5FW: Why?

[actionman]

This thread often uses comparisons to Star Wars in how fighters are used, but not so much BSG. In the 2000s version I can not recall a time a Basestar was destroyed by an assault from Vipers. Vipers were used to intercept Cylon Raiders, attack bases, patrol, destroy smaller Cylon ships, but when it came to taking out Basestars the only times I can recall that occurred was from either sabotage or direct assualt/ramming from a Battlestar. Could BSG have some use as a frame of interpretation as to fighters could fit in a Charted Space campaign? There was plenty of story featuring hot-shot pilots without those pilots being able to go head to head with a Cylon capital ship.

I've watched a few BSG2 videos today for that reason, and your conclusion is correct. The fighters would strafe and engage Cylon raiders, and the Battlestar would maneuver to use its main guns or missiles against the base stars.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Yes, to each his own. If the way fighters are in the rules aren't you, simply house rule the issue at your table. Fighters make perfect sense according to Traveller's rules already, and what you're suggesting is to change those rules to favor a particular playstyle.

We’ll have to disagree on that. I’ll keep pushing for change and let the Mongeese do whatever they feel is best.

 

[Vormaerin]

They are part of the system, but the question is what are they intended to do? Is there any evidence in the game that fighters are intended to take out destroyers and light cruisers? Especially with energy weapons? I assume they are designed to provide point defense and screen out missiles and missile launching small craft. That doesn't really require any drastic changes. If you aren't making point blank attack runs on enemy warships, it's almost survivable to be a fighter pilot .

To satisfy players, they need to be useful against other ships that players are expected to deal with. That is almost entirely sub-1000 dton vessels. I feel like that is already pretty much the case.

There is nothing wrong with "Fleet combat fighters" being little more than additional point defense and missile platforms in charted space. Because a single fighter is NOT a gameplay element of Traveller fleet combat. That's not a reasonable role for a player character.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Sure, but:

1) you've already been given numerous examples of how fighters can be useful/have meaningful roles in the setting as it is (to which your response has been, "Oh but I want swirling dogfights in space because that is what I believe the players want" - sorry if I paraphrase incorrectly)
2) you're advocating all kinds of significant changes to the setting to accommodate that desire - which I'm not convinced is actually something many Traveller gamers are crying out for.

Anyway, I think we've got the two perspectives pretty clearly now, so I'll leave it at that.

Actually, I’m not a fan of the dogfighting in space. My thrust is the make them matter in battle.

 

[Terry Mixon]

They are part of the system, but the question is what are they intended to do? Is there any evidence in the game that fighters are intended to take out destroyers and light cruisers? Especially with energy weapons? I assume they are designed to provide point defense and screen out missiles and missile launching small craft. That doesn't really require any drastic changes. If you aren't making point blank attack runs on enemy warships, it's almost survivable to be a fighter pilot .

To satisfy players, they need to be useful against other ships that players are expected to deal with. That is almost entirely sub-1000 dton vessels. I feel like that is already pretty much the case.

There is nothing wrong with "Fleet combat fighters" being little more than additional point defense and missile platforms in charted space. Because a single fighter is NOT a gameplay element of Traveller fleet combat. That's not a reasonable role for a player character.

I respect your opinion but I’ll disagree anyway.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Joining the fray with great reluctance, but I did want to ask who are all these players who desperately want to be flying single/dual place fighters? I have been playing around with Traveller since 1981, and in all that time I can't actually remember a game session where we were each in single place fighters engaging in space combat. Is this really a deep desire of RPGers today? (as opposed to using fighters in a game like Mayday - which doesn't exist for MGT - or in squadron combat as squadrons of fighters in TCS or the like, both of which I've certainly done).

Traveller game sessions revolve around being a crew, working together, in a tramp freighter or the like more often than not.

Bending the whole universe to fit a perceived desire for RPGers to fly single place fighters in swirling dogfights in space just seems like an odd hill to die on.

(now, if people do want to dogfight in space there are already heaps of wargames that fit that bill, from Star Wars "X Wing" to Wiley Games "Starfighters".)

On this, I would say possibly in the running of a merc campaign or a pirate campaign, you may have a ship like the 300-ton TL-12 Pirate Carrier which carries fighters. Some of the party stays in the ship and others mount an offense or defense in their fighters. It has 61 tons of cargo, so lots of space for stolen loot.

