Dogfight?

[AnotherDilbert]

I'm trying to figure out how fighters, and hence dogfighting, works. I do not think I'm succeeding.

Note that once a spacecraft moves to within Close or Adjacent range of another, immediately start using the Close Range Combat rules.

Combat is conducted using the dogfighting rules for vehicles. Remember to take into account scaling differences for damage and attack rolls as described on page 158 [157].

Combat rounds in dogfights are six seconds long and follow the normal combat rules as detailed on page 71. The combat steps detailed on page 158 [154?] are not used in dogfights.

OK, ships in close combat uses another combat system, somehow at the same time, but at another timescale.
Since ships are not moving individually, but only the added movement is performed, it seems that all movement is executed at the same time [undefined].
"immediately start using the Close Range Combat rules" seems to indicate that the dogfight is resolved before space combat is resolved [undefined].
Presumably only 60 short round are resolved before the space combat round continues [undefined]?
If more than one craft on each side are close is it one dogfight, or several small dogfights? [undefined] The dogfighting rules talk about the winner and the loser, so it would seems we would make many small dogfights? If there are many small dogfights should the survivors form new small dogfights until the 60 short rounds are concluded, or next space combat round?

We are specifically not using the space combat system pp154-163, but the personal and vehicle combat systems pp70-75,130-136. So all the good stuff like PD, EW, Dodge, or salvoes are not available.
Each weapon fires individually, since the linking rules are part of the space combat rules?
Stuff that are not part of the combat rules, but equipment rules can still be used, like computer software or Accurate?
The Personal & Vehicle combat rules says very little about missiles: So I can only assume they are standard ranged weapons. The Smart trait is lost at short range in the space combat rules, but we are not using them, so Smart is used?
Each person rolls for initiative, and acts individually, so each Gunner fires his weapons separately. Gunners can use the Minor Action "Aim". Pilots can use "Evasive Action" p132 to get an -DM on all attacks your vehicle makes or suffers.
Technically Gunners should use the Heavy Weapon skill to fire weapons p133?
We use the Vehicle damage system p133-135,

Vehicle Armour
Even on dedicated military vehicles, the roof and floor tend to be weak points in their structure that a canny enemy can exploit. Unless otherwise stated, all vehicles will use half the value of their side armour against attacks on the roof, and half the value of their rear armour against attacks on the floor.

So apparently some aspects of the craft will have less armour by default, which the dogfighting rules explicitly allows us to exploit.


How am I doing so far? I guess that what I have concluded here is not what is intended?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Dogfights do not exist in the 3rd Imperium setting. Referees improvise them if players find themselves in the mood for such activity.

 

[Nerhesi]

Dogfights do not exist in the 3rd Imperium setting. Referees improvise them if players find themselves in the mood for such activity.

Hmm... they have it seems. They exist in T5 and in this Core Rule Book (granted, not referenced in high-guard). Perhaps previously the rule-set wasn't seperately defined but they most definitely did as is clearly defined in years old fluff as well (the quickest example to come to mind is the Aslan dogfighting duel examples).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Dogfights do not exist in the 3rd Imperium setting. Referees improvise them if players find themselves in the mood for such activity.

I think Mr Driscoll was just mocking me, because of another thread?

 

[Nerhesi]

If so then woops as I strolled right into that one...

 

[arcador]

I think you are mostly right (on the interpretations).

By "right" I mean compared with my understanding.

I would allow the gunner skills to be used, perhaps even the attack/defence softwares (but reduced?), and would still use the spaceship armour ratings. I would allow linking of turrets, and perhaps aiming as you stated. Also lasers will retain their +tohit bonus. Missiles, I would allow them, no smart trait, but with attack of 0, which will probably make them useless.

 

[phavoc]

I would look at another rule set, such as Renegade Legion: Interceptor, if you wanted to fight small-craft like that.

As for the missile lock-on rule, I would toss it out for fighter-on-fighter craft. The rule itself is stupid and is applicable to torpedoes in water, not missiles with modern tech (and, of course, the idea that a missile that misses it's target on an outbound trajectory from it's launching vessel cannot loop back around and hit it's own launcher. But, yanno... logic.

Dogfights do not exist in the 3rd Imperium setting. Referees improvise them if players find themselves in the mood for such activity.

Ha-ha! You crack me up Shawn! Good-one!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The Core book is published, so kind of late to change the rules.

I'm just trying to figure out how to resolve a dogfight with two fighters, a few fighters against a ship, or even 50 fighters against 10 fighters and a ship.

Given the lack of responses I get the impression that no one has really tried to execute the rules and worked out the details.

 

[Nerhesi]

There are some undefined "interactions" between dog-fight and non-dogfights happening at the same time. As well a clarity needed on multiple dog fights (perhaps fleet scale?)

But there is no confusion that I see regarding modifiers associated (at least for single dogfights).

You may have a -6 apply to your attack rolls (if non-small craft)
You then make an opposed roll with various modifiers that results in either a +2 or -2.

That's it. You apply all the same mods you would for software, skill, dodging, armour, weapons, effect, etc as you would for space combat. There is no close/adjacent range mod so that is a zero.

Multiple combatants - well now you've got some confusion.

 

[Nerhesi]

The Core book is published, so kind of late to change the rules.

I'm just trying to figure out how to resolve a dogfight with two fighters, a few fighters against a ship, or even 50 fighters against 10 fighters and a ship.

Given the lack of responses I get the impression that no one has really tried to execute the rules and worked out the details.

My group has. The only problem was how to resolve the larger combats. 10 fighter vs 1 ship is no problem. 1 on 1 no problem. But 2 on 2 where it is not just a 1on1 x2 and you end up having to make assumptions (so do we dogfight rolls? Or just 1 per side? Etc)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

My group has. The only problem was how to resolve the larger combats. 10 fighter vs 1 ship is no problem. 1 on 1 no problem. But 2 on 2 where it is not just a 1on1 x2 and you end up having to make assumptions (so do we dogfight rolls? Or just 1 per side? Etc)

Great!
So, by RAW, can I use missile salvoes in dogfights? Point Defence?
Did you bother to roll initiative for each crew member in the 10 to 1 case?

As you say all groups will have to make interpretations, and basically all groups will play is slightly differently. So not agreeing on how effective fighters are...

 

[Nerhesi]

My group has. The only problem was how to resolve the larger combats. 10 fighter vs 1 ship is no problem. 1 on 1 no problem. But 2 on 2 where it is not just a 1on1 x2 and you end up having to make assumptions (so do we dogfight rolls? Or just 1 per side? Etc)

Great!
So, by RAW, can I use missile salvoes in dogfights? Point Defence?
Did you bother to roll initiative for each crew member in the 10 to 1 case?

As you say all groups will have to make interpretations, and basically all groups will play is slightly differently. So not agreeing on how effective fighters are...

Yup - although at that point in time missiles couldn't be used due to range. Now I'm tempted to say hey this is fine and go ahead.. but once again, we are faced with that weird scenario.

Point-black dogfight and I have a hard time hitting with 100 laser turrets, but launch 24 missiles and I'm guaranteed to hit?!?

This I would have a problem with so thanks for highlighting it as I will bring it up to Matt. This again causes a problem with Salvos (similar but not identical to distant range Salvos basically meaning "fire 6 more missiles).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So, by RAW, can I use missile salvoes in dogfights? ...

As you say all groups will have to make interpretations, and basically all groups will play is slightly differently. So not agreeing on how effective fighters are...

Yup - although at that point in time missiles couldn't be used due to range. Now I'm tempted to say hey this is fine and go ahead.. but once again, we are faced with that weird scenario.

So you are ignoring RAW and using a house rule you think is reasonable. What I'm hearing is you tried to use the dogfighting system, couldn't get it to work and started to house rule. Which is exactly my problem with the dogfighting rules.

Point-black dogfight and I have a hard time hitting with 100 laser turrets, but launch 24 missiles and I'm guaranteed to hit?!?

This I would have a problem with so thanks for highlighting it as I will bring it up to Matt. This again causes a problem with Salvos (similar but not identical to distant range Salvos basically meaning "fire 6 more missiles).

You suggested that salvo system. The Core book is published. Now is the time to close you eyes and think of England...

 

[Nerhesi]

So you are ignoring RAW and using a house rule you think is reasonable. What I'm hearing is you tried to use the dogfighting system, couldn't get it to work and started to house rule. Which is exactly my problem with the dogfighting rules.

If that is what you're hearing then it is definitely checkup time. You are completely incorrect.

I clearly stated this was before the combination of salvo and removal of minimum range launch. At the time, there was no RAW issue.

I clearly stated there is a problem with RAW now. In fact, I clearly indicated this RAW is a problem and that Matt should be informed.

This is about as opposite of "house-ruled it and ignored RAW" as you can get.

You suggested that salvo system. The Core book is published. Now is the time to close you eyes and think of England...

You are wrong. Once again. Doubly so when you consider being wrong in analysing root cause.
First - I did not come up with the system of adding bonus effect per missile (in fact, my recommendation was very different).
Second, when I did agree with the approach (as I am not the designer of the core rule book), I was unaware of any changes to minimum missile range. So this clearly indicates I didn't support the current scenario. You're also very aware of that as you just informed me of this change yesterday!!! but you failed to take that into consideration here, in your assumption that I had something to do with this conundrum.

In the future, I would recommend you ease up on the accusations to avoid embarrassing situations such as this, where you are factually incorrect in every way. That way, you wouldn't have to close your eyes and think of any pleasantries.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

OK, sorry, no accusation intended.

I misunderstood your interpretation of RAW regarding salvoes in dogfight.

I remembered we discussed the missile salvo system in the Playtest Missile threads, I obviously misremembered the details. Given the literary reference it was an attempt at humour that clearly failed.


I think we are discussing two different problems and failing to communicate.

We appear to have very different pictures of what RAW says about dogfights, that in itself might indicate a problem.
As far as I can see by RAW missile salvoes are not a part of the dogfighting rules, you apparently disagree.

 

[Nerhesi]

Then no offense taken now. No problem.

As for RAW missile Salvos - perhaps I misunderstood then. I see no other recourse other than to fire missiles as a salvo?

So if my 10 fighters are dog-fighting my 1000 tonner.
My 1000 tonner is obviously losing all the dog-fight rolls.

But my 1000 tonner, has 8 small missile bays. It chooses to fire each 2 at a fighter. Do I have any other recourse (b RAW) AnotherDilbert other than to resolve those as four 24-missile Salvos? Thereby blowing away any dog-fight bonus and easily smacking the fighters?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Then no offense taken now. No problem.

Great!

So if my 10 fighters are dog-fighting my 1000 tonner.
My 1000 tonner is obviously losing all the dog-fight rolls.

Agreed.

As for RAW missile Salvos - perhaps I misunderstood then. I see no other recourse other than to fire missiles as a salvo?

But my 1000 tonner, has 8 small missile bays. It chooses to fire each 2 at a fighter. Do I have any other recourse (b RAW) AnotherDilbert other than to resolve those as four 24-missile Salvos? Thereby blowing away any dog-fight bonus and easily smacking the fighters?

By the vehicle rules there are no salvoes. Each Gunner can fire a Weapon as a Significant Action. At a guess a Bay is a Weapon, but potentially a missile could be a weapon. Perhaps the best fit is to call it a Weapon with Trait Auto8, letting me fire 24 rounds on the spray and pray principle. Anyway each attack is a single roll that hits on 8+, but with the DM-8 for dogfight. Probably not very many missiles would hit.

I could be completely wrong of course. I do not exactly like my interpretation of the rules.

 

[Nerhesi]

By the vehicle rules there are no salvoes. Each Gunner can fire a Weapon as a Significant Action. At a guess a Bay is a Weapon, but potentially a missile could be a weapon. Perhaps the best fit is to call it a Weapon with Trait Auto8, letting me fire 24 rounds on the spray and pray principle. Anyway each attack is a single roll that hits on 8+, but with the DM-8 for dogfight. Probably not very many missiles would hit.

I could be completely wrong of course. I do not exactly like my interpretation of the rules.

Oh I see. Yeah that seems like a giant mis-reference on those pages.. very weird.

First of all, it says Page 71 for combat rules. Page 71 has to do with personal combat rules - there is no relation at all to Space or vehicle combat.
Then it says dont use the combat steps of page 158. Page 158 doesn't have combat steps, it has double/triple turrets and critical locations.

So right then and there, we have incorrect references that are definitely way off. In fact, we're stuck not knowing directly what combat rules to use or not use.

I can tell you, and you have no way of knowing this of course, that RAI (Rules as Intended) is that Spacecraft dog-fighting is intended to add modifiers supporting fighters and small craft advantages at close ranges. I know this personally as a fact, from the internal beta when we were testing this and adjusting the modifiers (my personal contribution was moving the reward of winning the dogfight from the Bane/Boon paradigm to a +2/-2 ). We were always using the spacecombat rules here.

Whats interesting, is I think this section fixes itself if we simply remove the references about page 71 and page 158. We literally do not need any modification to support dogfights. If you remove those, and then just read the section with the added dogfight rules you get:

- Rounds are six seconds
- Big ships get a -6 DM
- Make dog-fighting rolls, resulting in a +2 to winners and -2 to losers

And thats it! the rest is space combat!
(at least, that is how we were doing it internally)

 

[phavoc]

Combat rounds of 6 seconds doesn't fit very well with starship combat rounds of 6 minutes. Remember that small craft are mounting starship weapons, not vehicle ones. It makes no sense to allow for a 60x ROF when you are pew-pew against a fellow fighter when you only get a ROF of 1 against a starship.

And how would you handle a set of small craft dogfighting around a starship? In that case you could have the small craft firing at the starship once every other round and once at the other fighter.

 

[PsiTraveller]

My reading and understanding and houserules for dogfighting are as follows, and I will post page numbers and reasons for them all.

pg 162: Combat rounds in dogfights are six seconds long and follow the normal combat rules as detailed on page 71. The combat steps detailed on page 158 are not used in dogfights

pg 71 lists 1 Significant action like attacking, or Minor actions like aiming. Gun Combat is 2D + Gun combat + Dex DM Each traveller and behicles complete their attacks and then the next in initiative goes.

I also note pg 70
THE COMBAT ROUND
Each combat round lasts around six seconds of game time. In each combat round, each Traveller may perform a Minor Action and a Significant Action. Travellers take these actions in Initiative order, starting with those who rolled the highest Initiative check. If two or more Travellers are acting on the same Initiative order, the one with the highest DEX score will go first. If they are still tied, they will act simultaneously.
When it is a Traveller’s turn to act, he takes both his Minor and Significant Actions at the same time before play moves onto another Traveller.
Once every Traveller has had a chance to act the combat round is over, and a new combat round begins. Every Traveller retains their first Initiative score for every combat round.

158 does not help as already pointed out, so pg 154 gives the steps of combat: Combat Steps
When spacecraft fight, instead of one ship completing all of its actions before you move onto the next, as happens in combat between Travellers and vehicles, you instead go through the following steps in every combat round.
1. Manoeuvre Step: In order of initiative, each ship manoeuvres based on its Thrust.
2. Attack Step: In order of initiative, each ship can attack, using weapons or conducting boarding actions.
3. Actions Step: In order of initiative, ships can perform other, miscellaneous actions, such as repairing damaged systems, jumping out of the system or launching craft. Once the Actions Step is complete, the combat round ends and if there are still ships fighting, a new combat round begins with the Manoeuvre Step.

So to my mind, the intent during a dogfight was to have each ship do all its actions in Initiative sequence. There is no manoeuvre, then attack, then actions Step with every ship taking its turn at each step. Each ship, in order of initiative will move and attack and calculate damage from that. Once the actions for one ship is finished the next ship acts. So it may well be possible to have a ship get blown to pieces before it fires back if several other ships all target it and the target ship is low on the initiative sequence. Imagine being the battleship vs 10 fighters with high thrust and initiative scores.

I may be completely misunderstanding the intent of the dog fighting rules but they seem to make things vicious for the low initiative roller and the slow.

A target of all the attacks can react to those attacks as per ph 160
REACTIONS
Just as in other forms of combat, those on board a spacecraft can perform reactions in response to the enemy they are fighting. Reactions can only be performed by Travellers assigned to specific duties, as described below.

The Reactions of a spaceship are not covered in the Space combat step on pg 154, so attacks can be countered with Evasive Action, Point Defence and Dispersing Sand.

That is what I understand about dogfighting. I may be completely wrong, but at least it is a place to start.



As for missiles they can be fired in groups of however many the shooter wants at as many targets as they want. Each target will consider all the missiles fired at it as a single salvo. So if you have 10 targets and can shoot 40 missiles, and select 4 missiles per target, each target will consider that group of four missiles as a single salvo.

pg 161: Missiles are launched in salvos. A salvo is all the missiles launched by a ship against a single target in the same combat round. This could be a single missile from one turret or dozens from multiple turrets or bays (see High Guard for more information on weapon bays).

Personally I figure if you can combine missiles from multiple turrets to hit a single target you can select missiles into smaller groups from a bay and send them to different targets. Differentiation and grouping control is allowed in one direction (single turrets added together), so why not in the opposite (a bay firing at more than 1 target). My opinion and houserule if it is not allowed in RAW.