc. it isn't like the pilot can stay out that long.

Why only Military Grade sensors on the large fighter? Seems like the Advanced sensors would be worth the tonnage and could come from Cargo space.

LOVE the designs btw! :)
My friends call me Richard.
You can call me Sir.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:55 pm

Why are these fighters streamlined? Seems like a waste of money since their primary mission is space-based, not orbital. I am thinking back to B5 and the advantages of a Starfury in space combat since it was not streamlined. While there is no size savings, the cost seems unnecessary for the base design.
Its designed for both space and atmospheric operations. ( B5 introudced a smiliar upgrade for the star furies latter in the series.)
Why Heat Shielding? This feature seems pretty worthless in most combat situations, so why bother with the cost?
Due to the design being able to operate in an atmosphere, the Heating Shielding allows for unpowered re-entry at a 4+ task, well worth the cost.
Why Crystaliron? Seems that at TL15, Superdense or Bonded Superdense would give you more protection for the same tonnage. Yes it costs more, but for the large fighter at least, that might be worth it, and you did save on streamlining above...
Molecular Bonded is Tl 16 and costs almost double Super Dense.

Crystaliron is cheaper / can be produced are far lower tech facilities and the difference in volume is negiable with higher grade.
Why 4 Weeks of fuel? Seems to me that 1 week would be more than enough for a fleet/attack fighter. With a cockpit etc. it isn't like the pilot can stay out that long.
Artifact of the Fusion Power Plant requiring a minimum 1 ton of fuel as per the following ..
Other power plants ( Other than chemical power plants.) require fuel tankage equal to 10% of
their size (rounding up, minimum 1 ton).
Why only Military Grade sensors on the large fighter? Seems like the Advanced sensors would be worth the tonnage and could come from Cargo space.
The extra features of the Advanced sensor package don't fit the usage of the heavy or bomber designs, this allows the light to have a niche with the Dosimeter and NAS.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:51 pm

baithammer wrote: Which is only true for the light fighter which isn't designed for a prolonged engagement, the point of the light fighter is to act as a picket for fleets and to intercept incoming threats so heavier units can take action further away from the fleet.
You are not using standard nomenclature.
Fighter: A small, short-ranged fast combat vessel, normally displacing fifty tons or less.
A Light fighter is in the 10 Dt range. (HG, p94)
A Heavy fighter is in the 50 Dt range. (HG, p102)

A 40 Dt, MCr 70 fighter is not a throwaway reconnaissance unit, note that the HG heavy fighter is MCr 40 (and I will not argue that it is cost-effective).


baithammer wrote:
You will loose the dogfight roll to more agile, smaller, or cheaper enemies (i.e. most fighters) and will be unable to fire anyway.
Not according to the attack action notes.
In this way, the winner of a dogfight can ensure all his forward facing weapons can attack his enemy while ensuring he stays out of his opponent’s forward facing (and the weapons present there).
Smaller cheaper fighters will be more numerous fighters, getting a bonus on the dogfight roll, so they will win the dogfight, hence disallowing you to fire.


baithammer wrote: Light fighter is under 50ts so has no penalty to dogfighting, the heavy and bomber have a -1 but are more durable then lighter craft that can engage in a dog fight. ( Reaction drives have less endurance and take up far more volume for both the engines as well as the fuel.)

Further, I was going on the basis that the fastest design is around thrust 9 with the average missile being thrust 10 to a maximum thrust 15.
You can use both M-drives and R-drives. M-drives for endurance, and R-drives for a bit of extra push for a short time, like an afterburner. There is not hard limit at 9 G.


baithammer wrote:
Note that each turret require a gunner, so you will only be able to fire either the missile barbette, or the laser turret on the bombers.
Gunners aren't required to be in the turret itself and since the point defense action is a reaction and not an attack action there is no problem for the single gunner.
MULTIPLE TASKS
A Traveller can try to do two or more things at once, like firing a spacecraft’s weapons while also flying, ...
For every extra thing the Traveller is doing, the level of difficulty for each task is made one level harder.
It is well worth an extra gunner to avoid a -2 DM.


baithammer wrote:
The last few points of armour you give up by using Crystaliron will mean that your fighters take a lot more damage from turret and barbette weapons, and you don't save all that much.
2 points aren't going to do much against missiles which are the biggest threat to a fighter, but with reflec it provides armor 16 vs lasers which are the most likely weapon system that would used in dog fighting.
A warship firing a laser turret at Long range will have an attack DM of about +6+3+2-2-2 = +3.
With a +3 DM against Armour 16 each turret will do average 0.35 damage.
Against Armour 18 each turret will do 0.10 damage, less than a third.

