Page 1 of 8

Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:39 am
by baithammer
With High Guard in Mgt 2nd ed, fighters don't appear to be scaling all that well with some noted exceptions.

Armor between tl12-15 pretty much negates most of the base list weapons with the exception of missiles and Mining Lasers. (High Tech list does have some more options.)

Firm points also don't scale well with High Guard as the light fighters 1 firm point in base list needs to be a missile rack, the medium fighter ends up with barbette or two missile racks and the Heavy fighter ends up with most likely a barbette weapon and a missile rack.

Might be an idea to update small craft firm points by having sub 35t having 2 firmpoints / 35t-70t have 3 firm points and 70+ having 4 firm points.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:13 pm
by h1ro
Not to intentionally derail your thread 2nd post in but HG 2e means that all the ships we've seen in previous editions need to be revisited.

Given that HG itself has rehashed many of the old without updating to the spec the new design sequence allows, it's unclear what Mongoose's intention was.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:50 pm
by Sigtrygg
HG2e does have the interesting feature that it tries to be broadly compatible with T5.

Trouble is the vast majority of old timers still see HG 80 as the gold standard - despite its considerable flaws.

I agree that the whole Imperial fleet needs a redesign in light of the new rules - m9 should be the standard for every TL15 ship, so rather than just reproduce S:9 ships they should have been redesigned in light of the new standards.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:04 pm
by AnotherDilbert
I do not see the problem?

baithammer wrote: Armor between tl12-15 pretty much negates most of the base list weapons with the exception of missiles and Mining Lasers. (High Tech list does have some more options.)
So use barbettes, problem solved.

baithammer wrote: Might be an idea to update small craft firm points by having sub 35t having 2 firmpoints / 35t-70t have 3 firm points and 70+ having 4 firm points.
So 10 Dt fighters can mount a barbette that would make a 100 Dt ship proud, and a 70 Dt fighter could mount TWO barbettes?

Fighters are quite deadly enough, they do not need more weapons.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:12 pm
by AnotherDilbert
Sigtrygg wrote:
Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:50 pm
I agree that the whole Imperial fleet needs a redesign in light of the new rules - m9 should be the standard for every TL15 ship, ...
Yes, of course.

The ships in HG (and S9) are just some random examples of Imperial warships, there are many more classes. The S9 ships were never very good, so you could easily design better ships.

If you actually intend to fight warships, rather than just have them as campaign background, it's better to design your own ships.

And if you don't design your own ships, what does it really matter if example ships all have 6G or 9G as long as they all have the same?

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:25 pm
by Reynard
Mongoose keeps things generic for the masses. Notice though how easy the design rules are for gamers to redesign old ships and build new ships to their specs. Get building those killer app fleets!

On this subject, we could use a larger assortment of fighters starting with what was in the 1e books and filling in the blanks. A Space Superiority Fighter to deal with those strike fighters and bombers as part of a defense screen would be pleasurable.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:33 pm
by SSWarlock
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:04 pm
So use barbettes, problem solved.
Indeed. Very High Yield PAWS barbettes are quite fun if you're on the sending end.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:08 pm
by AnotherDilbert
SSWarlock wrote:
Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:33 pm
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:04 pm
So use barbettes, problem solved.
Indeed. Very High Yield PAWS barbettes are quite fun if you're on the sending end.
Ah, yes. Fusion barbettes also serve to inconvenience the enemy...

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:51 pm
by baithammer
So 10 Dt fighters can mount a barbette that would make a 100 Dt ship proud, and a 70 Dt fighter could mount TWO barbettes?

Fighters are quite deadly enough, they do not need more weapons.
The 5t Barbette would make the 10t fighter a supreme glass cannon if you could get the parts to mod down to fit, but a barbette on any of the larger light fighters would give them a chance versus other fighters and armored ships. ( Especially in the face of Armor 15 hulls.)

The two Barbette heavy fighter would be finally viable versus going for medium fighter.

As to the lighter Ships, fighters firm points have a number of restrictions such as range restriction and prohibits range modification.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:18 am
by GamingGlen
Reynard wrote:
Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:25 pm
Mongoose keeps things generic for the masses. Notice though how easy the design rules are for gamers to redesign old ships and build new ships to their specs. Get building those killer app fleets!

On this subject, we could use a larger assortment of fighters starting with what was in the 1e books and filling in the blanks. A Space Superiority Fighter to deal with those strike fighters and bombers as part of a defense screen would be pleasurable.
I saw that the HG Light fighter had 3.65 tons of cargo and turned it into more useful space:
Light Fighter Mk. II - 7Gs, armor 12, sensors +0, Pulse Laser (Acc, Hi Yield), cargo 2.3 tons; all for the low low price of MCr 9.99.
(IMO, should make it an 8-ton fighter)
Another 10-ton fighter at TL 14 has 9Gs and 14 armor.

Why is there a lower limit of 10 tons for hulls?

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:02 am
by h1ro
GamingGlen wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:18 am
Why is there a lower limit of 10 tons for hulls?
I think this has something to do with crossing over with vehicles. I could be wrong.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:01 am
by AnotherDilbert
It might have something to do with designs like this: viewtopic.php?p=899038#p899038

I seem to remember being able to build 0.1 Dt battery powered drones with a missile rack during beta. That had unfortunate effects on space combat...

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:47 am
by Reynard
How many modern fighters are built on the displacement of a Piper Cub?

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:10 am
by SSWarlock
Reynard wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:47 am
How many modern fighters are built on the displacement of a Piper Cub?
The Super Tucano comes pretty close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E ... per_Tucano

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:39 am
by baithammer
Which is only to fly when either air control is established or air defense is comparatively light.

With the exception of operations in Syria, the Super Tucano are a better fit for ground support.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:45 am
by baithammer
Totally forgot that effect is added to the damage roll, which can bump pulse lasers back up to threatening levels.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:43 am
by SSWarlock
baithammer wrote:
Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:45 am
Totally forgot that effect is added to the damage roll, which can bump pulse lasers back up to threatening levels.
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). Then, as you pointed out, Effect is added to the damage roll. Suddenly, a tiny Beowulf-class free trader is consistently punching through the armor of an 75000-ton Atlantic-class heavy cruiser. As for what it'll do to the average unarmored corsair or destroyer escort...

Ouch.

Edit: Caveat to the above..this thread is really about fighters and small craft are limited to either single turrets or a barbette. Given that, a barbette is preferable where ever possible. But on a 100+ dton ship, triple turrets with High Technology pulse lasers rock.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 4:23 pm
by Sigtrygg
There is a very interesting brainstorm about the role of 'fighters' over on rpg net.

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?80 ... s-and-Cons

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:06 pm
by steve98052
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:12 pm
. . .
If you actually intend to fight warships, rather than just have them as campaign background, it's better to design your own ships.
. . .
I see this as a key consideration about a lot of these conversations about the fleet combat rules. Unless we're playing a war game along the lines of Trillion Credit Squadron, what matters isn't that ship combat capabilities are maximized, it's that any combat adversaries for player characters are appropriate to the adventure, whether that means they run away when they face the player characters, the player characters prepare for boarding with thoughts of whether to bribe the officials or pay the fine, or prepare for a tough fight.

Re: Revisiting Fighters in a Post High Guard Era

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:53 pm
by AnotherDilbert
Agreed. If you have a Free Trader you have no business fighting warships, and if you want to fight warships you definitely need something better than a Free Trader.

Just like personal combat against marines with battle dress and FGMPs.

We can of course play with real warships in many ways...