5FW: Why?

[Condottiere]

1. Diapers.

2. I believe flight time limitations are twelve hours.

3. Sixteen, in an emergency.

4. Then, amphetamines.

5. You could equip fast smallcraft with basic accommodations, that allow rest periods, and a way to relieve yourself.

6. It usually becomes a balance between duration, firepower, protection, and performance.

7. How you want to establish when a spacecraft can upgrade to a full hardpoint, is up to you.

8. Mine is, that the hull it's fixated on, is at least a full hundred tonnes.

9. Which tends to be why, missiles tend to be chosen long range engagements by smallcraft.

 

[Sigtrygg]

On the subject of space warfare wargames/boardgames the ones I often play out Traveller like engagements using include:

Mayday - quick, easy, lots of houserule improvements
Power Projection Fleet - best game for fast fleet vs fleet resolution (I sometimes us Power Projection Escort instead)
Squadron Strike: Traveller - if you want the full 3D experience there is no better game (except Attack Vector but that is not Traveller )

I have uses Brilliant Lances, Battle Rider, then there are the various Renegade Legion games that were possibly FASA Traveller intended games repurposed when they lost the Traveller licence. Interceptor with full newtonian options is fun, while Leviathan is great for big ship combat. And then there is the game Traveller has always needed but never attempted - Prefect. System scale fleet invasions of solar systems.

 

[rinku]

@Terry Mixon, if this is intended as a carried craft, why the staterooms? You could probably get by with minimal sleeping arrangements. Or you could design an accommodation equipped module if there's a need for them to operate on detached duty for more than a few days.

Or is this getting back to my earlier point of a fighting ship reaching the stage where there's nothing left for spare tonnage to be used for except cargo?

 

[Terry Mixon]

@Terry Mixon, if this is intended as a carried craft, why the staterooms? You could probably get by with minimal sleeping arrangements. Or you could design an accommodation equipped module if there's a need for them to operate on detached duty for more than a few days.

Or is this getting back to my earlier point of a fighting ship reaching the stage where there's nothing left for spare tonnage to be used for except cargo?

My thought is they can be seeded in a system and lay in wait. I wanted the versatility.

 

[rinku]

Fair. I suspected it might be something like that.

Further thought along those lines... the standard design SDB is small enough to operate in this mode. It would make sense for a small battle tender to exist, designed to use them as riders. Maybe something in the 1500-2000 ton range?

Alternatively... design the Skeeter as a variant? Swappable with the cheaper turret based SDB. Traveller does love its standard hulls...

 

[actionman]

1. Diapers.

Sitting in filled diapers for months. The volunteers would be lining up.

5. You could equip fast smallcraft with basic accommodations, that allow rest periods, and a way to relieve yourself.

Would we be moving into smallcraft territory, like pinnaces and ship's boats, rather than fighters?
These fighters would have to have at least a crew of 2. Pilot candy only goes so far, usually into a fairyland of extreme hallucinations.

8. Mine is, that the hull it's fixated on, is at least a full hundred tonnes.

Very practical.

 

[Vormaerin]

Would we be moving into smallcraft territory, like pinnaces and ship's boats, rather than fighters?
These fighters would have to have at least a crew of 2. Pilot candy only goes so far, usually into a fairyland of extreme hallucinations.

Fighters are smallcraft? They vary in size, with the default examples being a 10 ton and a 50 ton design. But there are a lot of other size fighters out there, too.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Fair. I suspected it might be something like that.

Further thought along those lines... the standard design SDB is small enough to operate in this mode. It would make sense for a small battle tender to exist, designed to use them as riders. Maybe something in the 1500-2000 ton range?

Alternatively... design the Skeeter as a variant? Swappable with the cheaper turret based SDB. Traveller does love its standard hulls...

I wanted to have something that was more of a threat to small ships, like a destroyer. A swam of these would keep them busy. Turret weapons just don't have the same punch as a small bay weapon.

 

[Condottiere]

As with all things, very situational.