A Particle Barbette would do average 1.85 damage against Armour 13, but only average 1.08 against Armour 15.

It is well worth it to go to modern armour to take half as much damage.


baithammer wrote:
Your fighters are much too expensive because they are filled with nice-to-haves that are not essential. A MCr 100 fighter (+MCr 100 Carrier?) is not a very cost-effective way of delivering a missile barbette into combat.
Only if your looking at the fighter on a single unit basis, at 10+ in a squadron your bringing more weapons to the fight than a single hull of the same displacement and the fighters can be produced faster and at more assembly plants then similar tonnage ships.
The cost scales with numbers. Your 10 bomber squadron would cost GCr ~2 (with carrier), roughly as much as a 1000 - 2000 Dt warship, or ~100 light fighters.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:04 am

Fighter: A small, short-ranged fast combat vessel, normally displacing fifty tons or less.
Please note the "normally part".
Smaller cheaper fighters will be more numerous fighters, getting a bonus on the dogfight roll, so they will win the dogfight, hence disallowing you to fire.


And far less effective then the fighters I've provided and the lighter fighters will only have a +1 roll advantage against the 70-90t designs. ( And since the preddesigns only use a max thrust 9 there is no bonus for them here either.)
You can use both M-drives and R-drives. M-drives for endurance, and R-drives for a bit of extra push for a short time, like an afterburner. There is not hard limit at 9 G.
The limit is based on three observations in the current designs, 1.) no design, even in the fighters is above thrust 9, 2.) Missiles top out at thrust 15 and 3.) No design uses a reaction drive.
MULTIPLE TASKS
A Traveller can try to do two or more things at once, like firing a spacecraft’s weapons while also flying, ...
For every extra thing the Traveller is doing, the level of difficulty for each task is made one level harder.
It is well worth an extra gunner to avoid a -2 DM.
I have a feeling the example is in error, for one fixed weapons are called out for pilots specifcally and occur in different steps.
A warship firing a laser turret at Long range will have an attack DM of about +6+3+2-2-2 = +3.
With a +3 DM against Armour 16 each turret will do average 0.35 damage.
Against Armour 18 each turret will do 0.10 damage, less than a third.

A Particle Barbette would do average 1.85 damage against Armour 13, but only average 1.08 against Armour 15.

It is well worth it to go to modern armour to take half as much damage.
Worth noting the covention of rounding down and the heavier designs have far more hull points.
Rounding: Unless otherwise stated, whenever you are
asked to divide in Traveller, always round down
The cost scales with numbers. Your 10 bomber squadron would cost GCr ~2 (with carrier), roughly as much as a 1000 - 2000 Dt warship, or ~100 light fighters.
The bombers are specifically designed to be hunting larger ships so the cost is pretty on par and the 100 light fighters would be murdered by both my light and heavy fighters due to the missile launchers. ( The predesigned light fighters have a fixed pulse laser.)
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:51 am

baithammer wrote:
Smaller cheaper fighters will be more numerous fighters, getting a bonus on the dogfight roll, so they will win the dogfight, hence disallowing you to fire.

