5FW: Why?

[MongooseMatt]

How about expanded sensor rules

We have been thinking along these lines. There needs to be a line drawn between simulation and a game everyone can enjoy, and finding that line will be the task.

Basically, we want to give the feeling of being on the bridge of a warship, without anyone needing that degree in gravitic engineering.

And then making sure it threads across several different titles, which is always the trick. The reason we haven't simply done one book and got all this pout is because several different projects would rest on it. So, probably worth taking a bit of time

 

[Terry Mixon]

I mean it is physically impossible to move your ship one ship length in any direction in the time it takes the lighspeed weapon to hit you, so yes it automatically hits.

I’m not where I can do math, but a few years ago I did some figuring and someone shooting at a jet liner pilot from the ground to snipe him would have to lead a bit because the jet moved something like five inches in the time it took the laser to arrive.

It’s always possible (perhaps even likely) that I screwed up the math but at longer distances and these higher speeds, I’m not sure a ship couldn’t jink and generate a miss.

Addendum: I just woke up so this entire post might not make real sense in context. I won’t know until after coffee.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Since We were discussing acceleration, volume doesn't matter, only mass matters, so the square cube law doesn't apply. Eventhough We use volume instead of mass in Traveller, using the square cube law doesn't make sense for things such as acceleration. It does make sense for things such as sensor power and such.

I think you are misunderstanding what my application of the square cubed law is.

Big ships have a lot more internal volume compared with available surface are which are abstracted to hardpoints.

Say you need to use 50% of your fighter for manuever and power plant. We can do the same with the big ship.

The 10t fighter now has 5t for payload, a 1000t ship has 500t... more importantly the 10t fighter has one weapon point, the 1000t ship has 10 but has internal space to turn those hardpoints into bays rather than turrets.

 

[Sigtrygg]

We have been thinking along these lines. There needs to be a line drawn between simulation and a game everyone can enjoy, and finding that line will be the task.

Basically, we want to give the feeling of being on the bridge of a warship, without anyone needing that degree in gravitic engineering.

And then making sure it threads across several different titles, which is always the trick. The reason we haven't simply done one book and got all this pout is because several different projects would rest on it. So, probably worth taking a bit of time

You already have most of the parts in place, the sensor rules scattered through the core rule book, High Guard and T2300 are all there.

All that is now needed is to borrow from MT/T4/TNE even.

Each sensor can then be rated APE - active, passive, electronic warfare. For the rpg then you can concentrate on the player sensor tasks, for fleet level stuff then the ratings can be simply compared.

 

[Terry Mixon]

From a gaming perspective, we do need to roll the players into this. If fighters have no realistic chance of doing anything to enemy ships, then there will be no interest in them and grousing about how nerfed they are.

How about saying vessels smaller than 100 tons moving at greater than 6Gs are more difficult to hit? Maybe they carry munitions that are armor piercing (already a thing in smaller weapons) that must be fired at close distances because they have massive acceleration but only for that very short burst and then burn out. Thus, a reason for larger ships to fear them but not something potent enough to upset the battle on grander scales. It would mean fighters once again have a purpose and a real role to play.

That might not satisfy those that argue that fighters are doomed to be swept into the dustbin of history but it keeps them viable for the game and adds a twist that unnerfs them while not making them all powerful.

It even makes it like fighters were in WWII. They’d have to get through incoming fire to take their shot. A hit might do little but it could, if lucky, cripple a big ship. That gives a reason why fighters would be relevant and why pilots would line up to sever.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I’m not where I can do math, but a few years ago I did some figuring and someone shooting at a jet liner pilot from the ground to snipe him would have to lead a bit because the jet moved something like five inches in the time it took the laser to arrive.

Your calculation is very wrong.
A laser is 300,000,000 m/s, the jet liner is at let's say a 3km up and 4km distant for 5km straight line.

5,000/300,000,000 = 0.0000017 seconds to hit.

It’s always possible (perhaps even likely) that I screwed up the math but at longer distances and these higher speeds, I’m not sure a ship couldn’t jink and generate a miss.

Let's say a ship is 1000 km from the fighter, then the time is 1000,000/300,000,000 = 0.0033 seconds

In that time a 9g ship can change its future position by 0.005m if I have done the calculation right.

If I am aiming at your centre of mass you can not get out of the way. In the real world lasers must dwell on the same spot for several seconds to transfer the energy, Traveller laser weapons are three orders of magnitude more powerful than our best real world military lasers.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Your calculation is very wrong.
A laser is 300,000,000 m/s, the jet liner is at let's say a 3km up and 4km distant for 5km straight line.

5,000/300,000,000 = 0.0000017 seconds to hit.

