Page 4 of 5

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:00 pm
by AnotherDilbert
baithammer wrote: I hate the cheese that comes with this, would be nice to fix the calculations to prevent this sort of thing.
baithammer wrote: Another peeve of mine is the general application of the Enhanced Signal Processor to Ewar situations, as both ecm and signal processing should be specializations.
It's the system we have to work with... I prefer not to make my own systems anymore.

baithammer wrote: It took a fair amount of willpower to go against the vietnam lessons about relying on missiles as the sole weapon system
54th century spacecraft are not 20th century jet fighters... Even jet fighters would not carry cannon if it made them thrice as large and expensive.

That said, spacecraft can carry "smaller weapons" (HG, p38) without consuming firmpoints, E.g. a Gauss Cannon, doing 1D or 2D at Adjacent range. You even get an attack bonus (but no damage from Effect).

baithammer wrote: Since the missile's electronics handle the attack roll and not the pilot, its not even needed.
Missile launches are still actions that require a Gunner.
However, the Gunner skill of the Traveller(s) that fired the salvo is not used as a DM.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:23 pm
by baithammer
However, a pilot may fire any
weapons that are noted as being in fixed mounts (this
is usually found on smaller craft that are not always
large enough to accommodate turrets, such as fighters
and shuttles).
Pilots specifically can use fixed weapons without a gunner.

If wanting to be more strict in interpretation, require the pilot to use the aid gunner action during movement phase.
It's the system we have to work with... I prefer not to make my own systems anymore.
I know the feeling, survived going down the GURPs and Hero system rabbit holes.

The vehicle weapons ironically are larger than the spacecraft turret weapons, 0.25t / 1 space for a turret weapon ( As there are no posted tonnage) while the Gauss Cannon is 1t / 4 spaces.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:54 pm
by Condottiere
I suspect that's more to prevent people from loading up on them.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:27 pm
by AnotherDilbert
baithammer wrote: Pilots specifically can use fixed weapons without a gunner.
This relates to the crew positions on p154.
p156 wrote: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...
Attacking with weapons is still an action using the Gunnery skill, even if the person doing it is in the Pilot position.

Note that is comes with a penalty:
p59 wrote:A Traveller can try to do two or more things at once, like firing a spacecraft’s weapons while also flying, ...

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:31 pm
by AnotherDilbert
baithammer wrote: The vehicle weapons ironically are larger than the spacecraft turret weapons, 0.25t / 1 space for a turret weapon ( As there are no posted tonnage) while the Gauss Cannon is 1t / 4 spaces.
I agree that the conversion is strange (it was worse in beta) and that vehicle weapons are not very good in space combat, but if you really want a backup weapon...

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:34 am
by baithammer
54th century spacecraft are not 20th century jet fighters... Even jet fighters would not carry cannon if it made them thrice as large and expensive.
Well there is already a hold my beer moment for this one, f-35 / littoral combat ship and zumwalt. :)

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:12 am
by Condottiere
Image

Virtual crew/gunner/sensor operator, if it made sense on cost benefit, should neutralize penalties.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:59 am
by baithammer
Fire Control software can act as a gunner on its own, so that isn't an issue. ( Virtual crew and broad spectrum ew are interesting trade offs.)

The issue is missiles don't use the pilot's /gunner's gunnery roll, it uses the smart trait +1 - +6 based on the difference between either the missile or launching ships TL vs the target ships TL and +1 dm per missile in the salvo. ( Enemy EW and Point Defense of course are a response to this.) Of course if you launch at Adjacent or Close, the smart trait is lost.

In general the only restriction on using a missile is the target has to be detected in order for an attack to be made.

The other rule that comes into play is a fixed weapon can be fired by the pilot ( As long as the fixed weapon is in the correct arc.) and presumably would trigger multiple action penalty (Increased difficulty per action.) which can be mitigated by taking the aid gunner action during the manouvre step for a dm of -3 - +2 depending on the effect.

However, with missiles as mentioned earlier, don't use the pilots gunnery skill for the attack it is dealt with through the missile + smart trait instead. ( Also means you wouldn't get a benefit from the aid gunner test.)

That leaves things in an interesting state.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:19 am
by Linwood
What’s the thought on using the sensors from an allied vessel to perform the missile targeting? I’m thinking the fighters could carry the missiles but the carrier provides the guidance. Maybe with a penalty due to the communication lag and the complexities of linking systems.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:07 am
by baithammer
You don't want your carriers that close, instead use fighter patrols to extend the sensor edge so the carrier as well as the fleet, have enough time to respond. ( As the carrier needs to be far enough away not to be a target itself.)

Using small craft to act as spotters also allows for some interesting attack options for Torpedo / Missile ships, as they can be out of direct line of sight of the target while still being able to fire.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:15 pm
by Linwood
Now there’s a thought....

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:48 pm
by Condottiere
As I recall, in the Honorverse they placed a sheep in wolf's clothing amongst a cluster of missiles to directly control them in real time.

All very terribly expensive, but I believe those were ship killers, so well worth it.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:06 pm
by baithammer
Or upgrade the sensors on the missiles / torpedoes to Self-Aware drone 'brains'. :)

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:59 pm
by phavoc
It would be cheaper to make specialized control missiles or drones than upgrade all missiles to that level of complexity (as was done with the HH missile tech).

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:18 am
by baithammer
But with Self-aware missiles, EW would be far less effective.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:47 am
by Condottiere
Instill a self preservation ethic.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:56 am
by Linwood
Condottiere wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:47 am
Instill a self preservation ethic.
So the missile thinks “why should I fly towards all that horrible energy discharges when I can go that way and extend my life by billions of nanoseconds?”

<just kidding>

I like the idea of a specialized control missile but I’m a little wary of taking the concept very far. The MGT2 rules make it a bit challenging to manage a missile swarm with mixed types. Not that it can’t be done - there doesn’t seem to be a quick and simple way of refereeing it.

Thoughts?

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:54 am
by baithammer
The MGT2 rules make it a bit challenging to manage a missile swarm with mixed types.
Break each type into its own salvo as they have different rules and effects.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:01 am
by Condottiere
I was thinking that the electronic warfare transmitted propaganda to the self aware drones.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:27 am
by Linwood
Condottiere wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:01 am
I was thinking that the electronic warfare transmitted propaganda to the self aware drones.
“Don’t listen to those vile animals callously ordering you to your death! Just steer a bit more to the left and we’ll send out something to refuel you just as soon as we’re done here!”

Back on topic - so if we treat each type as its own salvo, would checks for countermeasures be made separately for each type? Can defenders pick the type they want to target first with point defense?