And far less effective then the fighters I've provided and the lighter fighters will only have a +1 roll advantage against the 70-90t designs. ( And since the preddesigns only use a max thrust 9 there is no bonus for them here either.)
Less effective per fighter, but more effective per MCr. They do not even need extra agility, they get a DM+1 for each extra craft in the dogfight, so in a 1 vs 10 fight they get +9, and almost always win the dogfight, negating any fixed lasers the expensive fighters may have.

baithammer wrote:
You can use both M-drives and R-drives. M-drives for endurance, and R-drives for a bit of extra push for a short time, like an afterburner. There is not hard limit at 9 G.
The limit is based on three observations in the current designs, 1.) no design, even in the fighters is above thrust 9, 2.) Missiles top out at thrust 15 and 3.) No design uses a reaction drive.
It's an explicit rule:
The effect of a high-burn thruster is cumulative with that of the ship’s regular drive system.
No pregen ship uses multiple cockpits or Reflec either. Why would that stop anyone from using it?

baithammer wrote:
MULTIPLE TASKS
A Traveller can try to do two or more things at once, like firing a spacecraft’s weapons while also flying, ...
For every extra thing the Traveller is doing, the level of difficulty for each task is made one level harder.
It is well worth an extra gunner to avoid a -2 DM.
I have a feeling the example is in error, for one fixed weapons are called out for pilots specifcally and occur in different steps.
It's an explicit rule. The activity is performed through-out the turn, it's just rolled for in separate steps.

Basic rule:
Pilot: Flies the ship, responsible for changing course and making evasive manoeuvres.
...
Turret Gunner: Each turret has its own gunner. A Traveller must choose which turret he is manning at the start of the combat.
This exception allows the pilot to fire weapons at all:
Weapons on board a spacecraft are fired by Travellers assigned to gunner duty. However, a pilot may fire any weapons that are noted as being in fixed mounts
The Multiple actions rule explicitly applies.

baithammer wrote:
A Particle Barbette would do average 1.85 damage against Armour 13, but only average 1.08 against Armour 15.
It is well worth it to go to modern armour to take half as much damage.
Worth noting the covention of rounding down and the heavier designs have far more hull points.
Actual damage is a natural number, no need to round.
Average damage over several weapons and several rounds is not a concept in the rules and not rounded.

More hull points per hull, not more hull points per MCr. A lot of small, cheap fighters will have more hull points total than a single very expensive fighter.
E.g. your 40 Dt fighter has 17 Hull for MCr 68. If you instead had chosen to buy 10 small 10 Dt fighters à MCr 7 you would have 10 × 4 = 40 Hull.

baithammer wrote:
The cost scales with numbers. Your 10 bomber squadron would cost GCr ~2 (with carrier), roughly as much as a 1000 - 2000 Dt warship, or ~100 light fighters.
The bombers are specifically designed to be hunting larger ships so the cost is pretty on par and the 100 light fighters would be murdered by both my light and heavy fighters due to the missile launchers. ( The predesigned light fighters have a fixed pulse laser.)
A 2000 Dt missile frigate might cost MCr 1700 and have a few bays and turrets, say 2 Med Miss bays, 8 missile turrets, and 10 laser turrets. It would have ~880 Hull.

So for the same cost as 10 of your missile bombers having Hull 10 × 30 = 300, launching 50 missiles, you could have a ship that has 880 Hull and launches 72 missiles, and has superior sensors and missile defences. The ship would counter all attacks from the missile bombers with ECM, PD, and armour.


A 10 Dt fighter with a single missile rack, 9 + 16 = 25 G, Armour 15 would cost about MCr 6.5. Instead of a MCr 100 missile bomber you could buy 15 small fighters with 15 × 4 = 60 Hull, launching 15 missiles per round, so twice the hull and thrice the missile weight.


A 10 Dt fighter with a single laser turret, 9 + 16 = 25 G, Armour 15 would cost about MCr 7.1.
For the same cost as a missile bomber we could get 14 small fighters. They would easily kill all missiles launched by the bomber with PD, and still inflict (a little) damage with the lasers. With superior acceleration they would decide the engagement range, and whether to break off or not. The missile bomber would be dead meat.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:45 pm

so in a 1 vs 10 fight they get +9, and almost always win the dogfight, negating any fixed lasers the expensive fighters may have.
First part is countered by High Guards squadron dogfight addendum as follows.
However, do not
total the tonnage of the fighters within the squadron
when applying modifiers to the dogfighting roll. Instead,
use the average tonnage of the fighters within the
squadron (this will not apply unless the referee allows
the use of fighters above 50 tons).
And its not the pulse lasers the pre-designed fighters should be worried about, its the missile salvos from the light and heavy designs, which is 10 missiles light / 50 Missiles heavy. ( With fragmentation missiles it gets even more dangerous as each of the those missiles are able to hit up to 3 additional targets adjacent to the initial target. )

