5FW: Why?

[Condottiere]

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.


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.

Dogfighting Modifiers

Dogfighter
Ship is 50 tons or more -1
Ship is 100 tons or more -2
For every 100 tons more than 100 tons -1
For every additional enemy in the dogfight after the first -1
Ship’s Thrust +1 per point of Thrust dedicated to dogfighting


You can have dedicated flugabwehrkanone platforms escorting important vessels, so whereas the smallcraft might be able to outmanoeuvre them, getting that far might be a challenge.

 

[Condottiere]

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

You have to figure out how to leverage their inherent advantages.

Also, not be too concerned about casualty numbers.

 

[rinku]

Their commonly higher thrust compared especially to starships comes to mind, especially as add ons to shooty ships. They can potentially intercept targets that the mothership can't reach in time, especially in a situation where the mothership doesn't want to fire on it. Send in a few fighters to try to knock out their engines.

 

[rinku]

Standoff smallcraft and small ships with torpedoes and missiles ARE a credible threat. Fighters are a counter to those - your point defense can attempt to stop the ordnance itself, but the firing ships are out of range of it and your big guns can't or have trouble targeting those.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Their commonly higher thrust compared especially to starships comes to mind, especially as add ons to shooty ships. They can potentially intercept targets that the mothership can't reach in time, especially in a situation where the mothership doesn't want to fire on it. Send in a few fighters to try to knock out their engines.

I guess the problem with that would be that both Fighters and Battleships can be M-9 at TL-15, so fighters are not faster than Capital Ships.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I guess the problem with that would be that both Fighters and Battleships can be M-9 at TL-15, so fighters are not faster than Capital Ships.

#truth

 

[Condottiere]

So, we could follow current American doctrine, stealthify our fighters, stuff them full of sensors, and engage beyond visual range.

 

[rinku]

Can they though? With all that tonnage they need for armour, jump drives and fuel?

 

[Condottiere]

If they can't see you, you're unlikely to need armour.

Jump drives and fuel go together, and for that it all needs to add up to at least a hundred tonnes.

 

[rinku]

Ah, I was responding to the speed thing, not the stealth thing.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Can they though? With all that tonnage they need for armour, jump drives and fuel?

Battleship Monitors do not have Jump Drives.

 

[Condottiere]

I would coast in.

Then, make a run for it once I expended my missiles.

 

[MasterGwydion]

What is the detection range on a 10-ton Fighter anyhow? Anyone know?

How about for a 50-ton Fighter?

400-ton SDB?

30,000-ton Light Cruiser?

etc?

 

[Condottiere]

Current rules give an advantage to smallcraft.

Should extend/improve that for below ten tonnes.

 

[rinku]

Nonetheless.

What has the tactical advantage - a 1000 ton ship with J-4 and fuel, or a 1000 ton ship with J-3 and fuel and the same armour and weapons, plus 100 tons of fighter bay and launch tubes to deploy them?

 

[Condottiere]

If it's as fast as the fighters, stalemate.

Then, it depends on the operational goal of either side.

 

[rinku]

I will admit that the concept of the Military Hull to give higher armour values does change the equation, mind you. If you change the old CT limits of what you can actually stuff into a hull (1% of tonnage for turrets etc) you might actually use up enough of the volume that you don't end up deciding between fuel, cargo or carried craft to use up the rest.

 

[Condottiere]

The point of protection is the capability to absorb damage from your opponent, giving you enough time to finish him off, before he does the same to you.

In the the calculus of power, performance, and protection, erring on the side of protection, tends to pay off, in the long run.

 

[rinku]

The point of protection is the capability to absorb damage from your opponent, giving you enough time to finish him off, before he does the same to you.

In the the calculus of power, performance, and protection, erring on the side of protection, tends to pay off, in the long run.

Sure, but if the rules cap protection at TL and you can't improve that, that's what everyone usually has. This isn't a fully open discussion because we have game limits that cap out our power, performance and protection. Which brings it back to my starting point that you end up with tonnage you can't use for armour, weapons or non-jump performance. Offense can only be increased through carried craft, which also have a defensive role, and maybe a performance one, if they can perform roles the mothership cannot or should not.

 

[Condottiere]

Since, in theory, this stuff is usually decided years before, it's the perceived threat, and how to combat it, that usually directs what the money is spent on.

The Imperium usually has a plus one technological edge, so their opponents would need ways to neutralize that, as in human wave attacks.

If, human wave attacks, is, in their (martial) culture, an acceptable solution, to being outgunned.

Or, build up a huge artillery park, and just pound the enemy to smithereens.

Or, why not both?