If the fighters are defending a defined area, say, a planet, you only launch them to intercept a threat, so the pilots can conclude their business, before they climb into the cockpit, and are likely back, before the digestive cycle resets.

You could pre position defensive spacecraft, in which case, you probably do want long ranged energy weapon systems, and accommodations, and that would be a hundred tonnes and up.

 

[rinku]

I wanted to have something that was more of a threat to small ships, like a destroyer. A swam of these would keep them busy. Turret weapons just don't have the same punch as a small bay weapon.

Yeah, I got that. I just meant why not design the bay ship at 200 tons on the same hull as the SDB so either can slot into the same berth? What advantage does 125 tons provide?

 

[Terry Mixon]

Yeah, I got that. I just meant why not design the bay ship at 200 tons on the same hull as the SDB so either can slot into the same berth? What advantage does 125 tons provide?

Ah. I understand now. I suppose it was an exercise at the time to make the smallest boat that could carry a bay weapon. I could upsize them I suppose.

 

[actionman]

My thought is they can be seeded in a system and lay in wait. I wanted the versatility.

It's a good tactic, but maybe light jump 1 gunships would be a better choice, jump capable so they can microjump around their assigned system if necessary. A group of 5 x 500 ton gunships would prove more than a match for any corsairs that showed up. Free Traders / Pirates of Convenience would be on their best behavior as soon as they identified that kind of patrol presence.

As with all things, very situational.

If the fighters are defending a defined area, say, a planet, you only launch them to intercept a threat, so the pilots can conclude their business, before they climb into the cockpit, and are likely back, before the digestive cycle resets.

You could pre position defensive spacecraft, in which case, you probably do want long ranged energy weapon systems, and accommodations, and that would be a hundred tonnes and up.

IMO, the fighters would have to be more numerous, like a group of 10 or 20, so they could beat a 400 ton corsair or two. If assigned to a world or orbital installation with decent ground or orbital sensors, they'd have plenty of time to scramble and intercept any troublemakers. For maintenance or support, it wouldn't be that hard to station a small cargo ship, maybe the size of a Type R Merchant with a maintenance bay, or it could transport prefabbed hangar and repair shop pieces. But, this growing logistical footprint starts going against @Terry Mixon 's original idea of a very light drop off patrol force. Maybe a small carrier would be useful. How large would a carrier have to be to support 5 fighters? Would it have a hardpoint every 100 tons as well? Maybe heavier long duration fighters with a crew of 2, with a very small crew bunks and an airplane fresher, as @Condottiere mentioned in the 4th point in his post above.

 

[MasterGwydion]

It's a good tactic, but maybe light jump 1 gunships would be a better choice, jump capable so they can microjump around their assigned system if necessary. A group of 5 x 500 ton gunships would prove more than a match for any corsairs that showed up. Free Traders / Pirates of Convenience would be on their best behavior as soon as they identified that kind of patrol presence.



IMO, the fighters would have to be more numerous, like a group of 10 or 20, so they could beat a 400 ton corsair or two. If assigned to a world or orbital installation with decent ground or orbital sensors, they'd have plenty of time to scramble and intercept any troublemakers. For maintenance or support, it wouldn't be that hard to station a small cargo ship, maybe the size of a Type R Merchant with a maintenance bay, or it could transport prefabbed hangar and repair shop pieces. But, this growing logistical footprint starts going against @Terry Mixon 's original idea of a very light drop off patrol force. Maybe a small carrier would be useful. How large would a carrier have to be to support 5 fighters? Would it have a hardpoint every 100 tons as well? Maybe heavier long duration fighters with a crew of 2, with a very small crew bunks and an airplane fresher, as @Condottiere mentioned in the 4th point in his post above.

Adventure Class Ships page 102 has the 300-ton Pirate Carrier. Carries 10 Light Fighters and is Jump-2

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on what the threat is.

A bunch of ten tonne smallcraft could be the equivalent of Somali skiffs.

A defensive fighter squadron stationed on the planet, or an orbital station, are likely to need less maintenance for either the spacecraft or the crews.