Obviously, this is on a PC-scale viewpoint, not a Fleet-scale.

 

[Terry Mixon]

On this, I would say possibly in the running of a merc campaign or a pirate campaign, you may have a ship like the 300-ton TL-12 Pirate Carrier which carries fighters. Some of the party stays in the ship and others mount an offense or defense in their fighters. It has 61 tons of cargo, so lots of space for stolen loot.

Obviously, this is on a PC-scale viewpoint, not a Fleet-scale.

I like the example. Good one.

 

[MasterGwydion]

They are part of the system, but the question is what are they intended to do? Is there any evidence in the game that fighters are intended to take out destroyers and light cruisers? Especially with energy weapons? I assume they are designed to provide point defense and screen out missiles and missile launching small craft. That doesn't really require any drastic changes. If you aren't making point blank attack runs on enemy warships, it's almost survivable to be a fighter pilot .

To satisfy players, they need to be useful against other ships that players are expected to deal with. That is almost entirely sub-1000 dton vessels. I feel like that is already pretty much the case.

There is nothing wrong with "Fleet combat fighters" being little more than additional point defense and missile platforms in charted space. Because a single fighter is NOT a gameplay element of Traveller fleet combat. That's not a reasonable role for a player character.

I have never understood the fighter-role for missile defense. 1 Light Fighter is 10 tons and takes up a total of 11 tons for docking space, unless you use clamps. They costs 9.4MCr each. How many missiles can they shoot down in one volley? We'll be kind and say 3 missiles per salvo per fighter. A Type-III Point Defense Laser Battery is only 20 tons, so just less than 2 fighters worth of space, cost 10MCr and are good for an average of 21 missiles per salvo.

Fighters are clearly not a good choice for missile defense.

 

[Geir]

It become very clear that it is mathematically impossible for any ship larger than a few thousand tons to win a dogfight against a fighter, let alone a squadron. Upon the winner, a DM+2 for every attack against the loser is awarded. Upon the loser, a DM-2 to every attack is imposed, equivalent to having the winner of the dogfight running Evade/2 software. If combined with in-build Evade/x software and Evasive Actions, this can turn the task of hitting the fighters nearly impossible for the lone ship. Of course, large ships with hundreds of turrets all concentrating fire on a single fighter will inevitably hit and destroy its target simply due to the law of big numbers, not to mention the fact that after a certain amount of armour, the weapons fighters can equip will simply not be able to punch through to the target before the entire squadron is wiped out.

Just double-checked. The current revision of the MgT2 Core book has removed the sentence:

"In addition, spacecraft of 100 tons or more are not
designed for this kind of ‘knife-fight’ and will suffer
DM-6 on all attack rolls they attempt."

Possibly because I made a stink (or whiny tantrum?)...

So with that removed, what you say is true and there is... balance in the Force??? ... well at least starships are no longer destined to automatically suffer a death of a thousand cuts from a fighter dogfight.

Taking all of the above into account then, what role do I believe fighters have in the OTU operating under the Mg2T rules as they presently exist?

If you have the latest version of the Core book they work okay and have a reasonable role and a reasonable effect. - at least if you're not using vector movement, but that's another ball of earwax.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I like the example. Good one.

I do a lot of worldbuilding, but I always try and keep My final perspective at the PC-level.

 

[Vormaerin]

The core issue, in my mind, is that if you make them powerful enough to affect 10,000 ton warships, they become too powerful to be used by PCs in campaigns that are involved in piracy or anti piracy where the ships are civilian or para-military. That's fine if you are playing Space: Above and Beyond as your campaign, but not great otherwise.

 

[Terry Mixon]

The core issue, in my mind, is that if you make them powerful enough to affect 10,000 ton warships, they become too powerful to be used by PCs in campaigns that are involved in piracy or anti piracy where the ships are civilian or para-military. That's fine if you are playing Space: Above and Beyond as your campaign, but not great otherwise.

Advocate as you will. As will I.

 

[Vormaerin]

Did someone tell you to shut up that I missed? As far as I am aware, no one has denied you the right to espouse your views, so I am not sure what the point of that comment is. Anyway, this seems to be turning negative and unproductive, so I'll bow out.

