Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:18 am

Doing some more checking and the dual barbette isn't as overpowered as it sounds as it still has the limitations of being attached via firm points. ( 2 per barbette)

This would allow a differentiation between a medium fighter and a heavy one, while giving the light fighter a place in space combat.
arcador
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby arcador » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:20 am

SSWarlock wrote:
Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:43 am
Pulse lasers can be serious threats, especially when three of them built with the Very High Yield tech advantage are placed in a triple turret. Turret damage jumps from the standard TL single turret's range of 2-12 to the triple turret's range of 10-16 (i.e. 2D+4 plus VHY effects).
You can place high-intensity upgrade which grants AP2 to lasers. That is, in the situation with a lot of armour, effectively 2 more damage. Sh*t gets real from the pulses.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:32 am

Just when attached to firm points your fixed at a maximum range of close with a prohibition on range increases, which gives the hard point mounted pulse lasers a bit of time to apply damage before the fighter can reach both the range of its pulse lasers and dog fight range. ( One up sides is a 25% reduction on power usage when on firm points.)

If fighters start standardizing on high-intensity then reflec armor will be more common as well, +3 Armor vs lasers with the disadvantage of not being able to use stealth hulls. ( But still able to use Emissions Absorption Grid.)

Which makes adding a firm point to each class of fighter less problematic.
SSWarlock
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1011
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: Fulacin/Rhylanor/Spinward Marches

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby SSWarlock » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:28 am

arcador wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:20 am
You can place high-intensity upgrade which grants AP2 to lasers. That is, in the situation with a lot of armour, effectively 2 more damage. Sh*t gets real from the pulses.
I thought about that Intense Focus upgrade but it seemed to me that going with the Very High Yield would be more effective. Both upgrades requires 2 Advantage slots but Intense Focus works only with lasers and particle beams and is useful only when the target is armored. VHY's "change 1's and 2's to 3", on the other hand, works with any weapon and in every situation whether the target is armored or not.

Example:
Two scoutships with inexperienced gunners (Gunnery 0) encounter a pirate, SS Blackbeard, which has 5 points of armor.

HMS Ranger has Intense Focus on a pulse laser giving 2D + 2AP penetration. Ranger hits, rolls a mighty 3 (a 2 and a 1) for damage and its Intense Focus bonus makes that essentially a 5 versus Blackbeard's armor, causing the shot to do no damage.

HMS Explorer also has a pulse laser but with VHY. Rolling the same 2 and 1 for damage, VHY upgrades the rolls to two 3's for 6 points of damage. 5 of these points are absorbed by Blackbeard's armor leaving 1 to punch through Blackbeard's armor.

If the pirate didn't have any armor, the IF pulse laser would have done 3 points of damage. However, the VHY's damage rolls would still have been upgraded to 6 points of damage to make the hit even more effective. Essentially, VHY provides the armor piercing capability of IF by increasing the minimum possible damage per damage die by two points. Because VHY is increasing pure damage, it will always come into use. Against unarmored targets, IF's bonus is never used, essentially wasting two Advantage slots.

At least, that's the way I perceive it to work. I admit I may be missing something.
Sir Dhaven Hevelin, IOD, Baronet of Fulacin
Owner/Captain - S.S. Warlock

Playing Traveller/RQ/D&D since 1977
SSWarlock
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1011
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: Fulacin/Rhylanor/Spinward Marches

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby SSWarlock » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:54 am

baithammer wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:32 am
Just when attached to firm points your fixed at a maximum range of close with a prohibition on range increases, which gives the hard point mounted pulse lasers a bit of time to apply damage before the fighter can reach both the range of its pulse lasers and dog fight range. ( One up sides is a 25% reduction on power usage when on firm points.)

If fighters start standardizing on high-intensity then reflec armor will be more common as well, +3 Armor vs lasers with the disadvantage of not being able to use stealth hulls. ( But still able to use Emissions Absorption Grid.)

Which makes adding a firm point to each class of fighter less problematic.
Hmm. Good point about lasers forcing the use of Reflec over Stealth.

I can also see this forcing the move to larger, armoured, particle beam barbette-based fighters by those who can afford to do so. A particle beam barbette with the Very High Yield advantage would have a damage range of 12-24 plus radiation effects as well as automatically having the longest range possible for smallcraft. If the builder's Tech Level and budget allows, the weapon could also have the Energy Efficient advantage to reduce the weapon's power requirements by another 25%, making the weapon even more viable for medium-sized fighters.