Default might be a eighty smallcraft group of fifty tonne heavy fighters, for either a light carrier, attack carrier, or a strike cruiser.

 

[rinku]

Thrust 9 designs probably aren't going to need microjumps much for redeploying. That's well out into the outer system and back in under a week, without the intel blackout that being in jump imposes. Having said that, it has uses.

Jump capability allows them to avoid being trapped in system, or to achieve possible tactical surprise (Are you a submarine you sneaky little SDB? Yes you are! Yes you are!)

From an anti-small ship approach, fighters definitely have their place, especially if they can be deployed at Close range. A corsair that can chase down a target and then suddenly double or triple its firepower is in a good position to force a surrender. I've seen players in far traders fight off 400 ton ships often enough to know that one.

Also, tactically it only takes 8 thrust to get from Medium to Short range. Vs a 1G target a Thrust 9 small craft can pull that off on the turn it deploys.

 

[Condottiere]

Losing a skiff, is acceptable.

More shares to go around.

 

[MasterGwydion]

From an anti-small ship approach, fighters definitely have their place, especially if they can be deployed at Close range. A corsair that can chase down a target and then suddenly double or triple its firepower is in a good position to force a surrender. I've seen players in far traders fight off 400 ton ships often enough to know that one.

Just remember how long it takes to deploy most fighters and without launching tubes, it can't be done while under Thrust.

 

[wmarshal]

But Air-to-Air Combat and Surface-to-Air Combat, versus Space Combat are apples and oranges due to the orders of magnitude in difference of ranges involved as compared to the relatively comparable accelerations of the weapons package versus the target, as well as the ability to build very large and very armoured and very powerful engines due to the weightless environment.

To make an analogy, it would be as if a Wet Navy Battleship/Cruiser, when fired upon, could lift itself up out of the Sea and fly thru the air at a speed comparable to the fighter aircraft attacking it (and even give chase) while not sacrificing any of its armouring capability, and potentially dodge the missiles even if it cannot outrun them, or casually target them at range because the engagement begins at a distance of 1000km.

Space Combat really just cannot use WW1 and WW2 or the Persian Gulf as a pattern. It is its own thing. That is really why Matt & Marc et al need to think it thru and game it out and see/decide how it is going to look.

• How do they want it to look?
• How should it look for believability?
• A Fleet Combat Wargame should reproduce the results of both the setting fluff/narrative and the "realistic" tactical considerations, based on the above two bullet points.

Hopefully I’m not going over old ground (I’m still catching up on this thread), but thinking ought to be given how fighters would be used. Often in games involving space combat they’re little different than additional turrets for the fleet that fly alongside the main fleet when battle is engaged. If that’s the case then why not just build those turrets directly onto a more durable ship than small fighter craft?

If fighters are going to merit use in space combat then I think that means they ought to be playing a role similar to carrier launched aircraft since WWII. They need the ability to range much farther and far more quickly than the main fleet can.

If the fighters can do the above then that brings into question the viability of battleships and dreadnoughts. If fighters don’t bring this capability then Traveller carriers ought to relegated a role similar to that envisioned for carriers (as “aviation cruisers” or CV/cruiser voler/flight cruiser if you want to go back to earlier roots) as ships that would fan out and scout ahead of the battle fleet to attempt to find the enemy fleet before your own was found.

It seems you can either have a space ship combat dominated either by carriers with their fighter craft or by huge battleships. I don’t think it makes sense to have carriers and battleships as coequal. The Japanese seemed to think this in WWII, bringing along battleships to many carrier battles where they didn’t have an impact, and that didn’t work out well for them.

 

[Condottiere]

Outside the fact that the Japanese were always going to lose, and took a calculated risk, they should have deployed their battleships earlier and more aggressively.

The balance between a firmpoint and a hardpoint tends to pivot on missile/torpedo loadouts.

So, basically, that can turn into a skirmish action, where the fighters take pot shots.

 

[Condottiere]

That's all you need onboard a skiff.