 

[rinku]

I have never understood the fighter-role for missile defense. 1 Light Fighter is 10 tons and takes up a total of 11 tons for docking space, unless you use clamps. They costs 9.4MCr each. How many missiles can they shoot down in one volley? We'll be kind and say 3 missiles per salvo per fighter. A Type-III Point Defense Laser Battery is only 20 tons, so just less than 2 fighters worth of space, cost 10MCr and are good for an average of 21 missiles per salvo.

Fighters are clearly not a good choice for missile defense.

Well that one is easily answered. A laser defense battery uses up a hardpoint. A fighter group does not.

Yeah, it's good value for money, but can't shoot anything but incoming missiles and torps. As written I don't think they can even shoot at small craft. I would see the two working in tandem. If there's a strike target, the fighters hit it. If there's not, they're on CAP and anti missile duty, supplementing the point defence.

I was interested to discover from Shannon Applecline's history of Traveller that during the development of Traveller Marc used SF book cover art and illustrations to show the others where he was coming from. One of those books was the pre-release novelization of Star Wars (1976. I was given a copy as a Christmas present that year, well before the movie came out in May 1977). You can't totally separate Star Wars influences from Traveller, and I'd include space fighters in that. It would be a very rare Traveller player or Referee who had not seen Star Wars before they had played the game, even in 1977.

Another thought relating to that... while starfighters have become the iconic cool things from Star Wars, they're pretty much used as patrol craft and against small ships or other fighters. So we see a small freighter battling TIE fighters in what seems like a balanced fight (although they let them go deliberately). We see X-Wings and Y-Wings dogfighting with TIEs to keep them away from a very specific attack run. We see ground based batteries disabling a naval ship to allow the transports to jump out, and later more chasing of the Falcon by TIEs. It's not until the end of the third movie that we even see fighters and bigger ships together. And it's *still* almost all fighters dogfighting other fighters... but with some strike craft now (B-Wings). Which is probably what Traveller fighters are REALLY intended to do - take out those smaller torpedo and escort craft.

We all understand they're just WW2 planes in space, with the ships as carrier/battleships... but it's a rare space opera that doesn't do that, from Doc Smith onwards.

 

[AndrewW]

• Traveller ships won't have exposed deck personnel, except in cases of damage control teams working on the ship's surface during combat or another unusual circumstances.

Like there is a fire they can't put out. So you get two of your fighter pilots to crawl around the hull and place explosive charges so they can blow the hull and deprive the fire of oxygen?

 

[Terry Mixon]

Did someone tell you to shut up that I missed? As far as I am aware, no one has denied you the right to espouse your views, so I am not sure what the point of that comment is. Anyway, this seems to be turning negative and unproductive, so I'll bow out.

I'm not telling you to be silent and have difficulty seeing how you could take what I said that way. Congratulations for reading that into such a bland statement.

I will elaborate on what I said. As we are not going to agree, that was my way of politely saying that I wasn't going to argue the issue. your views are valid for you though I disagree with them but see no point in arguing when we disagree so fundamentally on the issue. Any other interpretation is reading something into what I said that just isn't there.

 

[Vormaerin]

I didn't think you told me to shut up. I just don't normally see people say "I'm going to keep advocating my position" when no one has asked them not to, so I was confused. I thought you must have felt someone had told *you* to stop advocating for your position to provoke that response and I didn't see where that had happened.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I didn't think you told me to shut up. I just don't normally see people say "I'm going to keep advocating my position" when no one has asked them not to, so I was confused. I thought you must have felt someone had told *you* to stop advocating for your position to provoke that response and I didn't see where that had happened.

Nothing like that at all. I said it to be clear I wasn't changing my mind but didn't feel like arguing. That's all.

 

[Condottiere]

Seems kinda funny.

I accepted the limitations on smallcraft combat quite a while back.

The question would be, what inherent advantages or traits that smallcraft have, that could be utilized in combat?

And, if not, why bother keeping them around as combat craft?

 

[Terry Mixon]

Seems kinda funny.

I accepted the limitations on smallcraft combat quite a while back.

The question would be, what inherent advantages or traits that smallcraft have, that could be utilized in combat?

And, if not, why bother keeping them around as combat craft?

They have to make enough sense that not only are they built, but expensive carriers drag them to distant combat zones to deploy them.