A minimum displacement of 35 tons (i.e. two firmpoints) is required for any craft wanting to mount a particle beam barbette but the resulting additional empty tonnage can always be used for more armour or a more powerful Manoeuvre Drive. Possibly both.
Sir Dhaven Hevelin, IOD, Baronet of Fulacin
Owner/Captain - S.S. Warlock

Playing Traveller/RQ/D&D since 1977
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2930
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby locarno24 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:00 pm

SSWarlock wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:28 am
arcador wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:20 am
You can place high-intensity upgrade which grants AP2 to lasers. That is, in the situation with a lot of armour, effectively 2 more damage. Sh*t gets real from the pulses.
I thought about that Intense Focus upgrade but it seemed to me that going with the Very High Yield would be more effective. Both upgrades requires 2 Advantage slots but Intense Focus works only with lasers and particle beams and is useful only when the target is armored. VHY's "change 1's and 2's to 3", on the other hand, works with any weapon and in every situation whether the target is armored or not.

Example:
Two scoutships with inexperienced gunners (Gunnery 0) encounter a pirate, SS Blackbeard, which has 5 points of armor.

HMS Ranger has Intense Focus on a pulse laser giving 2D + 2AP penetration. Ranger hits, rolls a mighty 3 (a 2 and a 1) for damage and its Intense Focus bonus makes that essentially a 5 versus Blackbeard's armor, causing the shot to do no damage.

HMS Explorer also has a pulse laser but with VHY. Rolling the same 2 and 1 for damage, VHY upgrades the rolls to two 3's for 6 points of damage. 5 of these points are absorbed by Blackbeard's armor leaving 1 to punch through Blackbeard's armor.

If the pirate didn't have any armor, the IF pulse laser would have done 3 points of damage. However, the VHY's damage rolls would still have been upgraded to 6 points of damage to make the hit even more effective. Essentially, VHY provides the armor piercing capability of IF by increasing the minimum possible damage per damage die by two points. Because VHY is increasing pure damage, it will always come into use. Against unarmored targets, IF's bonus is never used, essentially wasting two Advantage slots.

At least, that's the way I perceive it to work. I admit I may be missing something.
Correct.
Very High Yield is better when you roll low, because it increases the minimum damage.
Intense Focus is better when you roll high, because it increases the maximum damage.



A VHY pulse laser improves minimum damage, boosting the damage of 20/36 possible 2D6 results (any roll including at least one '1' or '2'). The amount added varies; 2 for each roll of 1, 1 for each roll of 2. In a 6x6 grid of possible results, This adds a total of (12x2+12x1)/36 damage (1 damage)


An IF pulse laser reduces the damage reduction on all possible results by 2 - meaning that if you were within 1 hit of doing damage anyway, it improves the shot - which is any roll of 4 or better; i.e. all but 3 possible damage results (11, 12, 21) - this means you're adding (33x2)/36 damage (1.83 damage) to the roll.

More importantly, the total theoretical maximum damage is increased - a double-6 from the IF pulse laser does more than the VHY pulse laser.


More importantly, the fact that IF is dependent on total roll for it's usefulness, whilst VHY depends on the individual die rolls, means that as effect comes into play, the better your attack (and the higher the effect) the more proportionately effective IF will become, because even a damage roll of a 3, or a 2, will cause damage (and hence get a 'useful' bonus) whilst the VHY will only ever give the same bonus, whatever you roll.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2467
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:04 pm

Take a look at Accurate before you decide if IF or VHY is better.

If you are at all limited by chance to hit, I have generally found Accurate to be better.
SSWarlock
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1011
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: Fulacin/Rhylanor/Spinward Marches

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby SSWarlock » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:35 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:04 pm
Take a look at Accurate before you decide if IF or VHY is better.

If you are at all limited by chance to hit, I have generally found Accurate to be better.
I tend to use Fire Control software of some kind to help mitigate accuracy problems. Doesn't mean that's the best way though. I'll look at Accuracy again.
Sir Dhaven Hevelin, IOD, Baronet of Fulacin
Owner/Captain - S.S. Warlock

Playing Traveller/RQ/D&D since 1977
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:01 pm

Might have a solution to the concern over the 1 barbette light fighter and the two barbette heavy fighter, increase the required number of firm points from 2 to 3 to add a barbette.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby Sigtrygg » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:04 pm

Or scrap the stupid notion of space fighters...