Let's say a ship is 1000 km from the fighter, then the time is 1000,000/300,000,000 = 0.0033 seconds

In that time a 9g ship can change its future position by 0.005m if I have done the calculation right.

If I am aiming at your centre of mass you can not get out of the way. In the real world lasers must dwell on the same spot for several seconds to transfer the energy, Traveller laser weapons are three orders of magnitude more powerful than our best real world military lasers.

It doesn’t shock me that my math is off. It’s a running gag with me.

 

[Sigtrygg]

From a gaming perspective, we do need to roll the players into this. If fighters have no realistic chance of doing anything to enemy ships, then there will be no interest in them and grousing about how nerfed they are.

I completely agree, this is meant to be a game for the players to have fun.

How about saying vessels smaller than 100 tons moving at greater than 6Gs are more difficult to hit?

They are not though.

Maybe they carry munitions that are armor piercing (already a thing in smaller weapons) that must be fired at close distances because they have massive acceleration but only for that very short burst and then burn out.

Why send the weapon on a fighter when you can stick it on a missile?

Thus, a reason for larger ships to fear them but not something potent enough to upset the battle on grander scales. It would mean fighters once again have a purpose and a real role to play.

If you have to bend every rule to have fighters then you are playing Star Wars. If that is what you and others want at your table then great. But that is not the Third Imperium.

That might not satisfy those that argue that fighters are doomed to be swept into the dustbin of history but it keeps them viable for the game and adds a twist that unnerfs them while not making them all powerful.

In an alternative setting you can make fighters as powerful as you want them to be.

It even makes it like fighters were in WWII. They’d have to get through incoming fire to take their shot. A hit might do little but it could, if lucky, cripple a big ship. That gives a reason why fighters would be relevant and why pilots would line up to sever.

There is a reason we now shoot missiles rather than send dive bombers...

Lucas deliberately and with malice aforethought set out to make space combat in Star Wars like WWII in space, Traveller ship combat was based on a more realistic model.

There are plenty of things fighters can do at the PC scale of the Third Imperium, surviving fleet vs fleet combat it not one of them.
If you want it to be in your universe make it so.
Give fighters deflector shields and... done.

I won't be using those rules, I don't think I have ever run a sci fi game that has cinematic non-newtonian cartoon physics pew pew other than Star Wars and Star Trek, I prefer the Expanse.

There is another way.

More realistic weapon ranges... lasers should not be hitting and damaging targets at 10,000km, they would be really hot searchlights though

 

[MasterGwydion]

If you stand 1m from the target how often do you miss the 10 ring? How about at 0.5m?

A Traveller turret weapon can reliably hit a fighter sized target at 10,000km. As it comes closer the light speed weapon can not miss with the sort of accuracy they have to be able to hit at 10,000km.

Reliably and 100% are very different things. No roll to hit is 100%. Anything else is a percentage and would therefore require a roll. At 0.5 meters away from the target, I could still roll a Nat 2 and the gun jams or has some other issue.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Have you ever missed the 10 ring standing at 0.5m, and don't bring up mechanical failure since Traveller combat doesn't bother with weapon jams, stoppages, or being struck by an elephant skydiving from a cargo plane. Does a natural 2 always miss in Mongoose Traveller?

 

[Endie]

A handful of fighters, dropped in a system for months.

• The pilots would die from burst bladders.
• The fighters don't have jump drives, so they would be limited to whatever asset they were deployed to protect.
• Fighters are built on a 10 ton hull, so a handful, let's say 5, wouldn't even be able to mount the firepower of 1 starship turret.
• Fighters would take damage or losses even against a measly 200 ton free trader / pirate. They would need some kind of support ship or forward base to repair and rearm, which defeats the purpose of dropping a few fighters off to patrol a system.
• Against a 400 ton corsair, the fighters would take losses and would probably have to withdraw or face destruction. (I don't know about this, I'm don't know those rules well at all, and I'm not going to look them up right now. Still, it stands to reason).

Heavy fighters have two staterooms. I presume he meant those to deal with the worst of the endurance issues.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I completely agree, this is meant to be a game for the players to have fun.

They are not though.

Why send the weapon on a fighter when you can stick it on a missile?

If you have to bend every rule to have fighters then you are playing Star Wars. If that is what you and others want at your table then great. But that is not the Third Imperium.

In an alternative setting you can make fighters as powerful as you want them to be.

There is a reason we now shoot missiles rather than send dive bombers...

Lucas deliberately and with malice aforethought set out to make space combat in Star Wars like WWII in space, Traveller ship combat was based on a more realistic model.

There are plenty of things fighters can do at the PC scale of the Third Imperium, surviving fleet vs fleet combat it not one of them.
If you want it to be in your universe make it so.
Give fighters deflector shields and... done.