Which also means no dogfight bonus until the pre-existing light fighters can get into close range.
No pregen ship uses multiple cockpits or Reflec either. Why would that stop anyone from using it?
For one it breaks a lot of implicit mechanics such as missiles topping out at 15 thrust.

And my heavy and bomber designs are due for a revision to use bridges as you mentioned cockpits being limited to 50ts and even without reflec the designs are far more durable and able to project damage outside the pre-existing designs weapons range.
Basic rule:
Pilot: Flies the ship, responsible for changing course and making evasive manoeuvres.
...
Turret Gunner: Each turret has its own gunner. A Traveller must choose which turret he is manning at the start of the combat.
This exception allows the pilot to fire weapons at all:
Weapons on board a spacecraft are fired by Travellers assigned to gunner duty. However, a pilot may fire any weapons that are noted as being in fixed mounts
The Multiple actions rule explicitly applies.
Several counters to this point.

1.) The pre-designed light fighter only has a single pilot and a fixed pulse laser as well.
2.) The movement step allows the pilot to aid gunner starting a task chain to possibly aid combat step gunnery roll.
3.) Missiles don't use the gunnery skill and gain a +1 dm per missile in the slavo, a minimum of +1 if both the attacking and defending craft are of the same TL.
So for the same cost as 10 of your missile bombers
First, those are torpedo bombers.
Second, they would be deployed with a heavy fighter squadron.

So, 20 Pulse Laser turrets for point defense.
10 Torpedoes
50 Missiles

Vs

2x Salvos of 36 Missiles Each
10x Triple Pulse Laser Turrets point defense devided between to the 2 incoming slavos
A 10 Dt fighter with a single missile rack, 9 + 16 = 25 G
Which is operating outside the extent of this exercise where thrust is limited to 9 for ships with missiles topping out at thrust 15.

If we go your route missiles would be useless as thrust 15 will not catch a thrust 16+ vehicle and we'd end up using only particle barbettes to compensate.
For the same cost as a missile bomber we could get 14 small fighters. They would easily kill all missiles launched by the bomber with PD, and still inflict (a little) damage with the lasers. With superior acceleration they would decide the engagement range, and whether to break off or not. The missile bomber would be dead meat.
Make up your mind, missile or pulse laser not both.

And the bomber never acts alone, it acts in a squadron with at least a heavy fighter squadron in tow.
Jeraa
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby Jeraa » Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:14 pm

And its not the pulse lasers the pre-designed fighters should be worried about, its the missile salvos from the light and heavy designs, which is 10 missiles light / 50 Missiles heavy. ( With fragmentation missiles it gets even more dangerous as each of the those missiles are able to hit up to 3 additional targets adjacent to the initial target. )
The pre-existing light fighters shouldn't be considered, as they are old tech. Navel standard is TL15, not TL12. And the TL15 heavy fighters (which are cheaper than all yours) laugh at your fragmentation missiles. 3d6 damage (Average 10.5) is ignored by their Armor 15. Unless you roll high, no damage gets through. And since you only roll damage for a missile salvo once then multiply, the entire salvo will usually do nothing to the preexisting heavy fighter. More often than not, its armor ignores the damage from a normal missile as well (4d6 average 14 vs Armor 15). IF it had a weapon more suitable for a heavy fighter, like a fusion barbette, it would be doing 5d (Average 17.5) damage against your Armor 13 fighters (And the reflec doesn't help). Not counting the potential radiation damage (which can still get through your radiation shielding - 1400 rads max vs 1000 rad protection).

Also, the preexisting design are and have always been poorly done. Using them as the basis of how things should be is flawed.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests