5FW: Why?

[MonsterX]

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.

The obvious use that fighters have is for patrolling. Space is big and having a lot of fighter patrolling makes it a lot more likely to find the enemy before they find you. They is also good for engaging lighter enemy units, pirates, tankers, supply ships, troop ships, and stopping smugglers and blockade runner (so civilian ships). Pretty often they are streamlined, so they are also good for atmospheric engagements and ground targets. In major fleet engagements they probably mostly go for the smaller enemy units, and scout around to make sure no more enemies sneak up.

The WWII analogy is not good, since Traveller fighters don't have a lot of punch, which they would generally need to get through a battleship's armour. They would be good against thin-skinned targets though.

 

[AndrewW]

There's the LAC (Light Attack Craft) from the Honorverse, they where used there in the strike roll and as missile interceptors.

 

[WHULorigan]

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.

The Charted Space/Imperial Universe has always been a Battleship/Dreadnought Universe.

Ergo, "Fighters" or "Smallcraft/Boats", etc. should be fleet scouts/screens/pickets, or harassment to sub-capital or auxiliary ships, and/or otherwise involved in commerce protection.

 

[Terry Mixon]

The Charted Space/Imperial Universe has always been a Battleship/Dreadnought Universe.

Ergo, "Fighters" or "Smallcraft/Boats", etc. should be fleet scouts/screens/pickets, or harassment to sub-capital or auxiliary ships, and/or otherwise involved in commerce protection.

Agreed. They need to be a bit better to threaten the sub capital ships, though. The current rules nerf them a bit too much.

 

[WHULorigan]

Agreed. They need to be a bit better to threaten the sub capital shops, though. The current rules nerf them a bit too much.

Even if it is only the Escort Class that they can really meaningfully harass and keep preoccupied so as to keep them from doing their mission (i.e. take out or disable their Sensors/Detection and/or Point Defense Systems, etc.). Depending on how Fleet Combat is envisioned, that may in turn leave Cruisers more vulnerable and as a consequence leave the Battleships insufficiently supported.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Even if it is only the Escort Class that they can really meaningfully harass and keep preoccupied so as to keep them from doing their mission (i.e. take out or disable their Sensors/Detection and/or Point Defense Systems, etc.). Depending on how Fleet Combat is envisioned, that may in turn leave Cruisers more vulnerable and as a consequence leave the Battleships insufficiently supported.

"Okay, boys, the mission is to go strip their sensors. You can't actually kill them, so they'll be blotting you out of the universe while you do it but trust me when I say that degrading those sensors is worth your lives. Too bad you can't do more, but that's the Imperial Navy for you."

 

[Vormaerin]

Just gotta downgrade the point defenses of ships to star wars or battlestar galactica levels of uselessness and then you can make fighters important. Or accept that manned small craft don't belong in fleet combat and have other purposes.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Just gotta downgrade the point defenses of ships to star wars or battlestar galactica levels of uselessness and then you can make fighters important. Or accept that manned small craft don't belong in fleet combat and have other purposes.

Or make them effective in harassing non-capital warships when in numbers. Which is better in my opinion.

 

[Vormaerin]

Non capital ships in a fleet combat are generally part of the point defense of capital ships. You need to create a situation where putting actual highly trained peoples' lives at high risk exceeds the value of just firing more missiles to overwhelm that point defense and putting all those people on actual armored warships.

And then you have to thread the needle where fighters are survivable enough to deliver the payload without being clearly superior to those warships, assuming you want big lines of battle actually fighting each other.

This is not really a thing that has ever been true IRL, so it is pretty tricky to pull of in fiction as well.

What advantage do smallcraft attack boats have over the alternatives? What advantage do we want them to have? TV/Movies pretend space fighters are aircraft to make them viable. Traveller doesn't, but still pretends they serve a purpose. So they need something that can't just be put on a larger, safer ship to replace it. Or we need to nerf the maneuverability of large craft.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[Terry Mixon]

Non capital ships in a fleet combat are generally part of the point defense of capital ships. You need to create a situation where putting actual highly trained peoples' lives at high risk exceeds the value of just firing more missiles to overwhelm that point defense and putting all those people on actual armored warships.

And then you have to thread the needle where fighters are survivable enough to deliver the payload without being clearly superior to those warships, assuming you want big lines of battle actually fighting each other.

This is not really a thing that has ever been true IRL, so it is pretty tricky to pull of in fiction as well.

What advantage do smallcraft attack boats have over the alternatives? What advantage do we want them to have? TV/Movies pretend space fighters are aircraft to make them viable. Traveller doesn't, but still pretends they serve a purpose. So they need something that can't just be put on a larger, safer ship to replace it. Or we need to nerf the maneuverability of large craft.

I could agree with nerfing the maneuverability of large craft. That would make sense as massive as they are.

 

[Condottiere]

Lest I forget:

 

[actionman]

Lest I forget:

I love it how the futuristic dreadnought turbolaser surface cannons have pathetically worse performance than rl CIWS systems or Expanse point defense cannons. I know Star Wars is just a movie, but Expanse is just a show. Expanse is just a show, but it's a show where the writers made a good faith effort to make things make sense. Star Wars just has style with little substance. It's great style, but there's hardly any substance.

Edit: It makes a difference to me, because in Star Wars I just watch the pretty action until our heroes win and move on to the next scene. Watching Expanse I feel engaged because the writing throughout the show was good enough that I wanted to find out how the heroes were going to use their wits and abilities to win the day. Victory relied on the heroes, not on plot armor or mysterious incompetence on the part of everyone else. Of course there were things I didn't like about the Expanse, but it still made far more of an effort and was a more interesting engaging watch.

 

[actionman]

Or we need to nerf the maneuverability of large craft.

Even if the maneuverability of large craft were nerfed, the problem would remain. The fighters would be facing a large target bristling with point defense weapons, while being small, relatively fragile, and under-armed.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Non capital ships in a fleet combat are generally part of the point defense of capital ships. You need to create a situation where putting actual highly trained peoples' lives at high risk exceeds the value of just firing more missiles to overwhelm that point defense and putting all those people on actual armored warships.

And then you have to thread the needle where fighters are survivable enough to deliver the payload without being clearly superior to those warships, assuming you want big lines of battle actually fighting each other.

This is not really a thing that has ever been true IRL, so it is pretty tricky to pull of in fiction as well.

What advantage do smallcraft attack boats have over the alternatives? What advantage do we want them to have? TV/Movies pretend space fighters are aircraft to make them viable. Traveller doesn't, but still pretends they serve a purpose. So they need something that can't just be put on a larger, safer ship to replace it. Or we need to nerf the maneuverability of large craft.

Could We simply double the acceleration of ships smaller than 100 tons, including missiles and torpedoes? That would make them faster than everything else as fighters should be. What would the other effects of this change be?

 

[Terry Mixon]

Could We simply double the acceleration of ships smaller than 100 tons, including missiles and torpedoes? That would make them faster than everything else as fighters should be. What would the other effects of this change be?

I like this idea.

 

[Geir]

Could We simply double the acceleration of ships smaller than 100 tons, including missiles and torpedoes? That would make them faster than everything else as fighters should be. What would the other effects of this change be?

Missiles and torpedoes are already faster than ships (except the slow 6g ones). I wouldn't want to mess too much with the mechanics, but allowing a higher limit - still requiring 1% m-drive per g, but capping say TL11 at 10 instead of 5 (but capping compensators at 5?) for small craft might make for some interesting design choices.

even more fun (or not) - making it at least 1 ton per g, so you have some designs that are mostly engine and power.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Missiles and torpedoes are already faster than ships (except the slow 6g ones). I wouldn't want to mess too much with the mechanics, but allowing a higher limit - still requiring 1% m-drive per g, but capping say TL11 at 10 instead of 5 (but capping compensators at 5?) for small craft might make for some interesting design choices.

even more fun (or not) - making it at least 1 ton per g, so you have some designs that are mostly engine and power.

I think we'd want to keep it that way, so increasing the missiles/torpedoes as well would be required. That way you could keep the dynamic of a small craft with a M-Drive + R-Drive "afterburners" still being able to outrun missiles, but it isn't easy.

 

[Vormaerin]

Even if the maneuverability of large craft were nerfed, the problem would remain. The fighters would be facing a large target bristling with point defense weapons, while being small, relatively fragile, and under-armed.

You would also have to do something to make agility matter more. The current fleet combat just aggregates PD so that it vaporizes a certain amount of appropriate targets.

The point of making fighters more agile would be to make agility actually make them survivable. If it doesn't do that, it obviously doesn't serve the purpose.

 

[Condottiere]

Actually, we can overclock gravitationally based manoeuvre drives.

The problem is, they blow up after a couple of hours.

Currently, trying to figure out how far I can shrink them.