I won't be using those rules, I don't think I have ever run a sci fi game that has cinematic non-newtonian cartoon physics pew pew other than Star Wars and Star Trek, I prefer the Expanse.

There is another way.

More realistic weapon ranges... lasers should not be hitting and damaging targets at 10,000km, they would be really hot searchlights though

I’m making suggestions to deal with the fact that fighters are part of the game. You might wish them gone, but they aren’t.

Your suggestions make sense logically but won’t excite the players. They want pew pew. Within the bounds of viable pew pew, something like what I suggested would work. If that’s not your bag, Expanse it.

There is no reason both your concepts and similar ones could not be combined with making very fast, small, highly maneuverable fighters (and the maneuver drives could be tweaked to make them able to jink. Don’t think I can’t hear you screaming ) combined with ECM to make their locations a bit uncertain. A miss by a few meters is good enough for a fighter.

Bottom line, fighters are part of the setting and the setting has to have a reason why they work and are fun to play with. Cold calculations don’t do it. Seat of the pants flying and derring do will.

 

[Condottiere]

Layered defence, if you can afford it.

Fighters, in the Traveller sense, could be deployed at some of these layers.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Your calculation is very wrong.
A laser is 300,000,000 m/s, the jet liner is at let's say a 3km up and 4km distant for 5km straight line.

5,000/300,000,000 = 0.0000017 seconds to hit.

Let's say a ship is 1000 km from the fighter, then the time is 1000,000/300,000,000 = 0.0033 seconds

In that time a 9g ship can change its future position by 0.005m if I have done the calculation right.

If I am aiming at your centre of mass you can not get out of the way. In the real world lasers must dwell on the same spot for several seconds to transfer the energy, Traveller laser weapons are three orders of magnitude more powerful than our best real world military lasers.

The only problem that you may have is, you are counting acceleration as velocity. If your math is correct, (My brain hurts enough this morning that I am not going to check it. lol) In the 0.0033 Seconds the beam needs to travel 1,000km, if the ship just started accelerating from 0, it will be moving at over 21km/s and have moved 67.2 kilometers. The same ship that was already moving at 300,000m/s would be moving at 321,190km/s or 1,027.8 kilometers in 0.0032 seconds.

Someone needs to check My math though to be sure I didn't screw this up royally.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I’m making suggestions to deal with the fact that fighters are part of the game. You might wish them gone, but they aren’t.

I don't want them gone, there are lots of roles for them in the Third Imperium, blowing up capital ships is not one of them.

This is a thread about the FFW, it is a thread about fleet combat in the Third Imperium. We have a lot of previous canon about space warfare in the Third Imperium, it is not Star Wars.

Your suggestions make sense logically but won’t excite the players. They want pew pew. Within the bounds of viable pew pew, something like what I suggested would work. If that’s not your bag, Expanse it.

The Third Imperium works the way the Third Imperium works. if you want a variant that is even more like Star Wars then great for your table, but don't ruin the Third Imperium (not meant snarky, will try and edit)

There is no reason both your concepts and similar ones could not be combined with making very fast, small, highly maneuverable fighters (and the maneuver drives could be tweaked to make them able to jink. Don’t think I can’t hear you screaming ) combined with ECM to make their locations a bit uncertain. A miss by a few meters is good enough for a fighter.

Maths is maths, physics is physics. How things work in the Third Imperium has been detailed, a lot. By all means have rules variants for mary sue class fighters, but don't make them canon for the Third Imperium. I will never use the space dogfighting rules.

Bottom line, fighters are part of the setting and the setting has to have a reason why they work and are fun to play with. Cold calculations don’t do it. Seat of the pants flying and derring do will.

We know what fighters can do in the setting. You can have fun with them. Just know that if you pilot a fighter into a fleet vs fleet engagement your chance of survival is... very low.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The only problem that you may have is, you are counting acceleration as velocity.

No, I am not, I am calculating the distance travelled at an acceleration of 90m/s2

If your math is correct, (My brain hurts enough this morning that I am not going to check it. lol) In the 0.0033 Seconds the beam needs to travel 1,000km, if the ship just started accelerating from 0, it will be moving at over 21km/s and have moved 67.2 kilometers.

No it won't. In 0.0033 seconds a ship accelerating at 90m/s3 moves a grand distance of 0.005m

The same ship that was already moving at 300,000m/s would be moving at 321,190km/s or 1,027.8 kilometers in 0.0032 seconds.

Your math is way off.

Someone needs to check My math though to be sure I didn't screw this up royally.

You did indeed.

To calculate how far an object moves under constant acceleration, we use the equation:

s = 1/2 a t²

Where:

• ( s ) is the distance traveled,
• ( a ) is the acceleration (90 m/s²),
• ( t ) is the time (0.0033 seconds).

substituting the values into the equation:


s =0.5 x 90 x times (0.0033)²


s = 0.5 x times 90 x 0.00001089


s = 0.00049005 m


The fighter travels approximately 0.00049 meters (or 0.49 millimeters) during this time.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I don't want them gone, there are lots of roles for them in the Third Imperium, blowing up capital ships is not one of them.

This is a thread about the FFW, it is a thread about fleet combat in the Third Imperium. We have a lot of previous canon about space warfare in the Third Imperium, it is not Star Wars.

The Third Imperium works the way the Third Imperium works. if you want a variant that is even more like Star Wars then great for your table, but don't ruin the Third Imperium (not meant snarky, will try and edit)

Maths is maths, physics is physics. How things work in the Third Imperium has been detailed, a lot. By all means have rules variants for mary sue class fighters, but don't make them canon for the Third Imperium. I will never use the space dogfighting rules.

We know what fighters can do in the setting. You can have fun with them. Just know that if you pilot a fighter into a fleet vs fleet engagement your chance of survival is... very low.

Once again, I hear you but that isn’t going to be how fighters are used if they are meant to appeal to players. Cold logic and reality must bend to the will of player desires. So, I won’t argue the logic of what you say but only mention that it likely won’t carry the day in the end.

The more I think about them, the idea of having special missiles that are hyper fast (100-150 Gs for close range only before burnout? Hard to hit?) appeals to me. They could have the AP trait and that would mean fighter couldn’t be ignored. It also means they would die in droves as the fleet would have to stop them if they could. As missile sized on their own (or perhaps even larger?) they wouldn’t be candidates for being mounted on missiles themselves unless larger missiles are introduced.

 

[Geir]

but Rule of Cool is a powerful force, and a stealthy ship is just plain cool.

Sorry, I thought we were going to segue into a stealth-in-space-heat-sink problem discussion here... but (I shouldn't encourage Sigtrygg...) never mind.

 

[MasterGwydion]

No, I am not, I am calculating the distance travelled at an acceleration of 90m/s2

No it won't. In 0.0033 seconds a ship accelerating at 90m/s3 moves a grand distance of 0.005m

Your math is way off.

You did indeed.

To calculate how far an object moves under constant acceleration, we use the equation:

s = 1/2 a t²

Where:

• ( s ) is the distance traveled,
• ( a ) is the acceleration (90 m/s²),
• ( t ) is the time (0.0033 seconds).

substituting the values into the equation:


s =0.5 x 90 x times (0.0033)²


s = 0.5 x times 90 x 0.00001089


s = 0.00049005 m


The fighter travels approximately 0.00049 meters (or 0.49 millimeters) during this time.

This is what I used.

Let's break this down!

Acceleration due to gravity on Earth (**1G**) is about **9.81 m/s²**, so **6G** would be:

\[
6 \times 9.81 = 58.86 \text{ m/s²}
\]

Now, using the formula for velocity under constant acceleration:

\[
v = u + at
\]

where:
- \( v \) is the final velocity,
- \( u \) is the initial velocity (**0 m/s** in this case),
- \( a \) is acceleration (**58.86 m/s²**),
- \( t \) is time (**6 minutes = 360 seconds**).

Plugging in the values:

\[
v = 0 + (58.86 \times 360)
\]

\[
v = 21,189.6 \text{ m/s}
\]

That's **over 21 km per second!** To put it into perspective, that's **about 76,282 km/h** or nearly **Mach 62**, which is far beyond even the fastest hypersonic speeds achieved by aircraft or spacecraft.

Hope that helps! Imagine the sheer force you'd experience at that acceleration.


21km/s in one second. x 0.0032 seconds = 67.8 Kilometers travelled.

Help Me out here. What did I do wrong?

 

[Sigtrygg]

Once again, I hear you but that isn’t going to be how fighters are used if they are meant to appeal to players. Cold logic and reality must bend to the will of player desires.

Then they should be considering the Star Wars universe rather than the Third Imperium universe, Traveller can do both.

So, I won’t argue the logic of what you say but only mention that it likely won’t carry the day in the end.

So the Third Imperium is going to be made even more like Star Wars... I think I would cal it a day at that point.

The more I think about them, the idea of having special missiles that are hyper fast (100-150 Gs for close range only before burnout?

Now that I could get behind, but why not equip drone fighters with these hyper missiles?

Hard to hit?) appeals to me. They could have the AP trait and that would mean fighter couldn’t be ignored. It also means they would die in droves as the fleet would have to stop them if they could. As missile sized on their own (or perhaps even larger?) they wouldn’t be candidates for being mounted on missiles themselves unless larger missiles are introduced.

And it gives another reason to have fighters, to intercept them...