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... ighter.php
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:58 pm

That discussion you linked is using criteria that doesn't apply in traveller.

1.) Short range complaint is countered by m-drive and fusion power plants.
2.) Big ship sensors are countered by the small sig/size of a fighter.
3.) Launch and recovery is similar to jumping into system, have to have a plan in place before you commit.
4.) Drones at TL 15 are still not fully capable of dealing with unanticipated situations requiring complex reasoning.
5.) Didn't consider fighters are capable of operating in an atmosphere.

The discussion over there seems to be following the same course WW1 naval strategists were with Aircraft, they can't see the forest for the trees.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:03 am

Here's a light fighter design using the 2 firm point change.

Image
steve98052
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:13 am
Location: near Seattle

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby steve98052 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:41 am

Sigtrygg wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:04 pm
Or scrap the stupid notion of space fighters...

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... ighter.php
Excellent article. Some sets of Traveller rules appear to overcome the constraints set in the article's mid-future perspective, but without a war game with a specific set of rules it's hard to settle.
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby h1ro » Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:17 am

Sigtrygg wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:04 pm
Or scrap the stupid notion of space fighters...

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... ighter.php
True dat...

also, we could do something about 1MdT battleships and 10dT fighters having the same armour...
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby Sigtrygg » Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:52 am

Don't get me wrong, I do think there is a place for small crewed 'fighters' in a 3I setting, but:
the 3I is not Star Wars - fighters behaving like aircraft and getting a special bonus to do so - forget it
fighters are more effective at some TLs than others - usually at the lower TL range
fighters have a useful role as an interceptor of enemy AKVs, fighters and missiles salvos, not to mention being forward controllers for your own AKVs and missile salvos

and the armour equivalence of a 300ky BB and a 25t fighter is just plain wrong - it's been glaring wrong since HG '80.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2467
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:31 am

Sigtrygg wrote:
Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:52 am
and the armour equivalence of a 300ky BB and a 25t fighter is just plain wrong - it's been glaring wrong since HG '80.
Yes, but it's also a vast simplification, just like ignoring mass.

We could use FFS to build ships with hulls like in CT Striker.
And use a 3D-vector combat system.
Somehow neither of these complications caught on...
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby baithammer » Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:42 am

The dog fighting rule isn't about ww2 in space, but the reality of getting under the big guns of larger vessels and only occurs with close range or less which also is the range limit for small craft mounted guns.

As to the armor, there are limits to effectiveness of armor over a larger surface area as well as materials limitations.

At Tl 15 for instance the materials allow for most vessels to have a similar armor value but at the large scale is eclipsed by the meson spinals and is countered by screens not armor. Add that at a certain size of vessel critical hits are ignored depending on the weapon type and its unlikely the small craft will do enough damage to use sustained damage rules.

The problem is the light small craft lacks offensive mounting at any tech level hence my suggestion to add another firmpoint to rebalance and if barbettes are an issue that can be addressed via increasing the firmpoints required for a barbette to 3 firmpoints. ( Really not needed on the second part, but understand the concerns.)
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 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:49 am

baithammer wrote:
Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:42 am
The dog fighting rule isn't about ww2 in space, but the reality of getting under the big guns of larger vessels and only occurs with close range or less which also is the range limit for small craft mounted guns.
Only because Mongoose changed the rules for no good reason. Small craft used to mount the exact same weapons as all other ships, but now for some reason they get crappier versions. For no good reason other than to have Star Wars-style small craft dogfighting. It was a stupid, unnecessary change.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2467
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:36 am

Jeraa wrote:
Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:49 am
Only because Mongoose changed the rules for no good reason.
Both firmpoints and dogfights comes from T5?

MgT2 has some coordination with T5.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Postby Sigtrygg » Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:48 am

No, MgT HG2e dogfighting and firmpoints do not come from T5.

Firmpoints are derived from the old HG'80 rules for fixed mounts in smallcraft, so they predate T5.

Dogfighting is implied in the smallcraft skill description in CT LBB:1

Dogfights are mentioned as engagements between fighters, but not special bonuses due to short range if fighting bigger ships.
Last edited by Sigtrygg on Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AnotherDilbert, Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests